One of the best things someone said to me when I became Orthodox was, 'The sacraments aren't magic.'
That's worth bearing in mind, particularly in Christian traditions that put great store on things being done 'properly' or in a particular way.
It doesn't mean that we should be slapdash though - banana milkshake and Dorritos - Vaseline instead of chrism oil - unless Vaseline was the only material available, perhaps. They might be a rubric for that ... .
But neither does it mean that people are going to Hell because they don't observe this, that or the other practice.
All that said, there does seem to be some scriptural warrant for dire consequences when people get things wrong - Nabab and Abihu offered 'strange fire before the LORD' - Leviticus 10. Poor old Uzzah copped for it when he tried to 'steady the Ark' - 2 Samuel 6.
In St Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians we read about those who 'eat and drink judgement on themselves' for approaching communion in an 'unworthy manner' - although this seems to involve greed and discriminatory behaviour rather than not observing particular rubrics or rituals.
However we understand those verses and examples, the point is that these are things that should be taken seriously and not messed around with. That doesn't mean that we have to use King James Version style English or stand in a particular way or perform particular gestures otherwise we will be thrown into the Lake of Fire.
Heck, my own adopted Christian Tradition can be positively obsessive about particular details, crossing oneself in the right way, observing this, that or the other rubric.
But none but completely fanatical liturgical obsessives would claim that you are going to Hell unless you do this, that or the other 'correctly'.
You might get told off by the ya-yas and babushkas though.
I guess you mean not helpful for the people attending. I've always understood ecclesiastical reconciliation in the context of christian unity, and the extent to which this does (or doesn't) demonstrate God's love to the world.
The different churches have very different ideas about ecclesiology, the Sacraments, and so on, and sometimes about God Himself. When you're not sure if you're definitely receiving the Body and Blood of Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist, and/or if someone really is a priest or bishop in Apostolic Succession, and so on, that's kind of important. I think that interfaith relationships, and churches working together on common-ground interests, are better than pretending these differences aren't there.
One of the best things someone said to me when I became Orthodox was, 'The sacraments aren't magic.'
I suppose it depends on how you define "magic." I'd definitely say supernatural (and I know you would too ). More magical than any Earthly or merely magic magic... The Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time...
A significant number of people suffer from OCD, including me. Why is it a bad thing if we refrain from freaking them out by taking liberties with our instructions?
Off for gosh sakes.
Look, nobody is saying GOD says to worry about these details. We are saying that WE, as ordinary fragile and fallible humans, worry about these details, and that simple kindness to the rest of humanity should prevent people from playing games with the instructions we were given.
...Why demand that the Christian church must act from a position of utmost strength and confidence at all times? Is there no room for those of us who have midnight fears, or who were brought up by perfectionists and can't shake harm done to us as children?
Pastoral concerns are valid. In some cases, they're almost everything. And we have to take people as we find them, not as we think they ought to be.
...But there are quite a few divine promises connected to baptism, and the concern is that if you get far enough away from the form we were told to follow, at what point does it cease to be a baptism in God's eyes? Because at that point, you can't count on the promises...
Can you see why it might not have been obvious to some us that what you're talking about is a concern for your own well-being, and a pastoral concern for the well-being of others?
One of the best things someone said to me when I became Orthodox was, 'The sacraments aren't magic.'
I suppose it depends on how you define "magic." I'd definitely say supernatural (and I know you would too ). More magical than any Earthly or merely magic magic... The Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time...
I saw "The Land Before Time." There were... adolescent dinosaurs.
@ChastMastr, I would draw a distinction between something 'supernatural' or 'supranatural' in Christian terms and 'magic', which, it seems to me, is all about manipulation and seeking one's own ends by apparently supernatural means.
I remember the highly 'Scholastic' RC Shipmate, InGoB arguing that the Mass was magic and the RCC performed the real and genuine magic and that all other forms were approximations or counterfeits.
@ChastMastr, I would draw a distinction between something 'supernatural' or 'supranatural' in Christian terms and 'magic', which, it seems to me, is all about manipulation and seeking one's own ends by apparently supernatural means.
I think the words can be used in both ways. I mean if someone says they found (say) a magic tree, or a bag of magic beans, or the like, they don't mean the sense of manipulation and such--it just is. Magical creatures, etc. But I do know what you mean about the sense of manipulation meaning as well.
