Goodbye Father Jeffrey. Hello, Sister Moon.

As we report, the Bishop of Rio Grande, Jeffrey Steenson, has today explained to the US bishops why he is to be received into the Roman Catholic Church. He leaves an Episcopal Church in disarray, led no longer by a 'house' but by a 'community' of bishops, with a songbook of praise to Mother Earth, Sister Moon and Brother Sun. Thank you BabyBlue for finding out what the bishops are singing in New Orleans and thus reminding us that this whole affair actually has very little to do with homosexuality. Read on to enjoy the words of the songs. (Update: here is the updated report in today's Online Times on the message of the US bishops.)

Mothering God,
you gave me birth
in the bright morning of this world.
Creator, source of every breath,
you are my rain, my wind, my sun.

Mothering Christ, you took my form,
offering me your food of light,
grain of life, and grape of love,
your very body for my peace.

Mothering Spirit,
nurturing one,
in arms of patience hold me close,
so that in faith I root and grow
until I flower, until I know.

And another one:

All creatures of our God, sing praise,
with thankful hearts your voices raise
O sing praises! Alleluia!
O Brother Sun with golden beam,
O Sister Moon with silver gleam!

Dear Mother Earth, who day by day
unfolds our blessings on our way
O sing praises! Alleluia!
The flow'rs and fruit that in you grow,
let them God's glory also show!

Hymnologists among you will of course recognise the similarity between the second hymn and All Creatures of our God and King, from original words by none other than Francis of Assissi in the 13th century. In fact, there is not a huge difference between this and William Draper's early 20th century translation that we are all familiar with. Yet to me it seems, on reading it, to have crossed a line somewhere.

Kendall Harmon has done a cost-benefit analysis of this innovative theological approach. Simon Sarmiento has also tried to make sense of the numbers leaving. You can follow the live debate at StandFirm as the US bishops complete this crucial meeting in New Orleans this evening. What puzzles me is, given the small numbers still attending The Episcopal Church, why are we giving them all this attention?

Comments

[Andy Jones]

Speaking as an evangelical minister who tends personally to be uncomfortable with non-traditional language when describing God (but recognises that everything we do in worship is an attempt to attain the unattainable), the words of this trinitarian hymn are a valuable experiment in worship.

'Mothering' is a verb, not a noun. It describes activity and suggests character rather than ascribing gender. Maybe a subtle point, and I suspect this will never make the Songs of praise Top 10 (unless it's got a really good tune!)

However, if we can't allow our poets to stretch us occasionally by wrestling with language, exploring biblical metaphor and using their own words (just as Watts, Newton, Cowper, Wesley, etc. did so brilliantly), we're probably going to have to go back to just singing scriptural texts and abandon hymns altogether.

[Mary Clara]

You seem to accept as fact that departing Bishop Steenson "...leaves an Episcopal Church in disarray, led no longer by a 'house' but by a 'community' of bishops, with a songbook of praise to Mother Earth, Sister Moon and Brother Sun."

It is first of all a flat lie, and a smear, to state that the hymns in question constitute praise to Earth, Moon and Sun. As other posters have already noted, there is nothing here to offend an orthodox believer steeped in historical Christianity. Somebody has just decided to crank up the heresy alarm generator and (yet again) try to create the impression that TEC has gone pagan. And you have bought it.

Steenson's perception (if it is indeed his) that the Episcopal Church is in disarray does not make it so. In fact, the all-but unanimous vote by the House of Bishops in adopting their statement at the close of the New Orleans meeting shows that TEC is holding together and maintaining good order despite its painful diversity of opinion and in the face of relentless efforts on the part of some very noisy and well-funded schismatics who wish it to be broken down and destroyed. The House of Bishops did their job, staying firmly within their constitutional and canonical limitations, clarifying as requested by the recent Primates' Meeting the official positions of TEC as determined by the General Convention. "Disarray" at present is more evident in the ranks of the schismatics, as can be seen by reading their blogs and the comments thereto. Bishop Steenson, for his part, simply wants a different kind of order, one which hopefully the Roman Catholic Church can provide.

You conclude: "What puzzles me is, given the small numbers still attending The Episcopal Church, why are we giving them all this attention?"

