"The consecration in 2003 of a practising homosexual as a bishop in the US Episcopalian Church was the immediate cause of the present split. It was a unilateral decision, an attempt to lead the Anglican communion by example, which clearly has spectacularly failed. Not only did it outrage conservative Episcopalians, it was rejected by the rapidly growing conservative congregations in Africa and Asia, and enabled church conservatives across the globe to make common cause. . . ."

An interesting analysis by someone who is not, as far as I can tell, particularly a friend of conservatives, but does have the advantage of being able to look at the matter with the perspective of distance. Unfortunately, it is obvious from GC'06 that the forces controlling TEC have learned absolutely nothing from experience.

Steven

I contnue to be astonished at the ignorance of those who find our PB-Elect's reference to Jesus as our mother novel or heretical.

The person most often cited as using these terms is Julian of Norwich, but is is by no means the only one, nor is she the first.

Would these same folk come all over shivery if they heard the Holy Spirit also called 'she,' as she sometimes is when spoken of as Sophia, or Wisdom?

Have these men not progressed beyond the stage when they post a sign on their club house that says "No Girls Allowed!"?

Get over it, fellas.

Julian of Norwich was not one of the contributors to the canon of holy scripture, and while interesting from a literary standpoint, her views are not those of the NT writers, upon whom the Anglican tradition teaches us to rely.

ECUSA has been accused by many over the years of distorting its christology by its fascination with secular and New Age ideologies, of which this episode is evidently symptomatic and a warning to those unfamiliar with ECUSA of its descent in places into syncretism.

“Would these same folk come all over shivery if they heard the Holy Spirit also called 'she,' as she sometimes is when spoken of as Sophia, or Wisdom? Have these men not progressed beyond the stage when they post a sign on their club house that says "No Girls Allowed!"? Get over it, fellas”— Cynthia Gilliatt

Right on, Cynthia!!!

Peter Jenson seems not to know Mother Jualian of Norwich --and more surprisngly hasnt read Mattew's Gosepel much either --( where Jesus describes himself as a mother hen )...Back to the Scripture Union Notes eh, Peter ?!

The Episcopal Church says we are committed to the Anglican Communion and to the process of working out our differences. The ABC says that the issues are serious and we need to clarify what constitutes non-negotiable Anglicanism and then see where people stand.

Akinola to the Episcopal Church: Drop Dead.
Akinola to the ABC: Drop Dead.

It is now clearly the case that Akinola is calling the shots in the Anglican Communion and the ABC is no longer in control of his own house.

Did anyone else catch the bit about how Akinola had not yet read Williams's plan but has already rejected it anyway?

Not surprising, of course, but very revealing.

THE CofE TRADITIONAL ole fashioned Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer does not mention the Bible.
What price biblicism ?

Somebody emailed me this list of references to God as Mother:
St. Anselm of Canterbury:
But you Jesus, good Lord, are you not also our mother? Are you not the mother who, like a hen, collects her chickens under her wings?

St. Bernard of Clairvaux:
Do not let the roughness of our life frighten your tender years. If you feel the stings of temptation . . . suck not so much the wounds as the breasts of the Crucified. He will be your mother, and you will be his son.. . (from Letter 322)

St. Teresa of Avila:
For from those divine breasts where it seems God is always sustaining the soul, there flow streams of milk bringing comfort to all the people. ( from The Interior Castle)

Julian of Norwich:
The Second Person of the Trinity is our mother in nature, in our substantial making. In him we are grounded and rooted, and he is our mother by mercy in our sensuality, by taking flesh. (from Showings)

Clement of Alexandria:
This is our nourishment, the milk flowing from the father by which alone we little ones are fed . . . Therefore, we fly trustfully to the ‘care-banishing breast’ of God the father; the breast that is the Word, who is the only one who can truly bestow on us the milk of love. Only those who nurse at the breast are blessed . . . little ones who seek the Word, the craved-for milk is given from the Father’s breasts of love for man.The Word [Christ] is everything to His little ones, both father and mother. (from Christ the Educator)

The Old Testament:
Like a bear robbed of her cubs, I will attack them and rip them open. (Hosea 13:8)

You deserted the Rock, who bore you. You forgot the God who gave you birth. (Deuteronomy 32:18)

You whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and grey hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you. (Isaiah 46:3–4)

The New Testament:
Jesus said, “How often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings.” (Matt. 23:37)

Cynthia, to add to your comment about the Holy Spirit being referred to as "she"... The words translated as "spirit" in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament are feminine nouns, so it would be quite proper to use feminine language and imagery.