Charles Williams thought that "arch-natural" was a good word to use. In Humphrey Carpenter's The Inklings, quoted here:
He had never fully accepted the conventional distinction between natural and supernatural, or ‘Arch-natural’ as he preferred to call it; and as the years passed he came to feel that no barrier really existed between the two states, and that the supernatural was constantly present, requiring only extra awareness from the beholder to make it visible. (Carpenter, 85)
I think I believe that as well. I really need to re-read my Williams as well as my Lewis. I need a refresher.
Look, nobody is saying GOD says to worry about these details. We are saying that WE, as ordinary fragile and fallible humans, worry about these details, and that simple kindness to the rest of humanity should prevent people from playing games with the instructions we were given.
@Enoch implied that God might care about the details - otherwise what's all the business about spiritual health or eternal destiny about?
I can identify with what @Lamb Chopped said about how discovering that some self-important reverend chose to pronounce the wrong words over one instead of the words Christians were given to use, might give someone a very bad night. One might hope that God might not sweat the small stuff, but plenty of people do.
What I was really getting at, though, is what either ignoring scripture and tradition or deciding you don't like them and so are going to go against them, betokens about a minister's inner attitude towards the God he or she claims to serve and represent. It is the assumption that so many people have when it comes to anything theological, they know better than God. If they don't understand something, or don't like it, it must be wrong. That doesn't do a great deal for a lay person's spiritual capacity for growth. It is both lethal and dangerous for those in ministry.
Look, nobody is saying GOD says to worry about these details. We are saying that WE, as ordinary fragile and fallible humans, worry about these details, and that simple kindness to the rest of humanity should prevent people from playing games with the instructions we were given.
@Enoch implied that God might care about the details - otherwise what's all the business about spiritual health or eternal destiny about?
I can identify with what @Lamb Chopped said about how discovering that some self-important reverend chose to pronounce the wrong words over one instead of the words Christians were given to use, might give someone a very bad night. One might hope that God might not sweat the small stuff, but plenty of people do.
What I was really getting at, though, is what either ignoring scripture and tradition or deciding you don't like them and so are going to go against them, betokens about a minister's inner attitude towards the God he or she claims to serve and represent. It is the assumption that so many people have when it comes to anything theological, they know better than God. If they don't understand something, or don't like it, it must be wrong. That doesn't do a great deal for a lay person's spiritual capacity for growth. It is both lethal and dangerous for those in ministry.
I very much doubt if many people "think they know better than God".
I think many people feel that the ancient Scriptures and traditions no longer communicate the underlying concepts quite as well in a milieu far removed from those from which they arose, and they need reinterpreting for a moder age - not because they "know better than God" but in order to better understand what God is actually saying.
Now, you may be of the opinion that their endeavour is mistaken, but do you have to assume the worst of people in this way? Why not at least assume until proven otherwise that they're well intentioned , rather than throwing this "you think you know better than God!" accusation at them? Otherwise, frankly, from my position as one of those terrible people who can't just swallow whatever tradition or Scripture throws at them, the "just do as we were told" faction seems every bit as arrogant as you are painting the explorers and reinterpreters.
Once again I get the impression some people would sooner people like me for whom a lot of conventional Christianity means diddly-squat would just feck off into atheism than try to make this faith actually work.
Look, nobody is saying GOD says to worry about these details. We are saying that WE, as ordinary fragile and fallible humans, worry about these details, and that simple kindness to the rest of humanity should prevent people from playing games with the instructions we were given.
@Enoch implied that God might care about the details - otherwise what's all the business about spiritual health or eternal destiny about?
I can identify with what @Lamb Chopped said about how discovering that some self-important reverend chose to pronounce the wrong words over one instead of the words Christians were given to use, might give someone a very bad night. One might hope that God might not sweat the small stuff, but plenty of people do.
What I was really getting at, though, is what either ignoring scripture and tradition or deciding you don't like them and so are going to go against them, betokens about a minister's inner attitude towards the God he or she claims to serve and represent. It is the assumption that so many people have when it comes to anything theological, they know better than God. If they don't understand something, or don't like it, it must be wrong. That doesn't do a great deal for a lay person's spiritual capacity for growth. It is both lethal and dangerous for those in ministry.
I very much doubt if many people "think they know better than God".
I think many people feel that the ancient Scriptures and traditions no longer communicate the underlying concepts quite as well in a milieu far removed from those from which they arose, and they need reinterpreting for a moder age - not because they "know better than God" but in order to better understand what God is actually saying.
