Posted on 04/25/2007 6:54:31 AM PDT by NYer
“WOW -- coming from RC tradition I thought I’d never return to the Rosary. But here it is and here SHE IS. Blessed be, Mairly.”
The “here” in this message, found on herchurch.org, is Ebenezer Lutheran Church in San Francisco. But the SHE is not the Mother of God. SHE is “God/dess.”
On Wednesdays at 7 p.m., Ebenezer opens its sanctuary for the “Christian Goddess Rosary.” The church says it offers “Goddess Rosary Beads” and that “prayers and suggested meditations will be on hand as well as incense, candles and bells.”
“The Goddess rosary is grounded in traditions of the Christian Church and the proclamation of the gospel which is a vision of release from bondage for a new creation,” says the church’s web site.
The Goddess Rosary page on herchurch.org says that though “God as Father plays an important role” in Christian tradition, its “exclusive emphasis... contributes to a limited understanding of God, an understanding that supports a domination structure that oppresses and subordinates women.” Jesus used “Abba” as a “revolutionary deconstruction of domination structures of his day in both religious and social institutions.” The modern task is to do the same with “Goddess.”
Ebenezer, however, does not want to eradicate masculine images of God but to balance them with feminine images to “confront the biblical texts, products of their day and cultures, for the blatant patriarchal biases and misogynist attitudes.” And herchurch.org cites three Catholic theologians in support this confrontation: Harvard’s Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Fordham University’s Sister Elizabeth Johnson, and Rosemary Radford Ruether (who will lecture students in the course, “The History of God in Feminist Theological Discourse,” at LA’s Mount St. Mary’s College this spring.) Ruether calls the exclusive use of male imagery for God “idolatry.”
Herchurch.org offers a “Hail Goddess” prayer by feminist theologian Carol Christ, formerly of Harvard Divinity School but now director of the Ariadne Institute for Myth and Ritual in Greece. The prayer goes: “Hail Goddess full of grace. Blessed are you and blessed are all the fruits of your womb. For you are the MOTHER of us all. Hear us now and in all our needs. O blessed be, O blessed be. Amen.”
“I felt that I had stepped into a Presence, like a mother’s warm embrace,” wrote Dalyn Cook of Ebenezer’s Goddess Rosary. “The attendees were few in number, yet there was a sense of fullness in this welcoming space. I inhaled deeply the earthy scent of the incense, sending up delicate tendrils of smoke which curled around the altar in a nimbus visible against the warm rays of the evening sun filtering through the stained-glass windows....
“From the basket of rosaries, I took into my hand a strand of vibrantly-colored beads with a silver goddess icon in place of the traditional cross. The goddesses came in a variety of shapes and sizes, celebrating the beauty of the feminine form; I found reflections of my own figure in the full hips and Rubenesque curves of my goddess,” Cook wrote.
Not at all.
But LaHaye and Jenkins' research into the origins of such things indicates that the activity of praying to those departed from this life
That historical fact is not particularly affirming to Bible Believing Christians.
Many of us do not believe that custom, !!!!TRADITION!!!! and organizational politics are wonderful mandates for spiritual behavior.
And there are sooooo many Scriptures indicating God's hostility toward ANYTHING TO DO with pagan practices . . . it's more than a little troubling.
1st Samuel 28 gives a pretty good summation of what happens when one appeals to the dead saints for assistance.
Saints are never dead. They are fully alive with Christ Jesus for all eternity. That is the whole essence of Christian belief—”life on high with Christ Jesus.”
1st Samuel 28 gives a pretty good summation of what happens when one appeals to the dead saints for assistance.
= = =
Indeed. I’d forgotten about that one.
Thx
The Holy Scriptures make it quite clear (through the use of the pronoun “He”, etc.) that God is male. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. We can therefore state with great confidence than God has male genitalia (or at least the spiritual equivalent thereof), both an X and a Y chromosome, and so forth.
Semantics don’t hide the fact that Scripture has a number of Scriptures indicating that praying to those passed from this life is NOT God’s pleasure.
Do NOT insult me, lib. I’ve been a Christian for 38 years. I know who I am in Christ. I’m just not a catholic! Sorry.
Mostly the warned are quick to take offense at the messenger, just as always has been the case
Exactly.
Rumor has it that the economy of salvation was mysteriously but profoundly altered a few years after Saul went to the necromancer of Endor to get her to COMPEL Samuel up from Sheol, the pit. Something about a lamb who was victim and priest and death being trampled down by death.
Consequently we have a different situation, in terms of the heilsgeschichte, and an appeal to a saint among the blessed rather than a necromancer's conjuring the shade of a Pre-Christ, pre-resurrection judge from the pit.
Oh wait, I guess I should go to my Bible before I say any more, since we all know Catholics don't know their Scripture.
IN any event, if I weren't still wondering if we've disposed of Lazarus, Dives, and the great gulf, I'd suggest that the differences are so great that the comparison of me on my knees in Church or at home with the witch of Endor is maybe just a tad forced. (I'm WAY better looking, for one thing.)
