Church of England to consider gender-neutral God

7,253 Views | 75 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by quash
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Gender-neutral God to be considered by Church of England

Move has been criticised by conservatives, who have warned that 'male and female imagery is not interchangeable'

By Gabriella Swerling, Social and Religious Affairs Editor
7 February 2023 3:00pm
For decades, the gender of God has prompted debate within the Church, with many calling for male pronouns He and Him, as well as reference to Our Father, to be scrapped in favour of either gender neutral or female alternatives.

Now, in what would mark a departure from centuries of tradition, bishops are to launch a project "on gendered language" referencing God in church services later this year.

The move has been criticised by conservatives, who have warned that "male and female imagery is not interchangeable". However, liberal Christians have welcomed it, claiming that "a theological misreading of God as exclusively male is a driver of much continuing discrimination and sexism against women".

Details of the plans emerged in a written question to the Liturgical Commission, which prepares and promotes forms of service and religious worship in the Church, at General Synod, the Church's lawmaking body, which is sitting this week.

Any permanent changes or rewriting of scriptures with gendered language would have to be agreed by a future meeting of Synod.

'Develop more inclusive language'

The Rev Joanna Stobart, from the Diocese of Bath and Wells, asked what steps were being taken to offer congregants alternatives to referring to God with male pronouns and if there was any update "to develop more inclusive language in our authorised liturgy".

She also asked bishops "to provide more options for those who wish to use authorised liturgy and speak of God in a non-gendered way, particularly in authorised absolutions where many of the prayers offered for use refer to God using male pronouns".

In response, the Bishop of Lichfield, the Rt Rev Michael Ipgrave, replying as vice-chairman of the Liturgical Commission, said: "We have been exploring the use of gendered language in relation to God for several years, in collaboration with the Faith and Order Commission.

"After some dialogue between the two commissions in this area, a new joint project on gendered language will begin this spring."

The precise details of the project remain unknown, with Dr Ipgrave declining to comment further.

Prof Helen King, the vice-chairman of the Synod's gender and sexuality group, said: "Questions around gendered language and God have been around for decades, if not centuries, but still have the power to bring out strong reactions.

"For some, God as father is helpful because of their own positive experiences of a loving parent. For others, God as father may reinforce a bad experience of a strict disciplinarian as their father. If we dig deeper, clearly God is not gendered, so why do we restrict our language for God in gendered ways?"

A spokesman for Women and the Church, a national campaign group for gender equality in the Church of England, also welcomed the move "to look at the development of more inclusive language in our authorised liturgy".

'God is not sexed, unlike humanity'

However, the Rev Ian Paul, a member of the General Synod and the Archbishops' Council of the Church of England, warned against any departure from the original scriptures, saying: "The use of male pronouns for God should not be understood as implying that God is male which is a heresy. God is not sexed, unlike humanity.

"The Bible uses feminine imagery and metaphors of God, but primarily identifies God using masculine pronouns, names, and imagery. Male and female imagery is not interchangeable.

"The fact that God is called 'Father' can't be substituted by 'Mother' without changing meaning, nor can it be gender-neutralised to 'Parent' without loss of meaning. Fathers and mothers are not interchangeable but relate to their offspring in different ways.

"If the Liturgical Commission seeks to change this, then in an important way they will be moving the doctrine of the Church away from being grounded in the Scriptures."

A spokesman for the Church of England said: "This is nothing new. Christians have recognised since ancient times that God is neither male nor female, yet the variety of ways of addressing and describing God found in scripture has not always been reflected in our worship.

"There has been greater interest in exploring new language since the introduction of our current forms of service in contemporary language more than 20 years ago.

"As part of its regular programme of work for the next five years, the Litrugical Commission has asked the Faith and Order Commission to work with it on looking at these questions. There are absolutely no plans to abolish or substantially revise currently authorised liturgies, and no such changes could be made without extensive legislation."

The news comes amid tensions within the Church of England as the Synod prepares for a historic vote on blessings for same-sex couples later this week.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A Church born in heresy continues to practice heresy?

I'm shocked.

Seriously who ever expected anything else out of the State Church of the City of London?
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The action and the outrage is likely overblown.

No serious person thinks G-d has a *****.

