From ECUSA's Women's Ministries webpage comes this collect celebrating the 30th anniversary of the ordination of women in the Episcopal Church:
Collect for the Anniversary of the Approval of Women's Ordination
Most holy and loving God, you sent your Child Jesus Christ that there might no longer be slave or free, Jew or Gentile, male or female: Be with us this day as we rejoice in the ordination of women to the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate, giving thanks for their ministry among us. Fill our hearts with gratitude for those who worked and prayed unceasingly for the full and equal participation of women in our church in both holy and lay orders. Strengthen those who still struggle for the full inclusion of women in holy orders in their diocese; in the name of the Source, the Word, and the Spirit.
Amen.
(Source: Galatians 3:28)
revised 8/27/01
-The Rev. Elizabeth Rankin Geitz
I'm not about to "pile on" my former denomination, nor is this going to be about women's ordination per se. Rather, what I find objectionable is the language used (or the avoidance of other language) to refer to the Holy Trinity. In short: if this prayer isn't heresy, it is only a short half-step away.
First of all, using "Child" instead of "Son" is just simply ignorant. In Greek, whenever the word we usually translate as "child" is used in reference to Jesus, it is in masculine form. English sidesteps this because "child" is a neuter form. If the author of the collect wanted to be correct, the translation should read "your (male) child Jesus." But this is just awkward and clumsy and doesn't flow well. More to the point, what is a "male child" but a "son"? Would this author be so chary of referring to a "female child" as a daughter? Hardly. So why this circumlocution?
Apparently, and this is a far more serious matter, the author wants to avoid calling Jesus male. But why? When God became an incarnate human being, he became a man: Jesus Christ. Would the author deny this? Probably not when questioned directly. But the historical fact of Jesus being a male is crucial--if we believe in the Incarnation.
The Incarnation is not merely some dogma somebody made up once because they thought it would be a good idea. It is an historical event. Either God became a male human called Jesus Christ or he did not. If he did, then we do not have the luxury to alter those details without altering our faith. Ours is an historical faith. To deny, or alter the maleness of Jesus' humanity, is to deny the Incarnation, because not only did God became the male human Jesus, when Jesus rose from the dead, he rose with the same body, now transfigured, with which he entered the world. He does not cast off this body, but it is assumed in hypostatic union with the Holy Trinity. And thus, by grace, humans can participate in the life of God.
I should clarify that I am not insisting that it is Jesus' maleness, as opposed to his humanity, that saves us. On the principle that whatever is not assumed is not saved, this would assert that there was something defective about being female. Yet God created femaleness just as he did maleness, so both maleness and femaleness are intrinsically good. Jesus saves us by his humanity. But it is a humanity that is embodied in being a male. To deny Jesus' maleness is to deny his humanity. And to deny his humanity is to deny the Incarnation.
To use the term “child” does not necessarily deny the Incarnation. But after more than three decades of intentionally emasculating liturgical language, the neutering of Jesus as Child instead of Son is a calculated attempt to deny Jesus' maleness which is also to deny his humanity. A humanity, I assert again, that was assumed in the resurrection of his male body and brought into union with the Godhead.
In the close of the collect the Holy Trinity is addressed as “the Source, the Word, and the Spirit.” Now one can certainly take this phrase and connect it to orthodox Christian teaching. The Father is, indeed, the font or source of the Godhead. Not an aside: Source is arche in the Greek, and father is pater. Thus, it would be correct to say that Christianity is a radically patriarchal religion. Granted, feminists do not understand patriarchy in this way, but this is a fault not of orthodox theology but of human sin and sociopolitical agendas. Jesus is most definitely the Word. And, of course, the third Person of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit. So, there is a way that it can be understood in orthodox terms.
But one wonders what the point is of referring to the Persons of the Holy Trinity in these specific terms. What would be the problem of using the traditional formula, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”? What objections would the author have to this formula?
Presumably the same objections which caused her to use “Child” in place of “Son” to refer to Jesus. But here we run into an important problem. The revelation of God as Father came not from some council of exclusively male bishops, but from the Incarnate God, Jesus Christ, himself. It was Jesus who taught us to pray to God as “our Father.” It was Jesus who taught us that he was God's Son (and not some neutered Child). To deny God is the Father is to deny Jesus' own revelation. To deny Jesus is the Son is to deny the Incarnation which must include all its historical particulars.