In the fantasies of the schismatics, TEC (somewhat like the capitalist state in Marxist doctrine) is doomed simply to wither away. In their thinking and their propaganda, it is already dying if not dead, its pews nearly empty. Because they themselves are leaving, they apparently assume everyone else will repudiate the body they regard as apostate, heretical, etc., or that God will somehow cause that body to dwindle away. But this is wishful thinking. Yes, some people have left or will leave over the issue of inclusiveness toward GLBTs, but others have come and will come into the Church for the same reason. Inclusiveness for us is rooted in our faith, and standing with and for our GLBT members and fellow citizens is not a capitulation to secular values but a Gospel witness. As such, it has the potential to strengthen and revivify the Church rather than weaken it. You have evidently bought the schismatics' line that our membership is rapidly dwindling and that our churches are as empty as most of those in the Church of England. This is simply not the case. Nor does the Global South's numbers game ("we outnumber you so you Northern folks no longer count") make us irrelevant.

As to "why are we giving them all this attention?" -- well, you are one of the "we". Why are you paying attention? I suggest that there are a couple of reasons for all the press coverage. One is that the schismatics have found it to be very much in their interest to stir up as much public alarm as possible over homosexuality in the Church (while also of course claiming that it's not really about sex!). They know that while many or most Christians have more or less come to terms with gender equality and women's ordination, homosexuality remains a deeply unresolved emotional issue with many. It makes an ideal platform on which to drum up hysteria and panic, playing on fears of damnation and moral and social disarray. It hits people in a very unconscious place and thus makes it possible to manipulate them (much in the same way that the Bush administration manipulates the US electorate through fear of terrorism). So their public relations machine has worked very hard to generate a steady flow of press releases designed get the attention of print and broadcast media. Reports on heresy, schism, sexual ethics, institutional crisis or breakdown, apostasy, etc., are like train wrecks, murders, scandals and kidnappings -- they sell papers. And as the papers sell, public perceptions get shaped in a way that suits the aims of the schismatics who want to create a pretext for breaking the Church and hijacking the Communion, remaking it as a strange amalgam of Roman-style authoritarianism and fundamentalist-evangelical theology.

Another reason this story is being reported on -- a good reason -- is that as Sr. Joan Chittister has recently noted, the Christian world is watching what happens in TEC and in the Anglican Communion because other churches are facing the same challenges in regard to sexuality. We are addressing them later than some but earlier than most, and if we handle the problem well it might help others in working it through, both theologically and institutionally.

[bls]

You folks are hilarious! You've now decided that some of the best-loved Christian saints are pagan heretics, I see.

This one really jumps the shark, I'm afraid....

[Taylor Marshall]

In Defense of Jeffrey Steenson:

http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2007/09/in-defense-of-bishop-jeffrey-steenson.html

[peterNW1]

The Lost Drachma:

"What woman with ten drachmas would not, if she lost one, light a lamp and sweep out the house and search thoroughly till she found it? And then, when she had found it, call together her friends and neighbours, saying to them, "Rejoice with me, I have found the drachma I lost." "(Luke 15:8-10)

The parable is remarkable because God -- usually personified as a king, father, landlord or shepherd -- is here personified as a poor housewife.

As a Catholic (Roman-, not Anglo-) I see nothing at all wrong in either of the hymn lyrics. And I recognised the second hymn as a paraphrase of the 'Canticle of the Sun'.

The new-age illustration (presumably chosen to damn the lyrics by association) is however decidedly pagan.

[Mattheus Mei]

I'm just wondering why more people aren't following the (soon to be former) Bishop in swimming the Tiber. Didn't Rome after the last big row within the Anglican Communion (over women’s ordination) approve of use of an Anglican-like rite within parishes that seceded? It just seems that "conservative" Anglicanism (in America) in and of itself is an oxymoron and they would be better served by looking to Rome rather than Africa and the "global south" which causes even more awkwardness within the wider communion over issues like diocesan territory, Episcopal sovereignty, property and on an individual level on the spirit of "welcomeness" from parish to parish.

[Alan Marsh]

It is worth reading Cantico del Sole as a corrective to the TEC corruption of St Francis' teaching:

Most High, all powerful, good Lord, Yours are the praises, the glory, the honour, and all blessing.

To You alone, Most High, do they belong, and no man is worthy to mention Your name.

Praise be You, my Lord, with all your creatures, especially Sir Brother Sun, Who is the day and
through whom you give us light.

And he is beautiful and radiant with great splendour, and bears a likeness of You, Most High One.

Praise be You, my Lord, through Sister Moon and the stars, in heaven you formed them clear and precious and beautiful.