No serious person thinks this kind of virtue signaling accomplishes anything but keeps morons distracted.
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

Exodus 3:14
STxBear81
How long do you want to ignore this user?
world gone cray cray
Southtxbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As more and more people leave the Christian church, this is what the Church of England focuses on. Idiots.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ghostrider said:

As more and more people leave the Christian church, this is what the Church of England focuses on. Idiots.



The Church of England is in demographic collapse.




FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:



Gender-neutral God to be considered by Church of England

Move has been criticised by conservatives, who have warned that 'male and female imagery is not interchangeable'

By Gabriella Swerling, Social and Religious Affairs Editor
7 February 2023 3:00pm
For decades, the gender of God has prompted debate within the Church, with many calling for male pronouns He and Him, as well as reference to Our Father, to be scrapped in favour of either gender neutral or female alternatives.

Now, in what would mark a departure from centuries of tradition, bishops are to launch a project "on gendered language" referencing God in church services later this year.

The move has been criticised by conservatives, who have warned that "male and female imagery is not interchangeable". However, liberal Christians have welcomed it, claiming that "a theological misreading of God as exclusively male is a driver of much continuing discrimination and sexism against women".

Details of the plans emerged in a written question to the Liturgical Commission, which prepares and promotes forms of service and religious worship in the Church, at General Synod, the Church's lawmaking body, which is sitting this week.

Any permanent changes or rewriting of scriptures with gendered language would have to be agreed by a future meeting of Synod.

'Develop more inclusive language'

The Rev Joanna Stobart, from the Diocese of Bath and Wells, asked what steps were being taken to offer congregants alternatives to referring to God with male pronouns and if there was any update "to develop more inclusive language in our authorised liturgy".

She also asked bishops "to provide more options for those who wish to use authorised liturgy and speak of God in a non-gendered way, particularly in authorised absolutions where many of the prayers offered for use refer to God using male pronouns".

In response, the Bishop of Lichfield, the Rt Rev Michael Ipgrave, replying as vice-chairman of the Liturgical Commission, said: "We have been exploring the use of gendered language in relation to God for several years, in collaboration with the Faith and Order Commission.

"After some dialogue between the two commissions in this area, a new joint project on gendered language will begin this spring."

The precise details of the project remain unknown, with Dr Ipgrave declining to comment further.

Prof Helen King, the vice-chairman of the Synod's gender and sexuality group, said: "Questions around gendered language and God have been around for decades, if not centuries, but still have the power to bring out strong reactions.

"For some, God as father is helpful because of their own positive experiences of a loving parent. For others, God as father may reinforce a bad experience of a strict disciplinarian as their father. If we dig deeper, clearly God is not gendered, so why do we restrict our language for God in gendered ways?"

A spokesman for Women and the Church, a national campaign group for gender equality in the Church of England, also welcomed the move "to look at the development of more inclusive language in our authorised liturgy".

'God is not sexed, unlike humanity'

However, the Rev Ian Paul, a member of the General Synod and the Archbishops' Council of the Church of England, warned against any departure from the original scriptures, saying: "The use of male pronouns for God should not be understood as implying that God is male which is a heresy. God is not sexed, unlike humanity.

"The Bible uses feminine imagery and metaphors of God, but primarily identifies God using masculine pronouns, names, and imagery. Male and female imagery is not interchangeable.

"The fact that God is called 'Father' can't be substituted by 'Mother' without changing meaning, nor can it be gender-neutralised to 'Parent' without loss of meaning. Fathers and mothers are not interchangeable but relate to their offspring in different ways.

"If the Liturgical Commission seeks to change this, then in an important way they will be moving the doctrine of the Church away from being grounded in the Scriptures."

A spokesman for the Church of England said: "This is nothing new. Christians have recognised since ancient times that God is neither male nor female, yet the variety of ways of addressing and describing God found in scripture has not always been reflected in our worship.

"There has been greater interest in exploring new language since the introduction of our current forms of service in contemporary language more than 20 years ago.

"As part of its regular programme of work for the next five years, the Litrugical Commission has asked the Faith and Order Commission to work with it on looking at these questions. There are absolutely no plans to abolish or substantially revise currently authorised liturgies, and no such changes could be made without extensive legislation."

The news comes amid tensions within the Church of England as the Synod prepares for a historic vote on blessings for same-sex couples later this week.
Strangely, I don't have a problem with this if that is how they want to phrase it. I always believed God transcends sex. Neither male or female, but beyond sex.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
90sBear said:

God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

Exodus 3:14
I am with you. I AM.
Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

The action and the outrage is likely overblown.

