Church of Sweden directs clergy to stop referring to God as ‘He’

[thephilosopher6]

STOCKHOLM, Sweden, November 28, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Evangelical Lutheran leaders in Sweden say the faithful should not refer to God as “He.”

The largest denomination in Sweden, often called “The Church of Sweden,” wants its ministers to replace “He” with the generic “God.” They also don’t want preachers using “Lord” because it implies the masculine.

Church of Sweden directs clergy to stop referring to God as ‘He’ - LifeSite

So, are they now going to baptize “in the name of the Mother, and of the Daughter, and of the Holy Spirit”?

 

[petra22]

Come, Lord Jesus, come! How much farther can we fall?

 

[HeDa]

On Jan 1st, 2000 the Lutherans church in Sweden was separated from the state. My best explanation is that the Lutheran church is like a rebellious teenager trying to find its way to become a grown up, responsible adult. That might take longer or even longer time as there are still political parties who elect parts of the representatives to the big “Church meeting”. Those political parties have an agenda that is not compatible with the Catholic faith nor traditional Christian teachings.

When there is a new Lutheran bishop, what has been agreed upon earlier in ecumenical dialogue might totally change or be cancelled, like same agreement regarding the Eucharist but then the new bishop or “Church meeting” accepts divorsed to get married or same sex marriages and the common believes disappear.

My guess is that under 5% of the 6 million members actually care about their church. Most Lutherans have their children baptised but tell the priest to leave the God part out and the church buildings are beautiful for weddings. Older people (+75-year-olds) are still buried with a church ceremony but it is more common for younger (as in under 65) to ask for a religious neutral service.

In 1972 95.2% of the Swedish population was Lutheran. Before 1986 if one of the parents were Lutheran then the child automatically became Lutheran as well as those people moving to Sweden. Since 1986 baptism makes you a Lutheran. 2016 there Lutherans are 61.2% of the population. For the past couple of years there are lots of members leaving the Lutheran church. Some become Catholics but most don’t care at all about God or Christianity as a whole.

 

[magnusbar]

Of course He is neither a man nor woman. But Jesus referred to God as Father, and so shall we.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Come, Lord Jesus, come! How much farther can we fall?

Why does it matter what pronoun gender is used? Why do you find it negative that gender neutral pronouns will be used?

 

[magnusbar]

I don’t know why I keep getting surprised when stuff like this comes from the Scandinavian Lutheran church. So happy I’m out. It’s dissolving as we speak

 

[FiveLinden]

It is obvious that God has no gender. Words that impute this lead people to believe in a God that does not exist. I am not sure what the Aramaic pronouns imputed. I have a feeling there has been something added in the Aramaic-Koine Greek-Latin-English process.

 

[CapitalistCatholic]

It is correct God has no actual gender. You must remember though, Jesus did refer to the God-Head as Father. The Holy Spirit is as far as I know, genderless. Jesus was obviously male.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Why does it matter what pronoun gender is used? Why do you find it negative that gender neutral pronouns will be used?

It is true that God, as he is, has no gender. But Christianity has always put God within a masculine role. That is why he is our Father, not our Mother (Mary is our Mother). This is why Jesus referred to God as “Abba” which is “Father” in Aramaic. The Trinity has traditionally been described in masculine terms. I know that sometimes Jesus, when he is put into the context of being pre-incarnate Wisdom, is given feminine pronouns, and the Holy Spirit too has sometimes been spoken of as being the feminine aspect of the Trinity, but on the whole God is given male pronouns. To negate this would be to negate something fundamental about the Trinity itself which usually acts in a masculine matter. Indeed, to negate this would negate Jesus command in Matthew 28:19 when he tell us to baptize, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Two of those titles are masculine, and the third is usually spoken of as being masculine. To baptize in any other name other than those specific ones above would invalidate baptism and thus disqualifying one from being Christian.

I have a feeling there has been something added in the Aramaic-Koine Greek-Latin-English process.

Not in the Greek, take 1 John 5:11 for example:

"καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία, ὅτι ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔδωκεν ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῖν, καὶ αὕτη ἡ ζωὴ ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν.

"and that the life is in his Son."

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But Christianity has always put God within a masculine role. That is why he is our Father, not our Mother (Mary is our Mother).

What differences in the roles of father and mother that were present when that labelling started are relevant and still applicable today? In other words other than giving birth what is it that a father does today that a mother does not do (and vice versa) that have some implication on one’s understanding of God?

To negate this would be to negate something fundamental about the Trinity itself which usually acts in a masculine matter.

What about how the trinity acts is “masculine”?

To baptize in any other name other than those specific ones above would invalidate baptism and thus disqualifying one from being Christian.

Would this also mean that if someone were in some region that spoke a language where their word for “God” had no grammatical gender that their baptism would be considered invalid? Ex: If I were in Japan and were baptized under the names エホバ (Ehoba, for Jehovah), イエス (Iesu, for Jesus) and 聖なる御霊 (Seinaru mitama for holy spirit) that their baptism would be considered invalid?

Is Matthew 28:19 trying to communicate to specifically use those words, or is it communicating to specifically identify for which God they are baptizing in a world in which there were people that believed in many other gods?