Two other things I would add: First, to neuter liturgical language in this way makes a troubling assertion, namely, that women in particular, though others as well, are unable to worship God in traditional language. In effect, women must have a special language with which to worship God. But this is dangerously close to establishing a mystery religion, into which one is initiated by learning special words for God. The revelation of Jesus is not enough. The common and understandable terms like "father" and "son" are not appropriate. They must be replaced with a "higher" language, one that is sexless, immaterial, unincarnate.
And finally, this ultimately comes down to power and authority: Do we have the power to change the revelation given us by Jesus Christ? If we do, then we call into question Jesus' own authority and the legitimacy of his revelation. But if we do that, we remove the cornerstone of our faith, and we cease to be Christian. If we do not have that authority, then to change the language Jesus has given us is to assert an authority and a power in opposition to God. And rebellion against God is the most dangerous spiritual state possible to us humans.
Were this collect merely one instance in an otherwise thoroughly traditional and orthodox set of liturgies, one might find it curious and be rightly cautious, but would not, under those conditions, need necessarily to reject it outright. However, given a sustained and intentional movement of more than three decades to deny the most basic revelations of our Lord and Savior about our God, then one is justified in characterizing this as heresy, and to rightly reject it as prayer worthy of the Church's God.
Posted by Clifton at July 28, 2004 05:30 AM | TrackBackPlease sit down, Cliff, I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself. All comfy? Good.
I agree with you.
In fact, as to the issue of Jesus' gender, your explanation is far more cogent than the distinctly unpastoral response I have been tempted to give, upon occasion: "Oh, please. Jesus was a guy. Deal with it."
As to the alteration of the trinitarian formula, I find the effort in some quarters that you mention, to eliminate the other, older language, both theologically objectionable and patently foolish.
What I will add here is that, while I do not in any way have a problem with the use of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit--" in fact, I find it a comforting truth-- I do take issue with those who hold that as the only correct way to refer to the Godhead. Seems to me that is just as wrong, in that it flies in the face of the many images from both scripture and tradition that have been rightly used to express the nature of God. That also does nothing more than try to put fallible human constaints on the Almighty.
And so, I would be pleased, upon occasion, to include the formula written in this prayer-- as you say, taken from entirely orthodox belief and imagery-- as part of prayerful liturgy, along with the beloved patriarchial language that is so part of our Christian heritage and understanding.
Posted by: Jane Ellen at July 28, 2004 06:53 PMJane:
*Thud*
(That was my jaw hitting the floor.)
I wrestled with how to present my thoughts on this, particularly with you and Susie in mind. I did not want to needlessly offend, but I did want to state the issues with clarity.
(Picking myself up.)
Now, on to other work . . .
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at July 28, 2004 09:37 PMOK, so we have the 'fundamentalists' who want to pray "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/Ghost"
Then we have the moderates, who will say, "Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier"
Then we have the liberals, "Loving Parent, Obedient Child, and Emotional Comforter."
The one that gets most people is the middle one, especially where many in our society are drifting from [o]rthodoxy to liberalism. While all three can be theologically defended with good orthodoxy (as pointed out above), it is the "background" radiation of the rest of your theology that proves the rest of your orthodoxy. Bottom line: when a church switches to the Creator/Redeemer/Sanctifier, take a good look at the theological inclinations.
Posted by: Erica at July 28, 2004 10:05 PMCreator Christ and Holy Ghost is what we sing in the Doxology. Heh. It is an old fashioned modalism...
Why those terms for God? Anti-Patriarchalism...and the scan nicely.
Posted by: AngloBaptist at July 29, 2004 08:56 AMClifton:
First off, hi to you, Anna and Sofie! Long time, no see/hear/etc. I am glad to keep up with you folks via your blog.
But to the matter at hand: you make some fine points in this entry, but I think it raises some real questions, too.
First, it is important to remember that the Fathers were open to considering other formulations for naming the Holy Trinity, too. Gregory of Nyssa is one immediate and obvious example. Even if they -- and we -- were to consider 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit' as primary, they also considered alternative names, without the slightest wish to deny the incarnation. Would you rule out this sort of naming? On what grounds?