No serious person thinks G-d has a *****.

No serious person thinks this kind of virtue signaling accomplishes anything but keeps morons distracted.


I've never thought about but now that I'm thinking about it, it must be almighty.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It certainly makes the immaculate conception and the Trinity a bit more convoluted.
RegentCoverup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is just another episode of politics in the pulpit. It's done for power. No mention of a basis in theology or archaeology of the Bible.

that's been the tactic all along.
ne79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TellMeYouLoveMe said:

This is just another episode of politics in the pulpit. It's done for power. No mention of a basis in theology or archaeology of the Bible.

that's been the tactic all along.
Not every Christian faith takes the literal interpretation of the Bible as law. I know Baptist do in some respects. You may not agree. scratch that DO not agree. There are interpretations different than the Southern Baptist Convention. As a Catholic, I am more concerned with the view of the sacramental aspect of the mass/service. Others in the readings. Others in the interpretation.

There is a school of thought that the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM". So, having different approaches is more necessary now than it was a hundred or thousand years ago. Social Media is going to expand that exponentially. At what point do "Christians" stop arguing with each other and be more concerned about the number not believing?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

This is just another episode of politics in the pulpit. It's done for power. No mention of a basis in theology or archaeology of the Bible.

that's been the tactic all along.
Not every Christian faith takes the literal interpretation of the Bible as law. I know Baptist do in some respects. You may not agree. scratch that DO not agree. There are interpretations different than the Southern Baptist Convention. As a Catholic, I am more concerned with the view of the sacramental aspect of the mass/service. Others in the readings. Others in the interpretation.

There is a school of thought that the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM". So, having different approaches is more necessary now than it was a hundred or thousand years ago. Social Media is going to expand that exponentially. At what point do "Christians" stop arguing with each other and be more concerned about the number not believing?
The concern about the number not believing should never lead to compromise of the truth. Christians are not charged with getting the most people to believe. They are to tell the truth and however many believe, will believe. If the truth is being distorted in order to appeal to more people, then God's Word is being conformed to man, when it should be the other way around.

Look carefully at what you said: "... the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM"". Jesus clearly told us to take the NARROW path to God, and that "broad is the path to destruction". Shouldn't this give one pause about the spirit behind this movement?
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Non-gendered parental figure, the Son and the Holy Spirit???
Grumpy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Even if the gendered words for God were only analogy, they are revealed analogy. Once we start changing words in Scripture we don't like, God help us.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

This is just another episode of politics in the pulpit. It's done for power. No mention of a basis in theology or archaeology of the Bible.

that's been the tactic all along.
Not every Christian faith takes the literal interpretation of the Bible as law. I know Baptist do in some respects. You may not agree. scratch that DO not agree. There are interpretations different than the Southern Baptist Convention. As a Catholic, I am more concerned with the view of the sacramental aspect of the mass/service. Others in the readings. Others in the interpretation.

There is a school of thought that the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM". So, having different approaches is more necessary now than it was a hundred or thousand years ago. Social Media is going to expand that exponentially. At what point do "Christians" stop arguing with each other and be more concerned about the number not believing?
The concern about the number not believing should never lead to compromise of the truth. Christians are not charged with getting the most people to believe. They are to tell the truth and however many believe, will believe. If the truth is being distorted in order to appeal to more people, then God's Word is being conformed to man, when it should be the other way around.

Look carefully at what you said: "... the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM"". Jesus clearly told us to take the NARROW path to God, and that "broad is the path to destruction". Shouldn't this give one pause about the spirit behind this movement?
Well, I would argue that we are talking two different things.

The path is narrow, but that is a personal choice and believe. What you actually believe and do.

Allowing more people access to be able to make that decision is a different proposition. That allows more people to make that choice.

We don't convince or "get" any one to believe. It is the Holy Spirit. Getting more people access to the Holy Spirit is our job. Fishers of men...

How many or who gets in is not in our charge. There are numerous finding our way to God readings - "lost sheep", prodigal son, and from the same reading "people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last."