Actions speak louder than words. The repetition of “Magiscsterical” is enough to show me that the gratuitous inflicting of rhetorical pain is higher on the Protestant list than looking for common ground, and mockery stronger and more attractive than reason or comity.
Okay, let's see 'em. But first, how we doin' on the great gulf fixed? It may be mere semantics to you but you've failed to show it. You've got a gulf between t2wo sets of dead people and you wnat it to be between the living and the dead. Just because there's a gulf somewhere doesn't mean it's where you claim it is. Is "semantics" what you say when your argument is shot down in flames? YOU guys put up Lazarus and Samuel, we show why we disagreee, you start talking "semantics' and lots of other verses you have in your locker back home. That's okay for street fights, but it's not really good for brothers looking at doctrinal questions.
But you’ve again shifted from the Christian practice of asking those alive in Christ to pray for us to the pagan practice of actually praying to the dead (ancestral worship).
If you keep the two concepts separate, then in is clear that the Christian practice affirms Christ’s victory over death.
Denying that those who pass from this life can remain alive in Christ denies that central belief.
True. True.
Are we talking about Lazarus and Dives or what here? YOU brought it up. YOU said it proved your point. Is your argument, "RCs extrapolate so I'm going to say that a bridge over HERE is definite Biblical PROOF that GOD also put a bridge over THERE."
Of course, I've been suggesting for a while now that "proof" from Scripture is an almost infinitely elastic concept. I did't expect someone who calls himself Bible-believing but then argues that " a gulf here over which communication CAN happen" means "a gulf there over which communication can NOT happen" would be providing evidence for that point.
Dead as in separated from their physical bodies until the resurrection.
Am very sorry that’s the feeling responded with.
I have noted that every denomination has their magicsterical and that similar hazards accrue to the Proty versions.
I have also noted that age etc. tends to worsen the effects and that THAT is a big reason the RC version of a magicsterical has so many deeply entrenched hazards associated with it.
It is a useful shorthand, for me. Folks can treat it as a personal assault if they are of that bent. Proties are expected to have thick skins but not RC’s, it seems.
Magicsterical is a lot shorter than—”the associated ecclesiastical body of leading theological intellectuals and leaders in a particular denomination.”
And, yes, I do believe that ANY of them are highly likely, in any denomination or congregation of any serious age at all—ANY of them are highly likely to have magical assumptions, presumptions, inferences, extrapolations, customs, behaviors as well as hysterical assumptions, presumptions, inferences, extrapolations, customs and behaviors. I’ve seen it in small house churches as well as international denominations.
That is the nature of our human tendencies. That is the nature of IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP sensibilities and biases. It just so happens that the older and larger groups tend to be worse at it.
It’s far, far, far more a human issue than a denominational or RC issue. The RC’s just happen, from my perspective, to have the oldest, largest and worst example of such pontifical leading bodies.
However, I recognize the knee jerk tendency to be offended. That also is pretty human. I don’t know why it seems to be more intense, more common and more instant amongst the RC’s hereon than amongst all the other Christian groups.
Usually, when I disagree with a label or an assessment—I may pontificate—even shrilly—for the benefit of others. But at some point, it’s just quickly a non-issue. It’s the other person’s perspective. They are entitled to their perspective. It does NOT mean I have to feel one-down; insulted; maligned or demeaned REGARDLESS of the other person’s motive. It’s just information. If it’s WRONG information from my perspective, no big deal.
I may occasionally act/respond differently as I’m human. But generally, I think that fits.
AMEN! Exactly right. To presume those in heaven can, need or even want to intercede for us on earth is idolatry. More hocus pocus. Not much different than any errant spiritualism.
Those saints in heaven are joyously preoccupied with glorifying God. Our job is to do the same.
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" -- 1 Timothy 2:5
There just aren't many verses in Scripture more clear than this. We ignore it at our peril.
I dealt with that gulf issue to my satisfaction when I talked about RC’s being very extreme examples of inferring, extrapolating, assuming all kinds of LONG held traditions, customs, doctrines [e.g. 99.9% of the Mariology] based on very tenuous inferences from tiny bits of Scripture here and there.
I consider it MUCH MORE PLAUSIBLE to infer that the Scriptural mentions of the gulf . . . and the tone and attitude of God in discussing or presenting them . . . that God’s attitude is that He expects us to abide by HIS sensibilities about such a gulf. That we are to live our lives here essentially divorced from those who’ve gone before. THE ONLY ETERNAL BEINGS GOD SEEMS TO PREFER US TO HAVE TO DO WITH ARE THE FATHER, SON AND SPIRIT and such angels as He may on occasion send our way. Seeking after other spirits; departed saints etc. for help or aid or ANY other thing seems to us to be clearly fronwed upon, AT BEST.
I thought all that was clearer. Sorry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.