Second, as you allude to but do not pursue, the expression 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit' is English, which is not the original language in which Jesus spoke, the NT was written, or the councils were conducted: is it possible that we lose something in translation? If so, might an alternative expression recapture *some* of what was lost? There might be no *completely* accurate rendition, much less one which is liturgically elegant or suitably 'untrendy'. (BTW, I am not talking about bloodless abstractions such as "creator, redeemer, sanctifier". Yuck.)
Finally, you mention that while Jesus was certainly male, that is not in itself as relevant as his humanity for the incarnation, a solid point. (Of course, humanity is either male or female -- 'humanity' is (again) a bloodless abstraction.) But there is another feature of Jesus, like his maleness, which is not only an intrinsic part of who he is as a human, but (it may be argued) *is* relevant, indeed essential, to his being messiah, and yet is omitted from liturgical language, both traditional and contemporary: he was (is?) Jewish. I wonder why omitting that feature of Jesus' identity seems uncontroversial for you? (How would it work into a trinitarian name? That I don't know.)
Drop me a line sometime, I would love to catch up a bit. Maybe we could carve out some time for coffee?
Fond regards,
Jason Fout
Jason:
I would love to do coffee sometime. Holler at me when you're in town.
Yes, if I engaged in some sort of formulaic legalism, I would only be repeating the errors of those who want to rid the liturgy of its "patriarchal" and masculine genders. I seem to recall that the "bloodless-yuck" "Creator-Redeemer-Sanctifier" is actually a formula that goes back to the early Church and the Fathers. (But a liturgist I'm not, so I won't assert that too strongly.) So, I have no problem, in principle, using alternative formulations.
I don't think the language/translation issue is really all that hairy an issue. I well recognize that one can rarely do one-to-one equivalence between languages. But in their legalistic linguistics anti-masculine-gender types make of language/translation an issue far greater than it needs to be. For example, if I were to hear Jesus referred to as "Child" and the Trinity referred to as "Source, Word, and Holy Spirit" in the context of a traditional Anglo-Catholic parish, or in an Orthodox parish, I would barely bat an eye, because each of these words is a legitimate sign and symbol of him to whom it refers--in a context that does not make a fetish of its neuter linguistic structure.
But anti-male-language folks make language an issue, so translation in these contexts does matter--more, perhaps than it should. And therefore I made the linguistic point I did to highlight the self-conscious sociopolitical agenda underlying the prayer.
I am probably not as well-versed in Episcopal liturgies as yourself, Father Jason, and what I used to know has faded quite a bit in the last two and a half years since I walked out of an Episcopal parish--and the ordination process--never to return. But I do know that the Jewish heritage of Jesus is often referred to in Orthodox liturgy, particularly in terms of his Mother. For example, in the Akathist hymn to the Theotokos, Mary is referred to allegorically with many of the elements of the Hebrew Exodus: the sea which drowned Pharoah, the rock from which the water of Life sprang, the successor to manna which gives us the bread of life, and so forth. Furthermore, at Matins, we always sing the Magnificat which notes the direct Jewish origins of the Church.
In the proskomide, when the priest prepares the bread for communion, a portion of the prosphora is cut away in honor and memory of Moses, Aaron, Elijah and Elisha, David and Jesse, the three holy children, Daniel, and all the holy prophets.
In terms of Jesus' Jewishness, at Vespers we always sing the Nunc dimmittis (sp?), which explicitly highlights Jesus' Jewishness. And Jesus is frequently referred to in the liturgy as the Son of David.
Indeed, given Orthodoxy's understanding that she is the New Israel, the fulfillment of the old covenant, her liturgy is rife with Jewish allusions and types. Orthodoxy honors the prophets and old testament saints with feast days, and her prayers are shot through with mention of our Jewish forebears.
So, it's pretty hard to escape the notion of Jesus being Jewish.
That being said, Orthodoxy does focus on the so-called "cosmic Christ", the risen Lord, so much of its liturgical language is high Christology. And this may seem to overshadow Jesus' Jewishness.
Might there be a Trinitarian formula that highlights this Jewish connection? Sure. I could envision something like "in the name of the Lawgiver of Israel, the Messiah, and the Spirit of the Prophets" (okay, that really sucks, but you get my point).
But of course, part of the difficulty is that though the Church is the new Israel, she is also now Gentile. There is continuity with the first covenant, but this is also a new work.
For me, no surprise, I think the Orthodox liturgies hold this in tension the best.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at July 30, 2004 06:17 AM