Getting more people in the conversation is not the same as getting in. A turn style is narrow entrance, but eventually many will get through. It is up to the person to go through.
JL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

The Non-gendered parental figure, the Non-gendered offspring and the Holy Spirit???
FIFY
JXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm sure the god worshipped by some of the hierarchy of the C of E is in fact gender neutral.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

This is just another episode of politics in the pulpit. It's done for power. No mention of a basis in theology or archaeology of the Bible.

that's been the tactic all along.
Not every Christian faith takes the literal interpretation of the Bible as law. I know Baptist do in some respects. You may not agree. scratch that DO not agree. There are interpretations different than the Southern Baptist Convention. As a Catholic, I am more concerned with the view of the sacramental aspect of the mass/service. Others in the readings. Others in the interpretation.

There is a school of thought that the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM". So, having different approaches is more necessary now than it was a hundred or thousand years ago. Social Media is going to expand that exponentially. At what point do "Christians" stop arguing with each other and be more concerned about the number not believing?
The concern about the number not believing should never lead to compromise of the truth. Christians are not charged with getting the most people to believe. They are to tell the truth and however many believe, will believe. If the truth is being distorted in order to appeal to more people, then God's Word is being conformed to man, when it should be the other way around.

Look carefully at what you said: "... the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM"". Jesus clearly told us to take the NARROW path to God, and that "broad is the path to destruction". Shouldn't this give one pause about the spirit behind this movement?
Well, I would argue that we are talking two different things.

The path is narrow, but that is a personal choice and believe. What you actually believe and do.

Allowing more people access to be able to make that decision is a different proposition. That allows more people to make that choice.

We don't convince or "get" any one to believe. It is the Holy Spirit. Getting more people access to the Holy Spirit is our job. Fishers of men...

How many or who gets in is not in our charge. There are numerous finding our way to God readings - "lost sheep", prodigal son, and from the same reading "people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last."

Getting more people in the conversation is not the same as getting in. A turn style is narrow entrance, but eventually many will get through. It is up to the person to go through.
You don't distort God's word so you can get more people in the conversation. Why introduce them to truth through lies? Appealing to man's itchy ears is the broad path. So no, we're not talking two different things.

Are you not at all concerned that you used the exact words/concept of "broad path" that Jesus himself warned us against? Does that not raise any red flags to you? Because to a Christian guided by the Spirit, hellish alarm bells should go off.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

This is just another episode of politics in the pulpit. It's done for power. No mention of a basis in theology or archaeology of the Bible.

that's been the tactic all along.
Not every Christian faith takes the literal interpretation of the Bible as law. I know Baptist do in some respects. You may not agree. scratch that DO not agree. There are interpretations different than the Southern Baptist Convention. As a Catholic, I am more concerned with the view of the sacramental aspect of the mass/service. Others in the readings. Others in the interpretation.

There is a school of thought that the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM". So, having different approaches is more necessary now than it was a hundred or thousand years ago. Social Media is going to expand that exponentially. At what point do "Christians" stop arguing with each other and be more concerned about the number not believing?
The concern about the number not believing should never lead to compromise of the truth. Christians are not charged with getting the most people to believe. They are to tell the truth and however many believe, will believe. If the truth is being distorted in order to appeal to more people, then God's Word is being conformed to man, when it should be the other way around.

Look carefully at what you said: "... the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM"". Jesus clearly told us to take the NARROW path to God, and that "broad is the path to destruction". Shouldn't this give one pause about the spirit behind this movement?
Well, I would argue that we are talking two different things.

The path is narrow, but that is a personal choice and believe. What you actually believe and do.

Allowing more people access to be able to make that decision is a different proposition. That allows more people to make that choice.

We don't convince or "get" any one to believe. It is the Holy Spirit. Getting more people access to the Holy Spirit is our job. Fishers of men...

How many or who gets in is not in our charge. There are numerous finding our way to God readings - "lost sheep", prodigal son, and from the same reading "people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last."

Getting more people in the conversation is not the same as getting in. A turn style is narrow entrance, but eventually many will get through. It is up to the person to go through.
You don't distort God's word so you can get more people in the conversation. Why introduce them to truth through lies? Appealing to man's itchy ears is the broad path. So no, we're not talking two different things.

Are you not at all concerned that you used the exact words/concept of "broad path" that Jesus himself warned us against? Does that not raise any red flags to you? Because to a Christian guided by the Spirit, hellish alarm bells should go off.
Which brings us to the whole point of the conversation. There are different interpretations out there.

The passage you used is a perfect example, you went with Matthew and a shorter look. I went with Luke and a broader perspective. Luke's passage adds all directions and the last/first to the equation. The Anglican Theologian's take that that everyone can get in and it may take longer for some, a reference to Purgatory. E,W, N, and S sure seems to imply a bigger group from all areas. Using the same passage. Christ is the way is the only commonality, what that means many will argue.