Allow me to comment in on the "Mother Jesus' discussion.

Firstly, there is a difference between ascribing 'motherhood' as an attribute of God and giving Jesus the title "Mother Jesus."

Even if some have taken Katherine Scholari's statements out of context, one should question the wisdom of using certain terms in her first sermon in a already fractious situation, post GC2003 and made more difficult by another frontier being opened with her election.

It just adds to the perception that the desire to innovate far outweighs that of preserving unity or respect for traditional Christian teaching.

Conservative Evangelicals are often ignorantly accused of biblical literalism or even "fundamentalism" but the tradition is considerably more sophisticated in its interpretation and exegesis of scripture than to use Mt. 23.37 as a proof text in such a crude fashion. It is a tender analogy, but is no more than analogy, and certainly not "where Jesus describes himself as a mother hen".

The bottom line here is that the "tradition" of those who call themselves "traditionalists" is of very recent vintage.

It seems to me that rather than trying to discover the true parameters of the "faith once delivered" 2000 years ago they are engaged in the creation of a "canon within the canon" whose boundaries match very closely to their own prejudices.

"Julian of Norwich was not one of the contributors to the canon of holy scripture, and while interesting from a literary standpoint, her views are not those of the NT writers, upon whom the Anglican tradition teaches us to rely.

"ECUSA has been accused by many over the years of distorting its christology by its fascination with secular and New Age ideologies, of which this episode is evidently symptomatic and a warning to those unfamiliar with ECUSA of its descent in places into syncretism"

Well, Julian has likwly been called many things, but the sheer anachronistic ignorance of calling her "New Age," which, BTW, is about 20 years out of date anyhow, just boggles the mind.

"ECUSA has been accused by many over the years" - 20 years seems a long time ago in ECUSA, and as to what the next 20 years will bring, the mind can only boggle.

Pete: "The words translated as "spirit" in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament are feminine nouns, so it would be quite proper to use feminine language and imagery."

If you're going to post one simple "fact", you could at least check its accuracy before posting. The greek pneuma in the NT is neuter, not feminine.

Simon

Also Isa. 66.13: 'Thee will I comfort as one whom his mother comforts.'.

I like Rev Terry's 'Katharine Scholari'. Blame World Cup fever for the freudian slip.

Andy, you are correct. I'm sorry for the mistake.

So glad to be put str8 (again!). How little I know. All language is analogical. The signifier lacks stability. Human subjects are radially decentred.

Even if schori's first sermon as (suddenly,unexpectedly) PB-elect was total shite--it 'd be kinda human if the guys listened supportively, --but all this nit-picking, post mortem stuff is ungalante -- & BTW no-one has died !--yet...

Why be so mean & spiteful ? Is this virtuosity ? Is this the praxis of Titus one nine ?
How much rhetorical viagara do these guys need ?

Why not hate the sermon & (try to) love the preacher ?

I know, I know that's naive, of me. It is the other way round. They can't stand the preacher, so the sermon sucks ! They hate this bright, gifted, creative,dickless preacher who has more spunk than all these male moaning minnies put together; and who has shown she can get it up.

Add to Isaiah 66.13 the following:
2 Esdras 1.28-30
Sirach 15.1-3

"THE CofE TRADITIONAL ole fashioned Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer does not mention the Bible.
What price biblicism ?"

Posted by: LaurenceRoberts on Thursday, 29 June 2006 at 10:27pm BST

==========================================
From the Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer:

The Holy Scriptures

Q. What are the Holy Scriptures?
A. The Holy Scriptures, commonly called the Bible, are the books of the Old and New Testaments; other books, called the Apocrypha, are often included in the Bible.

Q. What is the Old Testament?
A. The Old Testament consists of books written by the people of the Old Covenant, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to show God at work in nature and history.

Q. What is the New Testament?
A. The New Testament consists of books written by the people of the New Covenant, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to set forth the life and teachings of Jesus and to proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom for all people.

Q. What is the Apocrypha?
A. The Apocrypha is a collection of additional books written by people of the Old Covenant, and used in the Christian Church.

Q. Why do we call the Holy Scriptures the Word of God?
A. We call them the Word of God because God inspired their human authors and because God still speaks to us through the Bible.

Q. How do we understand the meaning of the Bible?
A. We understand the meaning of the Bible by the help of the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in the true interpretation of the Scriptures.