Women's Eucharist

[spiritually inclined]

Opinions on the women's eucharist?

http://www.challengeonline.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=119

 

[Hope]

I'm not an Anglican, but this is pure blasphemy.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not an Anglican, but this is pure blasphemy.

I think blasphemy is rather too harsh. Weird for my tastes, and I might be pushed to find any inspiration in such a service, myself, but I can see how women who have felt disenfranchised want to find a new paradigm for speaking about the Trinity. I think there's enough room within Episcopalianism to embrace this sort of thing, as long as it remains the exception and does not become the norm.

BTW, the link is wrong on at least one point. The labyrinth is not new age in origin.

[edit] the link's source is independent of the ECUSA's official voice, and its spin on the story may take an adversarial view of the theology and praxis of the ECUSA.

 

[spiritually inclined]

I don't see the problem with the women's eucharist. It honors important stages women go through in their lives and makes them feel accepted and included in the church, which is very good as Christianity has a history of excluding women from the priesthood, etc.

James

 

[sojourner]

I don't see the problem with the women's eucharist. It honors important stages women go through in their lives and makes them feel accepted and included in the church, which is very good as Christianity has a history of excluding women from the priesthood, etc.

James

The Episcopal Church has included women in the clergy since the 1970s. The Church currently has consecrated female bishops. the Church is trying very hard to be sensitive to the particular issues that women face, to celebrate their uniqueness, and to acknowledge their full participation in the work of the Spirit.

 

[Storm]

It does sound rather neopagan, however, the author is lso clearly opposed to the practice. I'd like to hear more from the other side before formulating an opinion.

 

[Storm]

Wait a sec...

The two offending services, which were removed from the OWM website in the 2004 controversy

I'd say this isn't really an issue any more....

EDIT: ... unless you wish to discuss the in/appropriateness of Christian Wicca rituals in general?

 

[sojourner]

It does sound rather neopagan, however, the author is lso clearly opposed to the practice. I'd like to hear more from the other side before formulating an opinion.

The author is from the "other side." The article is published by a non-ECUSA group and puts a negative spin on the liberal theology and praxis of the ECUSA. In order to "get the other side," you'd have to talk to the ECUSA.

But I agree. It's a little weird and "neo-pagan" for my personal taste, too.

 

[Storm]

The author is from the "other side." The article is published by a non-ECUSA group and puts a negative spin on the liberal theology and praxis of the ECUSA. In order to "get the other side," you'd have to talk to the ECUSA.

But I agree. It's a little weird and "neo-pagan" for my personal taste, too.

I meant "the other side" from the author's.

 

[sojourner]

I meant "the other side" from the author's.

yeah, it'd be interesting to read the "official stance."

 

[lunamoth]

Oh dear, those uppity women.

I think the feminization of the liturgy is a radical way of counter-acting the misogyny of the traditional church.

Just like many women today want to distance themselves from the radical women's movement (hairy legs and armpits! no bras! no shirts!) even though they have many more opportunities now than they would have without that 'distasteful' movement.

To effect change, or in this case to counter-balance something that was never needed to be part of the theology of Christianity, one has to over-shoot and create a stir, break up the boundaries that exist so new ones can be formed.

In Her peace,
Laurie

 

[Storm]

Oh dear, those uppity women.

I think the feminization of the liturgy is a radical way of counter-acting the misogyny of the traditional church.

Just like many women today want to distance themselves from the radical women's movement (hairy legs and armpits! no bras! no shirts!) even though they have many more opportunities now than they would have without that 'distasteful' movement.

To effect change, or in this case to counter-balance something that was never needed to be part of the theology of Christianity, one has to over-shoot and create a stir, break up the boundaries that exist so new ones can be formed.

In Her peace,
Laurie

I agree in principle, Luna, but I dislike the theft (imo) of neopagan practices - "blessed be" being the most glaring example. Making Christianity more hospitable to women is all well and good, but surely it can be done without plagiarism.

EDIT: This is a bad post. I didn't express myself well at all. Please see my next post before responding.

 

[lunamoth]

I agree in principle, Luna, but I dislike the theft (imo) of neopagan practices - "blessed be" being the most glaring example. Making Christianity more hospitable to women is all well and good, but surely it can be done without plagiarism.

I don't see it as theft but as sharing and honoring connections between religions. It reminds me of the Celtic Christianity where druidism was woven ito the local flavor of Christianity. To me, incorporating rituals or symbols from other religions can act to unify us, although I can see traditionalists being upset over it. I like and value tradition, but not when it creates walls and hard feelings between myself and others.

 

[Storm]

That's fair enough, Luna. Honestly, the phrasing of my last post was unfortunately hypocritical, so allow me to attempt to rectify it.

With the bias of the linked article duly noted, the rites described had nothing to do with Christianity except the name "Christ." It was just Dianic Wicca with "Christ" crudely inserted. IMO, that does a disservice to both faiths.