If the Anglican Church believes they are being true to the message, are they wrong? None of us will know who is right for a while. So, live your life and believe. Sorry, I am getting less and less sure that there is one way as I get older.

Heck, where I grew up you were Catholic or Jewish, I knew Protestants existed but didn't meet one until I was 16. I have good friends that are Orthodox Jews, Moslems, and my Mom was Eastern Rite. They are all going to hell because they don't read the Bible like you or me?
OsoCoreyell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

This is just another episode of politics in the pulpit. It's done for power. No mention of a basis in theology or archaeology of the Bible.

that's been the tactic all along.
Not every Christian faith takes the literal interpretation of the Bible as law. I know Baptist do in some respects. You may not agree. scratch that DO not agree. There are interpretations different than the Southern Baptist Convention. As a Catholic, I am more concerned with the view of the sacramental aspect of the mass/service. Others in the readings. Others in the interpretation.

There is a school of thought that the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM". So, having different approaches is more necessary now than it was a hundred or thousand years ago. Social Media is going to expand that exponentially. At what point do "Christians" stop arguing with each other and be more concerned about the number not believing?
The concern about the number not believing should never lead to compromise of the truth. Christians are not charged with getting the most people to believe. They are to tell the truth and however many believe, will believe. If the truth is being distorted in order to appeal to more people, then God's Word is being conformed to man, when it should be the other way around.

Look carefully at what you said: "... the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM"". Jesus clearly told us to take the NARROW path to God, and that "broad is the path to destruction". Shouldn't this give one pause about the spirit behind this movement?
Well, I would argue that we are talking two different things.

The path is narrow, but that is a personal choice and believe. What you actually believe and do.

Allowing more people access to be able to make that decision is a different proposition. That allows more people to make that choice.

We don't convince or "get" any one to believe. It is the Holy Spirit. Getting more people access to the Holy Spirit is our job. Fishers of men...

How many or who gets in is not in our charge. There are numerous finding our way to God readings - "lost sheep", prodigal son, and from the same reading "people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last."

Getting more people in the conversation is not the same as getting in. A turn style is narrow entrance, but eventually many will get through. It is up to the person to go through.
You don't distort God's word so you can get more people in the conversation. Why introduce them to truth through lies? Appealing to man's itchy ears is the broad path. So no, we're not talking two different things.

Are you not at all concerned that you used the exact words/concept of "broad path" that Jesus himself warned us against? Does that not raise any red flags to you? Because to a Christian guided by the Spirit, hellish alarm bells should go off.
Which brings us to the whole point of the conversation. There are different interpretations out there.

The passage you used is a perfect example, you went with Matthew and a shorter look. I went with Luke and a broader perspective. Luke's passage adds all directions and the last/first to the equation. The Anglican Theologian's take that that everyone can get in and it may take longer for some, a reference to Purgatory. E,W, N, and S sure seems to imply a bigger group from all areas. Using the same passage. Christ is the way is the only commonality, what that means many will argue.

If the Anglican Church believes they are being true to the message, are they wrong? None of us will know who is right for a while. So, live your life and believe. Sorry, I am getting less and less sure that there is one way as I get older.

Heck, where I grew up you were Catholic or Jewish, I knew Protestants existed but didn't meet one until I was 16. I have good friends that are Orthodox Jews, Moslems, and my Mom was Eastern Rite. They are all going to hell because they don't read the Bible like you or me?
Sigh. So this is just another tired universalist argument?
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OsoCoreyell said:

RMF5630 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

This is just another episode of politics in the pulpit. It's done for power. No mention of a basis in theology or archaeology of the Bible.

that's been the tactic all along.
Not every Christian faith takes the literal interpretation of the Bible as law. I know Baptist do in some respects. You may not agree. scratch that DO not agree. There are interpretations different than the Southern Baptist Convention. As a Catholic, I am more concerned with the view of the sacramental aspect of the mass/service. Others in the readings. Others in the interpretation.

There is a school of thought that the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM". So, having different approaches is more necessary now than it was a hundred or thousand years ago. Social Media is going to expand that exponentially. At what point do "Christians" stop arguing with each other and be more concerned about the number not believing?
The concern about the number not believing should never lead to compromise of the truth. Christians are not charged with getting the most people to believe. They are to tell the truth and however many believe, will believe. If the truth is being distorted in order to appeal to more people, then God's Word is being conformed to man, when it should be the other way around.

