I am not able to locate the comment you referenced, but I think the writer has a point, and it has nothing to do with men confusing women with gerbils. People who very stridently support non inclusive language (such as always referring to God as “He” instead of just “God”-and no, I don’t have a problem with the theological idea of God as Father and I don’t refer to God as “Goddess” or “She”) and are opposed to the ordination of women because, of course, a woman could never resemble a male Jesus-do sometimes make some women think that some of them believe women are not made in the image of God.

And no, I don’t really intend debating these issues-”Been there, Done that.” I just didn’t find anything controversial in what Sikkers commented.

But yes, it might “suck” not to get a date. ;^)

Uh…What? “Some women think that some of them believe……” Wow! Able to read minds at two levels!” Fellow knows what “some” think and what “some” others believe! Shazzamm! Reminds of the “Amazing Kreskin” on the old Tonight Show! I, for one, as a male, believe that the Virgin Mary, St. Therese, St. Theresa, St. Mary Magdalene, my mother, my grandmothers, and all other women are made in the image of God. I also believe that the priest, at least in the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, should be male because the Second Person of the Trinity was incarnate as a male and the priest acts as the “alter Christus” during the liturgy. Never knew I was, therefor, violating the “Great Commandment.” And I’m an “idolator, too! Whoever has been reading my mind is very much in need of a “clue.” Hey, Bruce Chris, what should I think I believe about those transgendered folks ya’ll are so fond of? Am experiencing some severe cognitive dissonance tryin’ to wrap my mind around that one. Maybe you could do a Vulcan mind-meld sometime and straighten me out. Also, how’s that “gay” thing workin’ for your Sunday collections?

As I said, I have no interest in debating these issues, And I said nothing about the “gay” thing so perhaps you were reading my mind as well, Mr. Kreskin. ;^) if that part of your post was addressed to me and not indirectly to Mr. Sikkers.

I well understand the theology of not ordaining women in the Orthodox and Roman Tradition. I have been familar with it for 30 years.

Peace to you in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Pardon me, I see that the “gay thing” was addressed to Mr. Sikkers.

But yes, I do know what some think-because they tell me-and what some believe-because they tell me.

Me, I don’t see how you get past Genesis 1:27 without putting the whole “image of God” issue to bed. But I don’t particularly want to debate this stuff either.

Good; We agreed. let’s not debate it. After 30 years, I’ve had enough.

Well, it would be nice to know what he was writing in relation to; is this a general observation or does he have a particular instance in mind?

Is he talking about the current debate in the Church of England over women bishops? Is he talking about the Altar Ladies’ Guild in his local parish church?

I mean, are there some men in the world who think women are inferior? Yep, sure. Are some of those in the universal church? Humanity being human, probably. But dropping an observation like that one “It is my impression that some men in this church believe that women, unlike men, somehow are not made in the image of the Almighty.” is so general as to be practically useless.

I presume, by the Great Commandment, he means the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”? I’m a bit confused, since I know the Great Commission is “Go and make disciples of all nations”, and the Two Commandments on which hang all the Law and the Prophets are “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and thy whole soul, and thy whole mind, and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”, but I’m shaky on what the Great Commandment might be.

Since I’m not seeking ordination (if that is his beef, but we don’t know), I don’t see how the Golden Rule helps or hinders anyone. I certainly don’t want to be ordained, so I wouldn’t rush out and ordain anyone else. How that helps the cause, I don’t know.

Bruce Chris seems to be referring to this:

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/81840_105359_ENG_HTM.htm

How he got the whole “image of God” thing from that, I’ll never know.

I recall a fellow part-time instructor about fifteen years ago who was a motorcycle-riding Episcopal minister. In some faculty-lounge chatter, I made a reference to a (nineteen-year-old?) “girl” in my classroom. She cut me off right there.

“How would you feel if someone called you a ‘boy’?”

“Umm, I wouldn’t care at all.”

She was dumbfounded.

I shrug.

I don’t have a problem with 19 year olds beiing called “boys” or “girls”, but that’s really not related to the concept of inclusive language. Using “girls” or “boys” with grown adults in their 40’s 50’s or 60’s may be because it is a term of casual affection. It may also be a patronizing put down. It depends on the circumstances.

But my assumption would be that the Episcopal minister would not have liked being called a “girl” and I would respect that. I wouldn’t call my pastor a “boy” either.

Great move, FelonSpoke,
“He’s right, any one who doesn’t like inclusive language is a chauvinist and bigot. We’ve all known that forever. And I refuse to further discuss it. It just is and I won’t address any argumentation to the contrary. But I will respond to everyone else, even those who were not talking to me, as though they were challenging me personally. But I won’t discuss it. You bigots.”

Insult anyone who disagrees with you, refuse to address any arguments, and monopolize the chatter. Gutless, but effective.

I am befuddled…trying to figure out what his point was and then how that point relates to inclusive language…..

Wow, you can’t get a date with a gerbil? Ouch! Reminds me of High School…

Bruce is tilting at strawpersons plain and simple.

I’m shaky on what the Great Commandment might be.

If thou leavest, take not thy property with thee, neither temple nor psalmbook nor altarcloth.