 

[petra22]

Because the church is the BRIDE of Christ and Christ was a HE… going down a long low road…
Of course that doesn’t have the same meaning if you consider SSM

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Because the church is the BRIDE of Christ and Christ was a HE… going down a long low road…

Of course that doesn’t have the same meaning if you consider SSM

That could also be worded in a gender neutral sense without considering same sex marriage. I’m trying to figure out what a gendered metaphor gets us that a gender neutral one does not.

 

[thephilosopher6]

What differences in the roles of father and mother that were present when that labelling started are relevant and still applicable today? In other words other than giving birth what is it that a father does today that a mother does not do (and vice versa) that have some implication on one’s understanding of God?

A Father - being the husband - is the head, sustainer, and the creator in the act, while a mother - being the wife - is subject to the Father, participating in his creation, and the one giving life by pregnancy and birth. There is a clear distinction. As we see, God more fully fulfills the role of a Father.

What about how the trinity acts is “masculine”?

The relationship between the Father and the Son and their relationship to humanity.

Would this also mean that if someone were in some region that spoke a language where their word for “God” had no grammatical gender that their baptism would be considered invalid? Ex: If I were in Japan and were baptized under the names エホバ (Ehoba, for Jehovah), イエス (Iesu, for Jesus) and 聖なる御霊 (Seinaru mitama for holy spirit) that their baptism would be considered invalid?

You’re building a straw man. What must be understood in each language is that the the form for baptism must convey the proper names of the persons of the Trinity so as to distinguish each member properly; St. Thomas Aquinas deems this the “essential element” of baptism. If it were understood in that language to simply be “God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit”, then it would be invalid because the proper names must be used in order to correctly distinguish the persons of the Trinity. How different languages may convey that will of course greatly vary, and seeing that I do not speak Japanese, I cannot accurately speak on how they convey that. Though, I did go on YouTube and watch a Catholic baptism in Japan and the words the priest used while baptizing were along the lines of, “Chantoko to seirei to” (I tried to listen as closely as possible), which translated to “The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” on google translate.

Is Matthew 28:19 trying to communicate to specifically use those words, or is it communicating to specifically identify for which God they are baptizing in a world in which there were people that believed in many other gods?

Yes, the Church teaches that those specific words must be used or else the baptism is invalid. This is why the Church does not accept forms like, “In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier.”

“9). The Church has no right to change what Christ himself has instituted. Therefore, any Baptism is invalid when it does not contain the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity, with the distinct expression of the three Persons with their respective names” (A New Response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the Validity of Baptism, Msgr. Antonio Miralles)

Read further:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...oc_20080201_validity-baptism-miralles_en.html

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Thank heaven this is Evangelical Lutherans and not Catholics.

I thought nobody in Sweden went to church much anyway, so does it matter? I also don’t think God cares if we call him He, She, Father, or some gender neutral term like the word God, as long as we show love and respect, so I cannot imagine a church making a big deal out of it.

Since I’m pretty used to thinking of him as “God the Father” or “Father God” , not to limit God but just because that’s a good way of understanding God, especially if you’ve experienced the love of a human father, I don’t think I’d suddenly be changing my ways because some minister suggested it.

 

[Lemuel]

So they can’t say Heavenly Father, or our Father who art in Heaven?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I am not sure what the Aramaic pronouns imputed. I have a feeling there has been something added in the Aramaic-Koine Greek-Latin-English process.

Maybe we were better off back in the days when God’s people believed you should not pronounce the name of God

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I reckon maybe now it’s “Heavenly Parent” or “Our Parent who art in Heaven”.

No thank you.

 

[2towers]

That there is even a church still in Sweden is a bit of a miracle.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You’re building a straw man.

I’m not trying to misrepresent. I’m trying to understand the limits on the words being used and more specifically in this case how a requirement is adhered too (or not) when a different wording/language is used.

I do not speak Japanese

My understanding of Japanese is less than stellar. But I chose it as an example since some of the western words for God don’t really translate over that well. There’s kami/gami which is sometimes used, but that is often used in an animist sense in which everything has a spirit or there may be a spirit associated with something (you’ve probably heard “kami kaze” where “kaze” means wind). There’s also the word borrowed from Chinese Ten (天) which is sometimes used to speak of the Christian God. But it is also used to speak of other vague spiritual notions.

Best I can tell the situation was that a new God concept was being introduced and the closest words for approximating what was to be communicated were used and re-purposed. One might expect this when introducing Christianity to a culture that had been isolated from the rest of the world for so long. But when I think about that and the requirement that certain names be used there’s an apparent conflict.

That’s a conflict of language. I’ve wondered too about conflicts of culture in which the roles of men and women is not quite like how it is in the west and the relationship communicated with their words for “Father” and “mother” or “groom” and “bride” don’t have the same connotations.

“Chantoko to seirei to”

I’ll have to look it up. Just did a search and a lot of the videos coming back for me are 30+ minutes long. Will have to wait until I have more time to check them out. Hoping they have captions in Japanese too as the different words can have the same pronunciation but different meanings.

 

[SuperLuigi]

This has everything to do with PC culture and not with accurately representing God.