Look carefully at what you said: "... the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM"". Jesus clearly told us to take the NARROW path to God, and that "broad is the path to destruction". Shouldn't this give one pause about the spirit behind this movement?
Well, I would argue that we are talking two different things.

The path is narrow, but that is a personal choice and believe. What you actually believe and do.

Allowing more people access to be able to make that decision is a different proposition. That allows more people to make that choice.

We don't convince or "get" any one to believe. It is the Holy Spirit. Getting more people access to the Holy Spirit is our job. Fishers of men...

How many or who gets in is not in our charge. There are numerous finding our way to God readings - "lost sheep", prodigal son, and from the same reading "people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last."

Getting more people in the conversation is not the same as getting in. A turn style is narrow entrance, but eventually many will get through. It is up to the person to go through.
You don't distort God's word so you can get more people in the conversation. Why introduce them to truth through lies? Appealing to man's itchy ears is the broad path. So no, we're not talking two different things.

Are you not at all concerned that you used the exact words/concept of "broad path" that Jesus himself warned us against? Does that not raise any red flags to you? Because to a Christian guided by the Spirit, hellish alarm bells should go off.
Which brings us to the whole point of the conversation. There are different interpretations out there.

The passage you used is a perfect example, you went with Matthew and a shorter look. I went with Luke and a broader perspective. Luke's passage adds all directions and the last/first to the equation. The Anglican Theologian's take that that everyone can get in and it may take longer for some, a reference to Purgatory. E,W, N, and S sure seems to imply a bigger group from all areas. Using the same passage. Christ is the way is the only commonality, what that means many will argue.

If the Anglican Church believes they are being true to the message, are they wrong? None of us will know who is right for a while. So, live your life and believe. Sorry, I am getting less and less sure that there is one way as I get older.

Heck, where I grew up you were Catholic or Jewish, I knew Protestants existed but didn't meet one until I was 16. I have good friends that are Orthodox Jews, Moslems, and my Mom was Eastern Rite. They are all going to hell because they don't read the Bible like you or me?
Sigh. So this is just another tired universalist/unitarian argument?
Yeah, versus another fire and brimstone "You are going to Hell if you don't listen to me." Old as time...
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Let's just be honest. People are more interested in undermining the patriarchy of history than getting a better understanding of God.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Let's just be honest. People are more interested in undermining the patriarchy of history than getting a better understanding of God.
I think that is a very interesting proposition.

Can you get a better understanding of God outside of organized Religion?

According to the Catholic Church, which I belong, there is no salvation outside of the Sacraments. Talk to a Baptist and they will say I am going to Hell for following a false prophet, ideology and a whole host of issues.

Any common reference interpretations? Augustine? I like him because he was before the splits.

There are aspects of Judaism I like. I respect the Moslem diligence. So, can we get to know God outside of Organized Religion?

This should be a pretty good cage match!!
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

The action and the outrage is likely overblown.

No serious person thinks G-d has a *****.

No serious person thinks this kind of virtue signaling accomplishes anything but keeps morons distracted.
Exactly. It's not even their position that's the issue, its the fact that they're broadcasting it to appease the new world order religion.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

The action and the outrage is likely overblown.

No serious person thinks G-d has a *****.

No serious person thinks this kind of virtue signaling accomplishes anything but keeps morons distracted.
Exactly. It's not even their position that's the issue, its the fact that they're broadcasting it to appease the new world order religion.
In the end its a State Church (aka a State Religion) and not even actually the State Church of the people of England but of the the City of London and its ruling class.

And of course London is a post-Christian international banker city of liberalism and bourgeois progressive values.

Of course the CofE has women bishops, and supports abortion, and supports mass immigration, and can't wait to get rid of the "problematic" elements of God and his masculinity.

The CofE has no internal values or beliefs....just whatever London tells them to.

And in the end its a dying Church. The average age of a parishioner is now 61 years old. It will barely even exist in 25 years.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Doc Holliday said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

The action and the outrage is likely overblown.

No serious person thinks G-d has a *****.

No serious person thinks this kind of virtue signaling accomplishes anything but keeps morons distracted.
Exactly. It's not even their position that's the issue, its the fact that they're broadcasting it to appease the new world order religion.
In the end its a State Church (aka a State Religion) and not even actually the State Church of the people of England but of the the City of London and its ruling class.

