Archbishop of York tells General Synod that ‘Our Father’ has patriarchal connotations

The archbishop of York has suggested that opening words of the Lord’s Prayer, recited by Christians all over the world for 2,000 years, may be “problematic” because of their patriarchal association.

In his opening address to a meeting of the Church of England’s ruling body, the General Synod, Stephen Cottrell dwelt on the words “Our Father”, the start of the prayer based on Matthew 6:9–13 and Luke 11:2–4 in the New Testament.

“I know the word ‘father’ is problematic for those whose experience of earthly fathers has been destructive and abusive,and for all of us who have laboured rather too much from an oppressively patriarchal grip on life,” he said.

His comment – a brief aside in a speech that focused on the need for unity – will divide members of the C of E, a body whose differences on issues of sexuality, identity and equality have been highly visible for years.

After Cottrell’s speech, Canon Dr Chris Sugden, chair of the conservative Anglican Mainstream group, pointed out that in the Bible Jesus urged people to pray to “our father”.

He said: “Is the archbishop of York saying Jesus was wrong, or that Jesus was not pastorally aware? It seems to be emblematic of the approach of some church leaders to take their cues from culture rather than scripture.”

Rev Christina Rees, who campaigned for female bishops, said Cottrell had “put his finger on an issue that’s a really live issue for Christians and has been for many years”.

She added: “The big question is, do we really believe that God believes that male human beings bear his image more fully and accurately than women? The answer is absolutely not.”

In February, the C of E said it would consider whether to stop referring to God as “he”, after priests asked to be allowed to use gender-neutral terms instead.

It agreed to launch a commission on gendered language, saying “Christians have recognised since ancient times that God is neither male nor female, yet the variety of ways of addressing and describing God found in scripture has not always been reflected in our worship”.

He told members of the synod: “We remain stubbornly unreconciled, appear complacent about division, and often also appear all too ready to divide again […] We have got used to disunity. We think it’s normal when in fact, it is a disgrace, an affront to Christ and all he came to give us.”

One of the most divisive issues within the C of E, same-sex marriage, led to a decision earlier this year to allow clergy to offer services of blessings to gay and lesbian couples who have undergone a civil wedding.

The first blessings were expected this summer, after final approving of the wording of prayers by the synod meeting this weekend. But the presentation of the prayers, plus new rules on whether gay and lesbian clergy may marry their partners, and whether to lift the existing instruction that clergy in same sex relationships must be celibate, have been delayed until November. -

There you have it people - the end always justify the means

Funny.

Small matter....una go make am complex.....

......

You also have a problem with Jesus, His only begotten Son, who taught us this prayer then.

You can't bend Christianity to suit LGBTQAI2+.
Shame on you.

Organised Religion na for fools.

Westerhoffe:
You can't bend Christianity to suit LGBTQAI2+.
Shame on you.

Yes, he can. He is well aware that Christianity is merely a religion founded not on God's Truth and Law but rather on the many doctrines and traditions of men derived from the many interpretations and theories of men. He is simply trying to add his own interpretation in the way your many pastors and mogs regularly do.

Kobojunkie:
Yes, he can. He is well aware that Christianity is merely a religion founded not on God's Truth and Law but rather on the many doctrines and traditions of men derived from the many interpretations and theories of men. He is simply trying to add his own interpretation in the way your many pastors and mogs regularly do.

No he can't. When was the word first mentioned. Pls answer the question

delkuf:
No he can't. When was the word first mentioned. Pls answer the question

What are you talking about now?

Kobojunkie:
What are you talking about now?

am talking about the word Christianity. Because you always think Christianity is something one pastor from the 18 century started. So I ask again. When was the word Christianity first mentioned

delkuf:
■ am talking about the word Christianity. Because you always think Christianity is something one pastor from the 18 century started. So I ask again. When was the word Christianity first mentioned

You must be talking about yourself there as I simply have no idea why you wish to derail the thread with that nonsense about the word Christianity.

Yes, he can. He is well aware that Christianity is merely a religion founded not on God's Truth and Law but rather on the many doctrines and traditions of men derived from the many interpretations and theories of men. He is simply trying to add his own interpretation in the way your many pastors and mogs regularly do. undecided.

You this and ask you a simple question that when was Christianity first mention, and you trying to Dodge. I know your plan. You will just come on any thread that you know the op is saying things that will benefit people, distract that thread so that people will not get the message. By so you are doing your master bidding ( the devil)

Kobojunkie:
Yes, he can. He is well aware that Christianity is merely a religion founded not on God's Truth and Law but rather on the many doctrines and traditions of men derived from the many interpretations and theories of men. He is simply trying to add his own interpretation in the way your many pastors and mogs regularly do.

Not when you know the GOD you're serving.
When you take your Christianity as a religion, this is what your likes end up doing.
When you see Christianity as a Step, a way and lifestyle, none of these devilish entities can mislead you.

Westerhoffe:
■ Not when you know the GOD you're serving.
When you take your Christianity as a religion, this is what your likes end up doing.
When you see Christianity as a Step, a way and lifestyle, none of these devilish entities can mislead you.

You seem to think the man different from you when what he is written to have done here is precisely what you and others of the religion do regularly. If you read the article well, clearly he proclaims to know the God he is serving and he obviously lives his religions as his step, way and lifestyle hence the reason why he felt the need to stretch out the doctrines and traditions of his belief--- add interpretations -- in the way he has done.

You just want to condemn him because his interpretation is not exactly same as that you would opt for.

Kobojunkie:
You seem to think the man different from you when what he is written to have done here is precisely what you and others of the religion do regularly. If you read the article well, clearly he proclaims to know the God he is serving and he obviously lives his religions as his step, way and lifestyle hence the reason why he felt the need to stretch out the doctrines and traditions of his belief--- add interpretations -- in the way he has done.

Devilish you will always defend the lust of the devil your father.
Homosexuality and all sexual immorality will not be infused into Christianity.

Period.

Westerhoffe:

■ [b]Devilish you will always defend the lust of the devil your father.
■ Homosexuality and all sexual immorality will not be infused into Christianity.
Period.[/b]

You seem closer to the devil than I am since you claim to know of his lust as well.

2..Yet, every passing day, that very same continues to happen thanks to the foundation of the religion, a foundation built on the doctrines and traditions of men?

Kobojunkie:
You seem closer to the devil than I am since you claim to know of his lust as well.

2..Yet, every passing day, that very same continues to happen thanks to the foundation of the religion, a foundation built on the doctrines and traditions of men?

Get you behind me.