To: FenelonSpoke: Please get a grip. My comment was in no way whatsover directed toward your comment nor I am trying to debate anyone. My purpose was to present my opinion that claiming to know what others believe, or think, or feel without any supporting data at all is absurd. Therefore, I find Bruce Chris’ entire contention to be absurd. You obviously find it to be otherwise. So it goes. Live long and prosper.

I have a grip, thank you.

Live long and prosper.

The Presiding Bishop wrote a long, rambling somewhat incoherent harangue about the Primate’s meeting in Alexandria in a recent issue of Episcopal Life Online, complete with several pointless anecdotes. Mr. Sikkema wrote a response to that article with an equally pointless diatribe. Chris thought he should heve held off a bit before posting - maybe taken the long view before putting his febrile comments out on the net for all to view. That’s it.

And before I get the snarky comments, I did re-read this and waited a whole 5 seconds before hitting “Submit Comment.” So there!

While we are doing Letters and Comments, here is one from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 3/8 -

The Great Commission

The conservative schism has happened. Episcopal parishes and even families have been divided. With a new bishop, The Rt. Rev. Edwin F. “Ted” Gulick, the “continuing” Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is finally at liberty to follow Jesus Christ without concerns based on gender or sexual orientation — at liberty, in the name of Christ, to celebrate and share God’s gifts responsibly without hypocrisy.

From my vantage point as a member of All Saints’ Episcopal Church, it is finally possible for the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth to fulfill The Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) without distraction.
— Hugh T. Lefler Jr., Fort Worth

Yes, I think Mr. Bruce Chris would have been helped by a good editor or two. His comment certainly made no sense to me, although I suspect he was trying to make some kind of point about how women should be eligible for anything they want to do, whether that flies in the face of God’s design and purpose or not.

But you mileage may vary on what the man meant.

So, if Bruce was referring to the Presiding Bishop’s article on attitudes to homosexuality within the less-enlightened quarters of the Anglican Communion, his conclusion was:

(1) Opposition to male homosexuality is because one of the male partners is considered to be acting a female part.
(2) This is particularly disgraceful since females are considered inferior to males.
(3) Those who express opposition to male homosexuality are therefore also expressing the belief that women are inferior.
(4) This further means that they must not believe that women are made “in the image and likeness of God” as men are.
(5) This is a violation of the Great Commandment (and here we’re on very shaky ground, because if the Great Commandment is the Golden Rule, presumably he means we should treat women and male homosexuals as we would wish to be treated).
(6) It may also be idolatry because - I dunno, because it’s treating males as being like God and therefore as gods? Again, I’m unclear on what he means here.

Though again, that’s only if Bruce is developing the thread of Katherine’s ruminations, and we don’t know, since Bruce never told us exactly what got him stirred up.

And there’s no mention of female homosexuality there - by this logic, that should be encouraged because one of the female partners must be acting the male part, and that is a good thing, since males are superior and therefore she is aspiring to be superior. Unless that’s extra-super-bad, to be aspiring to be superior to what you are since you are naturally inferior. I admit, I’m confused

“which is the reason[well, one of a great many of them] why I can’t get a date. ” (seriously) Do you ask?

“People who very stridently support non inclusive language (such as always referring to God as “He” instead of just “God”-and no, I don’t have a problem with the theological idea of God as Father and I don’t refer to God as ‘Goddess’ or ‘She’) and are opposed to the ordination of women because, of course, a woman could never resemble a male Jesus-do sometimes make some women think that some of them believe women are not made in the image of God.”

So, does this mean that anything which some has a negative interpretation bby someone is wrong, terrible, deliberately offensive, and must be banned? If “some vegans” believe that people who eat meat are mass-murderers that enjoy torturing animals, does that make it so? Were I to read that “some Native Americans” are offended when they hear the William Tell Overture because it was once associated with the Lone Ranger & his sterotypical sidekick Tonto, would that require me to go down to the local Video Store and strip the shelves of the offending DVD’s?

This kind of arbitrary sophistry - making a “cause celebre” out of a twisted interpretation arrived at by a small number of people - is so poorly reasoned and patently fallacious that it’s no wonder “I don’t really intend debating these issues-’Been there, Done that.’”

You can’t use the opinions of any one individual to factually ascribe intent and/or meaning to the words of a second person. You can, however, use the words of the second person to arrive at a conclusion - provided there is clarity and context, and without using “feelings” or “impressions”.

Aarrghhhh! I lost my initial comment, and forgot that the clipboard copy that I then submitted didn’t include some corrections. Second paragraph, first sentence should read: “So, does this mean that anything which has a negative interpretation by someone is wrong, terrible, ….”

Mea culpa.

FenelonSpoke, others have commented on your comment, and frankly I don’t care enough about the original guy’s (Sikkema’s) opinion to comment further. But I do have an opinion about this portion of what you said: “People who very stridently support non inclusive language”. I support translating Scripture, Creed, and the writings of Church Fathers to say as nearly as possible what they said rendered in modern English. If they said, “he,” then that’s how it should read. If Jesus told us to pray, “Our Father,” then I’m not going for “Our Parent.” If the original can reasonably be found to be gender-neutral, then so should the translation be.