Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts

Sunday, 5 August 2018

God is Good For You


AIJAC and the Sydney Jewish Museum co-hosted the launch of Greg Sheridan’s new book, “God is Good For You”, for the Jewish community on Thursday, August 2. Sheridan, the foreign editor at The Australian, discussed the book with AIJAC’s Jeremy Jones, followed by a wide-ranging and engaging question-and-answer session covering a broad range of topics.






Friday, 6 July 2018

Acts of Faith: Readers weigh in on the gender of God


Dear Acts of Faith readers,

I asked on Tuesday, after writing about the Episcopal church's debate over whether to revise its prayer book, whether you think God has a gender, and what that gender means to you. So many of you responded with thoughtful perspectives. Here are just a few.

• "I am a Catholic priest....I think the reality is that God is beyond gender, but the traditional practice of referring to God as 'Father' and in masculine terms seems perfectly natural to many people and they don't even notice that there might be a different approach,based on reality. Recently a woman speaker here at our retreat center referred to the Holy Spirit as 'She,' and one person was upset by that and wrote a note to us saying the Holy Spirit is a 'He.' Not necessarily so. And properly, neither 'He' nor 'She' may be correct. But, being human, we have to use words." -- Rev. Tom Zelinski, Washington, Mich.

• "To me as a Trinitarian, an all-encompassing God who is all genders with a person who is male (Jesus Christ) and a person who is female (Holy Spirit) makes intellectual and spiritual sense, though I'm sure that would not pass doctrinal muster with others." -- Rev. Ruth E. Shaver, North Conway, N.H.

• "I'm an initiate in the Firefly House, a tradition of witchcraft and Wicca in Washington, D.C. The religion of my childhood, though, was conservative Judaism. One of the key reasons that I moved away from that faith community was because of the male-gendered terminology used in the synagogue for God in search of the balancing realities of the goddess.... My Pagan path has led me to a better understanding of the divine -- one that both transcends and includes gender -- and myself." -- David Dashifen Kees, Washington, D.C.

• "From a personal perspective, (and yes, I am male), 'we' do not own the right to make changes -- for whatever reason. 'We' did not write the book. I have done a fair amount of translation over the past 40 years, both secular and religious. Never did I take the liberty to change the text of the original document.... With the Bible, if we accept the idea of 'inbreathed' by God, we have to learn to live with the text, end of story. The question as to whether I feel comfortable with it, or whether society has changed - too bad, so sad. I will never have the right to make changes!" -- Rudy Schellekens, Muscatine, Iowa

• "I have never felt completely comfortable with the concept that there was not a female god figure in my religion, and I believe that is why most Catholics, including myself, embrace Mary, mother of Jesus, as our own Mother, and pray to her so fervently." -- Kate Taylor, Mount Olive, N.J.

• "This very issue popped up in a Bible study class I was teaching with first and second graders. The kids liked acting out stories from Genesis and Exodus. The only boy in the class pointed out that since he was a boy, he was the only one who could play the role of God.... My bold response to this was to change the subject. I had no idea where to go with the topic, and I didn't want to offend anyone. In conclusion, though, I see that pronouns matter. The kids had formed an idea of God based on masculine pronouns. If we want to change this, we'd better talk about it early in religious education." -- Linda Worden, Boise, Idaho

• "One pattern among many is taking away God's right to define marriage, gender, life, love, and even Himself....I have no problem with the fact that God has referred to Himself in the masculine gender for over 4,000 years. He is all-knowing and all-powerful and certainly has a reason for doing so. My point is: authority. Who am I to decide that it is time to change His gender?" -- Heather Peterson

Thanks as always for sharing your thoughts. I'm at julie.zauzmer@washpost.com.

Yours truly,
Julie Zauzmer, Religion Reporter

Saturday, 12 May 2018

... those quirky Quakers are at it again!





Quakers to ‘drop God’?


Friends featured in the national news last week
Quakers were in the national news last week with articles appearing in two leading newspapers stating that Friends in Britain were considering ‘dropping God’ from a newly revised Quaker faith & practice (Qf&p).
The first report in the Times, headlined ‘Quakers may cut out God in faith update’, began: ‘References to God could be reduced or removed from the Quakers’ main book of guidance as part of a “once in a generation” update to the faith’s teachings.’
This was followed two days later with an opinion piece by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, ‘The Quakers are right. We don’t need God’, in which he wrote: ‘The Quakers are clearly on to something. At their annual get-together this weekend they are reportedly thinking of dropping God from their “guidance to meetings”.’
The articles followed a press release issued on 29 April by Quakers in Britain. This, highlighting the forthcoming Yearly Meeting of Friends in London, did not mention removing any reference to God. It stated: ‘More than one thousand Quakers from across Britain are heading to London next week for Yearly Meeting. They may decide to re-write “Quaker Faith and Practice”… Each new generation of Quakers has revised the book. A new revision may help it speak to younger Quakers.’
Paul Parker, recording clerk, was interviewed by Justin Webb on the Today programme on 7 May. He said: ‘God is pretty important in religions but I do not think we are about to do away with God at all’. He explained that Friends have been asking ‘what is the right language to talk about religious experience today?’ and said Quakers use a number of terms to describe their spiritual experience. ‘We don’t try to impose any beliefs on people… you can only speak with integrity if you have experienced something yourself.’ He also stressed the importance of Quaker heritage.
The misleading headlines and articles produced a mixed reaction among British Friends and in Ireland some Friends expressed deep concern and hurt.
Harry Albright, an experienced journalist, ex-editor of the Friend and member of the Book of Discipline Revision Preparation Group, described the Simon Jenkins article as ‘utter nonsense. I don’t think those who identify as nontheist have that agenda. What is important is that as we have evolved as a Yearly Meeting, and nontheist Friends have been welcomed into the community, we need to express what they believe without lessening what other Friends believe.’
He explained: ‘I would be very surprised if we were presented with a revised book years down the line that had no mention of God, Jesus or any biblical quotations. What would not surprise me is to be presented with a Book of Discipline that presents a broader spectrum of belief than the current one does, and includes ideas that the current one does not, for example, on sustainability and modern means of communication.’
Friends attending Britain Yearly Meeting had a mixed reaction to the story. Lucy White, from Tottenham Meeting, told the Friend: ‘I think the writer might have got the wrong end of the stick because it wasn’t what we were going to discuss. If it generated some publicity, that wouldn’t be a bad thing.’
Alison Buckley-Jones, from Alford Meeting, told the Friend: ‘I was half encouraged because at least it put Quakers on a mainstream radar, but it gave the wrong impression that we were going to become a notionally spiritualistic organisation rather than a religious one.’
The article in the Guardian by Simon Jenkins had 5,358 shares across social media, and received 1,441 online comments below the article. Several Quakers responded. A Young Friend, Chris Venables, tweeted: ‘Great to see Yearly Meeting being written about – it’s wrong to think revising Qf&p is primarily about language though, it’s about embracing the complexity and challenges of the modern era, and opening ourselves up to new voices and sources of wisdom.’