And of course London is a post-Christian international banker city of liberalism and bourgeois progressive values.

Of course the CofE has women bishops, and supports abortion, and supports mass immigration, and can't wait to get rid of the "problematic" elements of God and his masculinity.

The CofE has not internal values or beliefs....just whatever London tells them to.

And in the end its a dying Church. The average age of a parishioner is now 61 years old. It will barely even exist in 25 years.
Your last line is interesting. I wonder if these proclamations are to attract the younger, stranded out there.

For example, my Brother got a divorce without an annulment. According to the Church he is supposed to live a celibate life because he can't re-marry since he is technically married in the eyes of the Church. He has talked about the Anglican Church because it is sacramental but has more liberal views on divorce. This is an example, I realize there are all sorts of views on many aspects of this situation. Not putting it out there to argue the legitimacy of an annulment or re-fight the reformation.

When I see the stuff we are talking about, I see it aimed at him to come to the CofE and be able to get on with his life.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Redbrickbear said:

Doc Holliday said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

The action and the outrage is likely overblown.

No serious person thinks G-d has a *****.

No serious person thinks this kind of virtue signaling accomplishes anything but keeps morons distracted.
Exactly. It's not even their position that's the issue, its the fact that they're broadcasting it to appease the new world order religion.
In the end its a State Church (aka a State Religion) and not even actually the State Church of the people of England but of the the City of London and its ruling class.

And of course London is a post-Christian international banker city of liberalism and bourgeois progressive values.

Of course the CofE has women bishops, and supports abortion, and supports mass immigration, and can't wait to get rid of the "problematic" elements of God and his masculinity.

The CofE has no internal values or beliefs....just whatever London tells them to.

And in the end its a dying Church. The average age of a parishioner is now 61 years old. It will barely even exist in 25 years.
Your last line is interesting. I wonder if these proclamations are to attract the younger, stranded out there.

For example, my Brother got a divorce without an annulment. According to the Church he is supposed to live a celibate life because he can't re-marry since he is technically married in the eyes of the Church. He has talked about the Anglican Church because it is sacramental but has more liberal views on divorce. This is an example, I realize there are all sorts of views on many aspects of this situation. Not putting it out there to argue the legitimacy of an annulment or re-fight the reformation.

When I see the stuff we are talking about, I see it aimed at him to come to the CofE and be able to get on with his life.
That is certainly a argument that has been made.

"We need to become more liberal to attract young people."

Of course mainline Protestant Christianity has been doing that since the 1970s and its has not worked.

These Churches are still in membership free fall and probably will have almost no members by 2050
ScottS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Grumpy said:

Even if the gendered words for God were only analogy, they are revealed analogy. Once we start changing words in Scripture we don't like, God help us.
Yeah, isn't there a verse in revelations about adding or subtracting text?
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

It certainly makes the immaculate conception and the Trinity a bit more convoluted.
Not to derail this thread, but the Immaculate Conception is actually Mary being conceived immaculately.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

RMF5630 said:

Redbrickbear said:

Doc Holliday said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

The action and the outrage is likely overblown.

No serious person thinks G-d has a *****.

No serious person thinks this kind of virtue signaling accomplishes anything but keeps morons distracted.
Exactly. It's not even their position that's the issue, its the fact that they're broadcasting it to appease the new world order religion.
In the end its a State Church (aka a State Religion) and not even actually the State Church of the people of England but of the the City of London and its ruling class.

And of course London is a post-Christian international banker city of liberalism and bourgeois progressive values.

Of course the CofE has women bishops, and supports abortion, and supports mass immigration, and can't wait to get rid of the "problematic" elements of God and his masculinity.

The CofE has no internal values or beliefs....just whatever London tells them to.

And in the end its a dying Church. The average age of a parishioner is now 61 years old. It will barely even exist in 25 years.
Your last line is interesting. I wonder if these proclamations are to attract the younger, stranded out there.

For example, my Brother got a divorce without an annulment. According to the Church he is supposed to live a celibate life because he can't re-marry since he is technically married in the eyes of the Church. He has talked about the Anglican Church because it is sacramental but has more liberal views on divorce. This is an example, I realize there are all sorts of views on many aspects of this situation. Not putting it out there to argue the legitimacy of an annulment or re-fight the reformation.

