Church of England considers gender-neutral pronouns

There are 10 replies in this Thread which has previously been viewed 1,038 times. The latest Post (February 15, 2023 at 1:10 PM) was by UK Man.

    According to The Guardian, the Church of England is considering whether to reconsider its exclusive use of masculine pronouns when referring to God. Naturally, the twitterscape is abuzz.

    Tomorrows Papers Today on Twitter
    “Wednesday's Mail: Now Even God Could Be Going Gender Neutral #TomorrowsPapersToday #DailyMail #Mail”
    mobile.twitter.com

    I must have been too late. The link took me to today’s Telegraph front page, with Jodie Comer “making a killing at the Gender Neutral Awards.”

    A different JC from the one being considered by the Church of England, I presume.

    The problem is that if Justin feels pressure from politicians, he should remind them saying that being blasphemous against the holy spirit is an unforgivable act as it says in the bible

    Quote from Rice

    I must have been too late. The link took me to today’s Telegraph front page, with Jodie Comer “making a killing at the Gender Neutral Awards.”

    A different JC from the one being considered by the Church of England, I presume.

    Yup, that's the front page: the complete article is underneath the Jodie Comer piece. Or read it on-line though I haven't sought out a link for that yet. TL:DR Welby says that he answers to God before politicians. Didn't end well for an earlier Archbishop of Canterbury, did it? (See Eliot's "Murder in the Cathedral")

    No, it indeed did not go well for an earlier Archbishop of Canterbury. This is another interesting topic, which goes well beyond the comparatively mild “gender neutral language” one to which I referred.

    This must be an extremely fraught time for churches and their leaders. All the gender issues as well as trying to (or failing to) take a stand on actual moral questions of lying, stealing, cheating, etc. which are becoming commonplace among government leaders, and thus among constituents, and thus among their children.

    I see this as a sad notice, It does not promote the further union with other Christian denominations, like Roman Catholic and Orthodox.

    I am curious to imagine which could be the opinion of Henry VIII if this option appeared in 1536.

    In the sense that Politics is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, (Wikipedia) church organisations are, in my opinion no different from the political parties that all seem to be beset by factionalism these days. Both the Democratic and Republican parties in the USA and the Conservative and Labour parties in the UK embrace a huge spread of opinions which, in a different environment might best be served by branching out into smaller, special interest groups. But with the battle lines between the parties so finely balanced, a group splitting from one party would give an instant majority to the other so huge amounts of energy that might be better spent in -say- governing the country? are given to appeasing opposing elements within the party structure.

    And so it is with the Anglican Church. Speaking in general terms, liberalisation of doctrine will particularly anger the African Church which, if I remember correctly, is now the largest contingent within the Anglican community. NOT liberalising doctrine will anger sections within the Americas and Dear Old Blighty is right in the middle with all the different factions on display. So the church tries to fudge the issues in order to appease the extremists in all directions and ends up pleasing nobody.