tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post5584598213609242890..comments2024-03-22T15:15:09.943-04:00Comments on Lionel Deimel’s Web Log: How Should We Refer to God?Lionel Deimelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-66261886252318428732014-12-23T11:16:04.774-05:002014-12-23T11:16:04.774-05:00Well, that was a lot to think about. I should say ...Well, that was a lot to think about. I should say at the outset that I am liberal socially, politically, and theologically. I am fairly conservative linguistically. When people try to change language too fast, communication, particularly between generations, suffers—not a good thing.<br /><br />The impulse to change all male references to gender-neutral or female ones on general principle is a radical and destructive notion. What is the theology behind this? We need consensus on that before we go willy-nilly disregarding the current text of the BCP.<br /><br />I am strongly ambivalent about revising the BCP. I became an Episcopalian soon after the ’79 book was adopted, and I don’t regret not having gone through the transition period. I have often said that I hope the prayer book is revised only after I’m dead.<br /><br />That said, I would like to see a BCP without the filioque clause and with a single marriage rite that works for couples of whatever sex. I would like language for God and for the Trinity that makes everyone happy, but I have no idea what that would look like. I would like to see Rite I gone and the traditional version of the Lord’s Prayer gone. I would like to see an expanded calendar, but one that is still tractable.<br /><br />Perhaps we should begin experimenting with possible prayer book changes without having a concrete calendar for seeing the revision process to its conclusion. We should not commit too early.<br /><br />Lionel Deimelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-70508770977549816122014-12-23T00:29:31.449-05:002014-12-23T00:29:31.449-05:00I'm seeing a serious lack of empathy from you,...I'm seeing a serious lack of empathy from you, Lionel. Very disappointing.<br /><br />I'm not saying every feminist solution is satisfactory, in every situation. I *am* saying masculine-normative God-language IS A PROBLEM, and needs every effort to fix. (That's <b><i>PROBLEM</i></b>, not "feminist 'problem.'”)<br /><br />Me personally? As a layperson, what I say is normally heard only by me ("It is bad enough when individual members of a congregation substitute “God’s” for “his.”: SRSLY?). I say what sounds right to my own ears: sometimes "God's", sometimes "They/Their", sometimes "Who" (as in the Nicene Creed: "Who, with the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. Who has spoken through the Prophets.")<br /><br />I hate to state the obvious, but I will: to male ears, hearing God called He/His/Him, exclusively, just isn't as <i>excruciating</i> as it is to female ears. Weigh that <b>pain</b>, against "sounds very odd" "sounds goofy" "can be jarring" (contrasted w/ "feel at home with the familiar"). What's the fairness of that exchange again?<br /><br />"The feminists are bucking a very strong trend": a very strong trend? SIN always is! All the more reason to <i>repent</i> of it, ASAP. "Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church."<br /><br />Finally, what I've been saying for over 10 years: <b>BCP revision NOW</b>, before "the '79" gets reified (fetishized), as "the '28" was. It's been well over a generation already! >:-/JCFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14516376500318551838noreply@blogger.com