Hi Tony, Yeah so the +PB ECUSA doesn't get an invite to Sydney. It would be a bit carnal of me to muse that she might do a Catherine Tate style "Am I bovvered" homily. But I don't believe she would ever have got an invite anyway.

I wonder what the non-christians of Sydney think of all this?

Hello

Yes, I read the transcript that I'd failed to discover before last night :-) and still couldn't really see much problem with it.

I don't really understand the problem that people have theologically with this type of representation, although I realise that some might think it impolitic to use the terminology at this point of the TEC journey, when PB-elect has made noises for reconciliation.

Anyway, even mentioning the politics of it all, I still really really struggle to understand how this comment has been reacted to so strongly.  On this note I looked at another forum to try and catch a thread of an argument and I think that 3GR had a point on AM to say that theologically it is incorrect as we are children of our heavenly Father, not Jesus.

Whilst I agree with this, I don't think that is the point that is being made in the whole sermon.  The terminology is not one which is defined by human relationships, otherwise we might not be able to call Jesus both brother and lover.

All words are given a new meaning when attributed to God and, although I need to think about this a bit more, I suggest that is the same for Jesus.  What do we mean to say that Jesus is human?  I said before that we can say more about what we don't mean than what we do mean.

In this way we can say that when we call Jesus 'mother', we don't mean that he is our mother in a human sense, we don't mean that he is female, but we might mean, and this is +PB Katherine's point, I think, that in a very real sense Jesus 'birthed' something new with what was done on the cross. A new creation, a new kingdom on earth.

Of course to see the cross as a place of new creation in an active sense, a breaking of institutionalised sin and a place that brings freedom from sin - not just the consequences of sin - is not only striking at the heart of reactions regarding iconic imagery, but at the heart of atonement theology - perhaps this is more the issue.

love Jody

Thanks Stephen. I found a definite difference between the AM copy of the homily and the Episcopal News service version. I based my earlier post on the AM version because I hadn't spottted the Fulcrum link to the Episcopal version. The Episcopal version does put things more into context for me and I now see less of a problem, if any. I was thinking more of tact issues than theological issues. Lesson - Karen, check your source's provenance.

I do think that the feminine aspects of God are a worthy subject for discussion. I think this continual and insidious linking of the subject with pagan priestesses should not go unchallenged. Whether women are in the laity or in the priesthood the kind of spin placed on any comment about God's feminine aspect, or in fact downright denial, helps none of us who are women.

I know the difference between Yahweh and pagan practice. I find the constant niggling by some, that somehow as a woman, I just want to prance around an altar in a sort of orgiastic, primal dance, no doubt dripping with blood, deeply disturbing. What kind of minds think this stuff up. It's a long way from the Morning Worship I would have in mind if I was a vicar.

On a different note I mentioned Leonard Nimoy's interest in this perspective. I've done some research on Amazon.co.uk and have found that he did write a book, as opposed to a documentary, on the femininity of God from a Kabbala perspective, which is why he upset people within Judaism. The book is called Shekina and it looks at femininity in Old Testament Mythology. The Amazon synopsis (hardly an authority I know) says that according to Kabbala, evil came into the world once God became separate from the Shekhina, the deity's feminine counterpart. Please folks don't jump on me for mentioning Kabbala, I'm just trying to round off what I said on a post below.

Simon Cawdell writes,"My only thought "Is that it?!" Elaborate please.

User 569 wrote, "Karen, I'm quite surprised by your reaction. I thought what +PB Katherine said was a very touching, striking and properly theological reflection on the mysterious work of Christ as the labour of the bloody cross, bringing a new creation to birth. Admittedly, it's not penal substitution... And if Julian of Norwich or (as Jody says) Matt. 23.37b..."

But why use the mother image? When Jesus said those words he was not claiming to be a mother but as one who wanted to protect those who were his people in much the same way that a hen does her chicks. This and other passages as in Isaiah 49:15 or 66:13 do not tell us anything ontologically about God or about Jesus. I cannot see that we have grounds or license to refer to Jesus as Mother.

A slightly fuller version may be found at http://episcopalchurch.org/3577_76300_ENG_HTM.htm

Does that help?

Hi

I couldn't find the link from AM either, only to the 'times' piece.

both Tony and Karen seem to have read the full transcript???  Could either of you give a link?

love Jody