After hearing today's readings from scripture, I was a bit surprised at the direction taken in his sermon by the rector today. He started with the mystery of the Trinity, but he only compounded the mystery by giving a lengthy pitch for something that reminded me of Mary Daly's version of things (see previous post). One thing he said was that he loved the idea of the "Christa" the female on the cross,
and that he saw in our Trinity window's central panel,
an ambiguous Christ that could be either male or female.
Er, excuse me Fr. Foss, but I think "she" needs a shave.
If all this is much ado about nothing, and we cannot use images to imagine the Godhead, then why did it take 22 minutes to say just that? And why would he slip in a little "she" when talking about God later in the sermon? Perhaps he hoped to show our visitors from the Winthrop Chamber Singers how thoroughly enlightened we are at ECOOS.
My guess is that it was done just to stir up the curmudgeons in the congo.
And what was that he said about Jesus breaking "every" law? I think I can count 10 that He kept.
Fortunately, after the sermon, everyone stands and says the Nicene Creed with all of its wonderfully patristic words. I was glad to say the creed today with my fingers uncrossed, respecting the faith handed down to us by our ancestors, the apostles, martyrs, and saints, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
After the service, I had to return to the sanctuary. As I examined the Trinity window, looking for the divine feminine, a shadowy figure came up from behind. Yes, it was Deep Pew "itself."
"What do you think," I asked.
"Looks like a girl I used to date in college," Deep Pew replied.
I laughed, turned, but Pew had vanished into the now empty sanctuary.
There are times when you have to laugh to keep from crying. Crying because of the gender subversion being fed to us simple pew sitters. For what reason? To what end? Laughing because you understand the aims, and the foolishness of it all.
Of course gender subversion is part of the residual contamination from the "Feminist Theology" of the seventies and its ongoing struggle to eliminate the masculine.
In "The Christa: Symbolizing My Humanity and My Pain" by Julie Clague, we hear the usual attacks on the masculine in trying to describe these artistic approaches to revisionist Christology:
"Since the mid-1970s, some artists have portrayed Jesus Christ in female form (sometimes referred to as the ‘Christa’). The depiction of a female Christ crucified is a particularly controversial representation that challenges theological orthodoxies and upsets the gender symbolism ingrained upon the Christian cross. The controversy and ecclesiastical censure that such works often provoke indicates the emotive power of gender subversion. This study provides a detailed account of five images of the female-Christ form in art, considers their function as theological symbols, and assesses their contribution to feminist theology. It will be suggested that the Christa offers a subversive feminist strategy of representation. And—while such representations do not remove the unanswered theological difficulties associated with divine suffering, the problem of evil and the mystery of salvation—the graphic portrayal of female suffering powerfully exposes the reality of the cross as a site of patriarchal violence."
Feminist Theology, Vol. 14, No. 1, 83-108 (2005)
So, I left today smiling, having learned that there is no male, no female, no sin, no Hell, and that all is one and one is all.
"Reality is one, or Ultimate Reality is One, or Reality is ultimately One."(Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on the related language of science and religion in a speech to the National Press Club on 12/16/2008)
Just another brainwashed pewster, U.P.