Praised be You, my Lord, through Brother Wind, and through the air, cloudy and serene, and every kind of weather through which You give sustenance to Your creatures.

Praised be You, my Lord, through Sister Water, which is very useful and humble and precious and chaste.

Praised be You, my Lord, through Brother Fire, through whom you light the night and he is beautiful and playful and robust and strong.

Praised be You, my Lord, through Sister Mother Earth, who sustains us and governs us and who produces
varied fruits with colored flowers and herbs.

Praised be You, my Lord, through those who give pardon for Your love, and bear infirmity and tribulation.

Blessed are those who endure in peace for by You, Most High, they shall be crowned.

Praised be You, my Lord,
through our Sister Bodily Death,
from whom no living man can escape.

Woe to those who die in mortal sin. Blessed are those whom death will find in Your most holy will,
for the second death shall do them no harm.

Praise and bless my Lord, and give Him thanks and serve Him with great humility.

(Translated by Regis Armstrong OFM)

[John]

Stephen,
Sorry, but I think you're wilfully misreading the version Ruth posted. Yes, there's been a shift in who's being addressed, but there are two important things that are the same (and these are the things that seem to be getting people upset).

1) Earth (and other created things) is personified as Mother. Notice that the blessed Francis also personified Sun, Water and even Death. This personification is no stronger in the above version. And no stronger than occurs in many places in the Bible itself.

2) These personifications are, in both versions, being called on to worship God. The Canticle of Brother Sun is commonly translated using "through" rather than "for" ("Praise be You, my Lord, through Sister Moon
and the stars" and so forth), indicating at the very least that there is some ambiguity about what is meant (and most Franciscans seem to err on the "through" side in my experience - they're more likely to see the canticle as soliciting worship from these creatures, rather than merely giving thanks for them). Certainly, there's no grounds for saying that this is a radical departure from the Franciscan original. In any case, there is ample biblical and historical justification for calling on Creation to worship. The Psalms contain many examples of this language - hills, trees, mountains, streams, stars, the heavens and more are all called upon to worship or pictures as already worshipping.

Todd,
I agree with your assessment of the Trinitarian language or the first song, to this extent: it's not explicitly Nicene. However, to condemn the song for using "Christ" instead of "Son" is just silly (and similarly "God" rather than "Father", and "Spirit" than "Holy Spirit" - all these forms of address are very common). The song is clearly intended to address the three Persons of the orthodox Christian Godhead. Equally as clearly, it's intending to use non-traditional language in addressing them. However, I can see nothing in that language that isn't consistent with orthodox Christian faith - it cannot be rejected without rejecting portions of the Bible that use very similar imagery and language.

And, I have to say that Todd's argument from silence against the second hymn is weak at best - just because it doesn't say "Lord" at every possible place doesn't mean that the context isn't clear. The hymn starts (as posted) with "All creatures of our God, sing praise", and the rest should be read in that context. Doing otherwise is deliberately misunderstanding the intention.

What gets me irritated here isn't discussing whether these are good or bad hymns, or whether they truly represent a Franciscan original. The problem is people taking the least charitable possible interpretation of the words in order to justify condemning people as heretics. Surely, as Christians, we should be attempting to take the *most* charitable interpretation possible. I'd certainly not want to be condemned on the basis of songs I've sung in some churches in the past! Even Wesley wrote some complete tosh in his day, and much modern hymnody is tosh also.

pax et bonum

[Stephen M. Goodman]

Having read each of the responses to your post, I wonder if most of the respondents have actually read the original Umbrian or think that the redactions in the versions you cite here are not significant. St. Francis, in each stanza, begins "Praise to you My Lord for...". In this way he makes clear, as each of these versions do not, whom he is praising (the Lord). The linkage, so important to Francis, between the gift and the Giver is lost in these versions. This linkage is what separates "Il Cantico del Sole" from the New Age-ist variants shown here.
Pax et Bonum!

[Nigel]

Sorry Ruth, but "Brother Son", "Sister Moon" and "Mother Earth" are from St. Francis himself in the Canticle of the Creatures, along with many more creaturely siblings. The hymn you refer to is a nineteenth century work based on Francis, but it is in fact the modern innovation. What was sung in New Orleans was therefore in many ways closer to St. Francis than the version in our hymn books.

