Women's Eucharist (priest, rituals, church, pagan, spiritual)

[lunamoth]

Oh dear, those uppity women.

I think the feminization of the liturgy is a radical way of counter-acting the misogyny of the traditional church.

Just like many women today want to distance themselves from the radical women's movement (hairy legs and armpits! no bras! no shirts!) even though they have many more opportunities now than they would have without that 'distasteful' movement.

To effect change, or in this case to counter-balance something that was never needed to be part of the theology of Christianity, one has to over-shoot and create a stir, break up the boundaries that exist so new ones can be formed.

In Her peace,
Laurie

[Storm]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Oh dear, those uppity women.

I think the feminization of the liturgy is a radical way of counter-acting the misogyny of the traditional church.

Just like many women today want to distance themselves from the radical women's movement (hairy legs and armpits! no bras! no shirts!) even though they have many more opportunities now than they would have without that 'distasteful' movement.

To effect change, or in this case to counter-balance something that was never needed to be part of the theology of Christianity, one has to over-shoot and create a stir, break up the boundaries that exist so new ones can be formed.

In Her peace,
Laurie

I agree in principle, Luna, but I dislike the theft (imo) of neopagan practices - "blessed be" being the most glaring example. Making Christianity more hospitable to women is all well and good, but surely it can be done without plagiarism.

EDIT: This is a bad post. I didn't express myself well at all. Please see my next post before responding.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Storm

I agree in principle, Luna, but I dislike the theft (imo) of neopagan practices - "blessed be" being the most glaring example. Making Christianity more hospitable to women is all well and good, but surely it can be done without plagiarism.

I don't see it as theft but as sharing and honoring connections between religions. It reminds me of the Celtic Christianity where druidism was woven ito the local flavor of Christianity. To me, incorporating rituals or symbols from other religions can act to unify us, although I can see traditionalists being upset over it. I like and value tradition, but not when it creates walls and hard feelings between myself and others.

[Storm]

That's fair enough, Luna. Honestly, the phrasing of my last post was unfortunately hypocritical, so allow me to attempt to rectify it.

With the bias of the linked article duly noted, the rites described had nothing to do with Christianity except the name "Christ." It was just Dianic Wicca with "Christ" crudely inserted. IMO, that does a disservice to both faiths.

1) Christ is an inarguably male deity, if one believes He was historically real (as Christians do), so that's a slap in the face to the Dianics. Also, it seems that the creators of this "feminized Christianity" gave no acknowledgement to the Wiccan sources. They just lifted the Women's Mysteries of Wicca and shoved in a male deity. Not cool.

2) By their wholesale plagiary of neopaganism, the authors of the rituals completely dismissed as inadequate centuries of beautiful Christian tradition. They could have built a Christian liturgy around Mother Mary, or the sexless Holy Spirit, or Christ's own radical-for-the-time acceptance of women. They could have gone back to the Gnostics and focused on the Goddess Sophia or Mary Magdalene (as Christ's favored disciple, not the reformed whore of popular understanding). They could have blended Wiccan and Christian ritual. They didn't.

In short, it isn't what they did, but how they did it that strikes me as inappropriate. A little scholarship and creativity could have honored both paths. This does the opposite.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Storm

That's fair enough, Luna. Honestly, the phrasing of my last post was unfortunately hypocritical, so allow me to attempt to rectify it.

With the bias of the linked article duly noted, the rites described had nothing to do with Christianity except the name "Christ." It was just Dianic Wicca with "Christ" crudely inserted. IMO, that does a disservice to both faiths.

I can agree with that.

1) Christ is an inarguably male deity, if one believes He was historically real (as Christians do), so that's a slap in the face to the Dianics. Also, it seems that the creators of this "feminized Christianity" gave no acknowledgement to the Wiccan sources. They just lifted the Women's Mysteries of Wicca and shoved in a male deity. Not cool.

Jesus was inarguably male, but as he was also fully God He was also beyond gender. In Christ there is no male or female. Re: giving no acknowledgment, if they didn't then it was not academically proper or culturally polite.

2) By their wholesale plagiary of neopaganism, the authors of the rituals completely dismissed as inadequate centuries of beautiful Christian tradition. They could have built a Christian liturgy around Mother Mary, or the sexless Holy Spirit, or Christ's own radical-for-the-time acceptance of women. They could have gone back to the Gnostics and focused on the Goddess Sophia or Mary Magdalene (as Christ's favored disciple, not the reformed whore of popular understanding). They could have blended Wiccan and Christian ritual. They didn't.

Agreed. It would not be a service to my tastes, and I agree that the traditional Christian faith has deep untapped resources for the balancing of gender in our theology. But again, it may not have been so much intentional plagarism as it was just one or a few persons' connecting one thing they embraced with another. No need to assign nefarious motives.

Aside: I agree Mary Magdeline would be a great icon for Christian women, but 'going back to the gnostics' would not be a great idea, at least not to the gnostics who rejected the Creator God and thought of our material bodies as evil. 2 c

In short, it isn't what they did, but how they did it that strikes me as inappropriate. A little scholarship and creativity could have honored both paths. This does the opposite.

Agreed. It was tacky. Could have been done better. But, this is old news, the liturgy apparently has been pulled from the website, it was never advocated as a replacement for anything, and the article is polemic to begin with. I think our new Primate's use of Mother Jesus was inspiring and beautiful, hopefully a sign of where we are headed.

[spiritually inclined]

It is rather neo-pagan, but religions have always stolen fom and influenced one another. In an increasingly pluralistic society, that's going to happen.

James

[Storm]

You're right, there's no need to assume it was plagiarism. And the article was definitely (outdated) polemic. Still, I was rather disgruntled. I feel better now that I've gotten it off me chest, though.

[sojourner]

Even El of the Bible was taken from an earlier Assyrian source...and no mention made of the "borrowng."

It is our own myopic vision that sees one religion as "different" from another. We all speak the same truth, all venerate the same Source, just in different clothing.

What's upsetting is when the "spin" we've put on the truth is spun in a new direction.

As cultures diverge, it is probable that our religious differences will become less and less.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Storm

You're right, there's no need to assume it was plagiarism. And the article was definitely (outdated) polemic. Still, I was rather disgruntled. I feel better now that I've gotten it off me chest, though.

That is very understandable.