Labourers are striking all over the land
Politicians claim, “It’s all out of hand”
But if you stop and ask workers, the question “why?”
It will be plain that all they want
Is a fair piece of the pie
Millionaires and the political classes
Get richer by the day
All that we are asking,
Is that we get fairer pay
Padre
I went to print a poem inspired
But the printer cartridge had no ink
“How could this be?” I enquired
“I changed it recently, I think”
And so I had – both coloured and black
Filled them a month before
But it had run low despite the fact
That I hadn’t made copies by the score
“Is this a money spinner for big tech?
Surely it can’t all be used as of yet.”
And so I opened yet another pack
Rather costly to me regret.
Padre
I heard on the radio recently that the Church of England is considering ending the referencing of God as He. This apparently is in response to calls from within the denomination’s own clergy. Okay, as a trinitarian I have to first say that God the Son is indeed male. There is not way we can construe that Jesus was anything other than male: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.” Similarly, Jesus addresses the Father as “Father” (Luke 22:42, Luke 23:46) and refers to God as Father over one-hundred-fifty times. God was understood by Jesus’ Jewish audience as being “Father.” The Holy Spirit by virtue of the relationship and essence to and with the Trinity has always been considered male, despite some attempts to find feminine characteristics in the Spirit’s work. God in referring to God’s self, exclusively uses masculine terms in description, and even in most metaphors. Some might cite Matthew 23:37 as a metaphor that does not, or argued that the Spirit is the Wisdom personified in Proverbs 8 as “she” but these are theologically weak as “proof texts.”
If this move is only based on the theological argument that God is a sexless spiritual being, and that a gender-neutral term would be more appropriate, it would nonetheless remains inconsistent with the Bible’s terminology. If it is meant to capture the pluralism of Father, Son, and Spirit as “They,” it would equally fall foul of the essential unity of “the” Trinity (note the term is singular). What I suspect, however, is that the move is meant to jump on the modern “non-binary” bandwagon. Many institutions today wrongly believe that to be inclusive requires abandoning traditional linguistics. Would the removal of masculine pronouns for God actually lead to a flood of people who may presently feel isolated from the church to suddenly say, “Now that’s for me?” Don’t get me wrong, it might. But at what theological cost?
There is one other darker possibility here as well. The modern social trend to brand anything masculine as negative or “toxic.” One of the many reasons God is referred to in the masculine, however, is the functions of the Father. God is a sire, provider, and protector, all of which are traditionally male roles. While society may have changed in that regard it does not mean that an omnibenevolent God does not fill those roles (even if they are now also filled by women in our society [minus sire of course]). Nor does the attribution of God as “He” in the scripture diminish the linguistically traditional feminine attributes of being a nurturer or carer.
I have mused here, there may be arguments which I have not considered. What I am concerned with in the end is we humans trying to make God in our socially determined image rather than honouring Him for the image He Himself has presented.
Padre
Austerity’s still here
Though a decade has passed
Budgets are tight
And we can see the contrast
The roadways once level
Now are now potholed Swiss cheese
And there are more leaves on the ground
Than on summer-time trees
The road where I live is now covered with loam
And I sink ankle-deep
Whenever I leave home
Padre
When Dumpty on that wall did climb
(An action contrary the to structure’s design)
He created for H&S an incredible mess
He wasn’t even wearing a reflective vest
Ladder training as well – he had none
He should have had it before he’d begun
So Health and Safety found Humpty at fault
For his misfortune of hitting the asphalt
Padre
Christmas is over, a new year has come
So retailers are now stocking hot cross buns
You better hurry before it’s too late
For mince pies will be on offer
From April the Eight
For now stock up on creme eggs
And a bunny or two
For the calendar at Tesco
Follows a different reality to you
Padre
I heard an advert on the radio the other day selling bamboo fibre socks which are good for the environment. The message said that the socks were printed with the images of endangered animals and that you could purchase a pair with your favourite. The options included pandas, polar bears, and rhinos. Oh, and cows. Cows? I really do wonder if this is a way to sell socks by adding an animal that kids can relate to, or is it a political statement. Okay, I guess for vegans and the like cows are endangered since they are going to be eaten (or at least the steers). But, are cows really in the same league with rhinos and pandas in the endangered species stakes?
Padre
This is the Friday they call black
When shops roll their prices back
To the level of the month before
Claiming savings throughout the store
We aren’t supposed to remember
Last Tuesday’s price hike
They’ll tell you “”It’s an illusion
The prices are nothing alike.”
But don’t you worry about a thing
This “One time offer”
Will be repeated next spring
Padre
“Sorry to pass this on so late,
but I need you to this book translate.
Don’t feel you need to drop other tasks.
Just have it done for Thursday, is all I ask.
And, I hope that it’s okay with you,
I’ve made it part of your annual review.”
Padre
We live in times when graffiti’s rife
When even inking one’s own skin does not suffice
No surface blank can be left uncovered
When so-called artists even paint over each other
What is this obsession with leaving a visible mark?
Rather than for your great lasting achievements
Of which future generations will remark
Padre
Padre's Ramblings 