[Steve]

I'm a little surprised to read expressions such as 'the Rt Revd Steenson' in your piece in the Times. Assuming you know better (it should be Mr Steenson or Bishop Steenson or the Rt Revd Jeffrey Steenson - see the section of Crockford on 'How to Address the Clergy'), I suppose it is the work of a Times sub-editor who doesn't understand ecclesiastical titles.
(rg writes: yes it was a sub, I spotted it late this evening and tried to get it corrected. I'll get it done tomorrow if it hasn't been already. thanks though, ruth)

[Todd Granger]

Actually, while it might be described as trinitarian (in the Christian sense), the first hymn is not addressed to the persons of the Trinity; viz., the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is addressed instead to an inclusive language reduction of the trinitarian Name (and persons of the Holy Trinity) to God, Christ, and Spirit. To be sure, this construction is found in the New Testament (cf 2 Cor 13:14), but it is not Nicene trinitarianism. Were the text rightly to be trinitarian in the revealed and Nicene sense, it would have addressed our "Mothering Father", "Mothering Son", and "Mothering Spirit"; terms better for their paradoxical and nonreductionist language. The text as it stands says more by what has been left out; or better, by what has intentionally been excluded.

As to the second hymn, the revision of Draper's paraphrase (NOT translation) of St Francis' "Canticle of the Sun", I am inclined to agree with the first commenter. However, once again, I think that the line to which Ruth refers is the revision of "O praise Him! Alleluia!" into the rather bland and undirected exhortation, "O sing praises!", a revision obviously meant to exclude the use of the masculine personal pronoun "Him" to refer to God. The problem with this phrasing is that the command to "sing praises" includes no object for the praises, thus leading to hints of a sort of creepy self-reference on the part the exhorted creatures.

As to my distinguishing between paraphrase and translation of St Francis' Italian canticle, Draper himself cast the text in the direction of interceding with the various creatures to praise God, perhaps on the pattern of the canticle "Benedicite omnia opera", while St Francis' text actually addresses "My Lord" throughout.

A translation of the actual stanza of St Francis' text about Mother Earth reads:
"Be praised, my Lord, through our sister Mother Earth, who feeds us and rules us, and produces various fruits with colored flowers and herbs."

[S. Debreu]

Indeed, its semantics are nothing more than the much-beloved Benedicte.

Its pragmatics, however, are Aesopian.

[Christopher Johnson]

The Episcopal Church gets the attention that it does because it is what the secular American media wishes the Roman Catholic Church would become. Superficially, the two religions look alike with lots of hooked sticks and pointy hats floating around. And the conservative Catholics have actual cultural influence while nobody much cares what the Episcopalians think about anything. Hence the Episcopal coverage. They're not really covering the Episcopalians, they're trying to encourage the secular liberal American Catholics.

[Malcolm+]

I suppose in a blog usual standards of journalistic ethics do not apply - at least not in quite the same way.

Christ himself uses feminine imagery to describe Godhead, including both the old woman with the missing coins and (of all things) a hen.

There is nothing radical in any of this, and various earlier translations of St. Francis's hymn likewise render the line "Mother Earth."

Of course, if one's approach to theology is all about the subjugation of women, I could see how that would be a problem.

[Peter]

Makes me want to heave, but probably not heretical.

[Simon Sarmiento]

As you have kindly linked to my Church Times article, can I mention that it was written and printed before the most recent announcement from CANA of additional bishops and of additional congregations to be acquired by transfers from the Southern Cone.

[John]

I'm at a loss to discern your problem with the second hymn you post. The language is precisely the same as the source you quote, "All Creatures of our God and King" - calling on all created things to bless their Creator. Very much in the spirit of the blessed Francis.

The only difference, it seems to me, is in making explicit what the more archaic language might have obscured - that these created things are actually being addressed directly. But this is poetry, folks! No one is suggesting that "Mother Earth" is some spirit worthy of worship in its own right. Rather the reverse, in fact. To see some sort of "nature worship" in this hymn requires (it seems to me) both a reductionist literalism in the face of poetry and a blindness to what is actually written. What can be more Christian (and certainly more Franciscan) than calling all created things together to bless their Creator?

As for the first, I'm equally at a loss. (Actually, I'm completely baffled by the image you chose to place alongside the songs - there's nothing of "Mother Earth" in this one at all! It's all addressed explicitly to the three Persons of the Trinity.) Unless you object to the use of "mothering" to describe God - in which case you surely must take issue with portions of the Bible itself, which use this language. True, it's uncommon. But so is it uncommon in the Church. Being uncommon doesn't make it wrong.

pax et bonum