1) Christ is an inarguably male deity, if one believes He was historically real (as Christians do), so that's a slap in the face to the Dianics. Also, it seems that the creators of this "feminized Christianity" gave no acknowledgement to the Wiccan sources. They just lifted the Women's Mysteries of Wicca and shoved in a male deity. Not cool.

2) By their wholesale plagiary of neopaganism, the authors of the rituals completely dismissed as inadequate centuries of beautiful Christian tradition. They could have built a Christian liturgy around Mother Mary, or the sexless Holy Spirit, or Christ's own radical-for-the-time acceptance of women. They could have gone back to the Gnostics and focused on the Goddess Sophia or Mary Magdalene (as Christ's favored disciple, not the reformed whore of popular understanding). They could have blended Wiccan and Christian ritual. They didn't.

In short, it isn't what they did, but how they did it that strikes me as inappropriate. A little scholarship and creativity could have honored both paths. This does the opposite.

 

[lunamoth]

That's fair enough, Luna. Honestly, the phrasing of my last post was unfortunately hypocritical, so allow me to attempt to rectify it.

With the bias of the linked article duly noted, the rites described had nothing to do with Christianity except the name "Christ." It was just Dianic Wicca with "Christ" crudely inserted. IMO, that does a disservice to both faiths.

I can agree with that.

1) Christ is an inarguably male deity, if one believes He was historically real (as Christians do), so that's a slap in the face to the Dianics. Also, it seems that the creators of this "feminized Christianity" gave no acknowledgement to the Wiccan sources. They just lifted the Women's Mysteries of Wicca and shoved in a male deity. Not cool.

Jesus was inarguably male, but as he was also fully God He was also beyond gender. In Christ there is no male or female. Re: giving no acknowledgment, if they didn't then it was not academically proper or culturally polite.

2) By their wholesale plagiary of neopaganism, the authors of the rituals completely dismissed as inadequate centuries of beautiful Christian tradition. They could have built a Christian liturgy around Mother Mary, or the sexless Holy Spirit, or Christ's own radical-for-the-time acceptance of women. They could have gone back to the Gnostics and focused on the Goddess Sophia or Mary Magdalene (as Christ's favored disciple, not the reformed whore of popular understanding). They could have blended Wiccan and Christian ritual. They didn't.

Agreed. It would not be a service to my tastes, and I agree that the traditional Christian faith has deep untapped resources for the balancing of gender in our theology. But again, it may not have been so much intentional plagarism as it was just one or a few persons' connecting one thing they embraced with another. No need to assign nefarious motives.

Aside: I agree Mary Magdeline would be a great icon for Christian women, but 'going back to the gnostics' would not be a great idea, at least not to the gnostics who rejected the Creator God and thought of our material bodies as evil. 2 c

In short, it isn't what they did, but how they did it that strikes me as inappropriate. A little scholarship and creativity could have honored both paths. This does the opposite.

Agreed. It was tacky. Could have been done better. But, this is old news, the liturgy apparently has been pulled from the website, it was never advocated as a replacement for anything, and the article is polemic to begin with. I think our new Primate's use of Mother Jesus was inspiring and beautiful, hopefully a sign of where we are headed.

 

[spiritually inclined]

It is rather neo-pagan, but religions have always stolen fom and influenced one another. In an increasingly pluralistic society, that's going to happen.

James

 

[Storm]

You're right, there's no need to assume it was plagiarism. And the article was definitely (outdated) polemic. Still, I was rather disgruntled. I feel better now that I've gotten it off me chest, though.

 

[sojourner]

Even El of the Bible was taken from an earlier Assyrian source...and no mention made of the "borrowng."

It is our own myopic vision that sees one religion as "different" from another. We all speak the same truth, all venerate the same Source, just in different clothing.

What's upsetting is when the "spin" we've put on the truth is spun in a new direction.

As cultures diverge, it is probable that our religious differences will become less and less.

 

[lunamoth]

You're right, there's no need to assume it was plagiarism. And the article was definitely (outdated) polemic. Still, I was rather disgruntled. I feel better now that I've gotten it off me chest, though.

That is very understandable.

 

[Elvendon]

Well, I'd say that they went after the wrong person in the Trinity. Although I agree with Luna, in that Christ transcends gender, it is much simpler to associate him with the male than to feminize him. As Storm points out, the Holy Spirit is a much better candidate for being spoken about with feminine language, particularly because She is so deeply associated with the Sacred Virgin. Personally, I believe speaking about the Holy Spirit using feminine terminology solves a-lot of rather difficult conceptual problems that would otherwise be floating around the issue of Jesus' conception - maleness in the Holy Spirit would shift the interaction between Her and the Virgin towards the sexual direction, and away from the union of God and Man that it was.

As for the conflation of Christianity and Wicca, I agree that the way they did it in this case is a bit tacky, but I think sharing between religions (within reason) is only a good thing. Otherwise, my own brand of Pagan-Christian-Peaceoutness would be out of the question, heh.