When I see the stuff we are talking about, I see it aimed at him to come to the CofE and be able to get on with his life.
That is certainly a argument that has been made.

"We need to become more liberal to attract young people."

Of course mainline Protestant Christianity has been doing that since the 1970s and its has not worked.

These Churches are still in membership free fall and probably will have almost no members by 2050
I know the Catholic Church does not view the future of the Church in Europe. It is growing South and East. One of the reasons for the growth is that in third world Nations, especially Africa, Catholicism, Capitalism and Democracy are seen together. Upward mobility.

The European ones are having issues because the morals in the South and East are stricter than Europe. Many of the things we are discussing here do not fly in traditional areas.
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:


There are aspects of Judaism I like. I respect the Moslem diligence. So, can we get to know God outside of Organized Religion?
Thomas Aquinas held that "human reason, without supernatural aid, can establish the existence of God and the immortality of the soul."

The CCC states in paragraph 47: The Church teaches that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty from his works, by the natural light of human reason (cf. Vatican Council I, can. 2 1: DS 3026)

Having said that, many mysteries of God have been divinely revealed to us such as the Trinity. That only comes from organized religion.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

RMF5630 said:

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

This is just another episode of politics in the pulpit. It's done for power. No mention of a basis in theology or archaeology of the Bible.

that's been the tactic all along.
Not every Christian faith takes the literal interpretation of the Bible as law. I know Baptist do in some respects. You may not agree. scratch that DO not agree. There are interpretations different than the Southern Baptist Convention. As a Catholic, I am more concerned with the view of the sacramental aspect of the mass/service. Others in the readings. Others in the interpretation.

There is a school of thought that the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM". So, having different approaches is more necessary now than it was a hundred or thousand years ago. Social Media is going to expand that exponentially. At what point do "Christians" stop arguing with each other and be more concerned about the number not believing?
The concern about the number not believing should never lead to compromise of the truth. Christians are not charged with getting the most people to believe. They are to tell the truth and however many believe, will believe. If the truth is being distorted in order to appeal to more people, then God's Word is being conformed to man, when it should be the other way around.

Look carefully at what you said: "... the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM"". Jesus clearly told us to take the NARROW path to God, and that "broad is the path to destruction". Shouldn't this give one pause about the spirit behind this movement?
Well, I would argue that we are talking two different things.

The path is narrow, but that is a personal choice and believe. What you actually believe and do.

Allowing more people access to be able to make that decision is a different proposition. That allows more people to make that choice.

We don't convince or "get" any one to believe. It is the Holy Spirit. Getting more people access to the Holy Spirit is our job. Fishers of men...

How many or who gets in is not in our charge. There are numerous finding our way to God readings - "lost sheep", prodigal son, and from the same reading "people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last."

Getting more people in the conversation is not the same as getting in. A turn style is narrow entrance, but eventually many will get through. It is up to the person to go through.
You don't distort God's word so you can get more people in the conversation. Why introduce them to truth through lies? Appealing to man's itchy ears is the broad path. So no, we're not talking two different things.

Are you not at all concerned that you used the exact words/concept of "broad path" that Jesus himself warned us against? Does that not raise any red flags to you? Because to a Christian guided by the Spirit, hellish alarm bells should go off.
Which brings us to the whole point of the conversation. There are different interpretations out there.

The passage you used is a perfect example, you went with Matthew and a shorter look. I went with Luke and a broader perspective. Luke's passage adds all directions and the last/first to the equation. The Anglican Theologian's take that that everyone can get in and it may take longer for some, a reference to Purgatory. E,W, N, and S sure seems to imply a bigger group from all areas. Using the same passage. Christ is the way is the only commonality, what that means many will argue.

If the Anglican Church believes they are being true to the message, are they wrong? None of us will know who is right for a while. So, live your life and believe. Sorry, I am getting less and less sure that there is one way as I get older.

Heck, where I grew up you were Catholic or Jewish, I knew Protestants existed but didn't meet one until I was 16. I have good friends that are Orthodox Jews, Moslems, and my Mom was Eastern Rite. They are all going to hell because they don't read the Bible like you or me?
But in Luke's version you referenced (your "broader perspective") didn't Jesus say that some were going to be excluded, i.e. "thrown out" of the kingdom, and the door "shut" to them?

Wasn't the reason for this their unbelief?
Last Page
Page 1 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.