Now, you may be of the opinion that their endeavour is mistaken, but do you have to assume the worst of people in this way? Why not at least assume until proven otherwise that they're well intentioned , rather than throwing this "you think you know better than God!" accusation at them?
I’m a very “traditionalist” (I hate that word though because of the attitude it’s come to mean) and I agree.
Indeed, decades ago when I was wrestling with leaving the Episcopal church for one of the breakaway churches that had left over various issues, that well-intentioned aspect was a major deciding factor—I considered what I saw from the breakaway group to be, while technically doctrinally orthodox, bitter and unloving, and I decided even if I might encounter lots of things I didn’t agree with in the Episcopal church (depending on the individual church), at least they were trying to love people. And I believe I made the right decision.
Look, I'm feeling a bit frustrated. For the past few posts I (and Enoch, I believe) have been making a good faith effort to communicate just why screwing around with the baptismal formula causes us difficulty. In both cases we're going off our own experience. Mine is the experience of someone with OCD who has suffered exactly the kind of nightmarish worry I describe--because I'm not super-Christian, I'm a human being who fucks up sometimes and has weak faith. And when I share my experience with you, I get told that I'm making God look bad. All righty, then.
And then Enoch tries to explain his point of view to you, which is also doubtless based on experience--and you tell him no such people exist, he must have got it wrong. Well, I've met people like this--people whose arrogance is palpable. Why are you telling him he's wrong about his own experience?
It's enough to make me think I'm wasting my time opening my heart and mind on a thread like this. Why should we tell you things we've been through if you're just going to keep taking potshots at us and telling us we don't know what the hell we're talking about? And adding a heap of guilt on top of that, too?
I don't get the impression @Enoch is speaking from really knowing the people he's talking about. He comes across to me as assuming their motives based on his disapproval of their actions.
Thing is, I also know people who change the words and do things differently. I don’t recognise any of this condemnatory description of them. They are IME people trying to understand God in a world completely different to the one in which the traditions arose.
I'm not trying to take pot shots at anyone. I'm trying to explain how this looks from a different perspective. And that the people @Enoch is definitely taking potshots at may not be the terrible arrogant people he assumes them to be.
Maybe, @Lamb Chopped, Epiphanies would be a more helpful venue for the kind of conversation you're leaning into? Purgatory always leaves open the possibility for more vigor than may always be helpful.
I do like the "O Heavenly King..." prayer; a priest told me to ponder its words about being everywhere present and filling all things when I bushwalk (hike). It is a blessing to look at all the life, flora and fauna, and ponder the Holy Spirit creating and sustaining it.
Look, I'm feeling a bit frustrated. For the past few posts I (and Enoch, I believe) have been making a good faith effort to communicate just why screwing around with the baptismal formula causes us difficulty. In both cases we're going off our own experience. Mine is the experience of someone with OCD who has suffered exactly the kind of nightmarish worry I describe--because I'm not super-Christian, I'm a human being who fucks up sometimes and has weak faith. And when I share my experience with you, I get told that I'm making God look bad. All righty, then.
And then Enoch tries to explain his point of view to you, which is also doubtless based on experience--and you tell him no such people exist, he must have got it wrong. Well, I've met people like this--people whose arrogance is palpable. Why are you telling him he's wrong about his own experience?
It's enough to make me think I'm wasting my time opening my heart and mind on a thread like this. Why should we tell you things we've been through if you're just going to keep taking potshots at us and telling us we don't know what the hell we're talking about? And adding a heap of guilt on top of that, too?
I totally agree about "screwing around with the baptismal formula"--I just think that the people doing it, wholly wrong though I believe they are, are not generally doing it because they believe they know better than God--it's more to do with their view of the Church, and/or Christian Tradition, and/or Scripture, etc. I hope I didn't come across as mean (to you or to @Enoch) or anything. *worried* *sending more hugs*
(As I said, I literally left one church because they used one of those "alternate" invocations of the Trinity in the service, on a regular basis, in place of Father, Son and Holy Spirit--and I'd do it again.)
But if that's reassuring it's because we think God is legalistic and it won't work if not done quite right, isn't it?
If someone - a relative or friend, say - asks me to do something, then I'm going to do the thing that they've asked me to do, as close as I am able. I'm not going to do some different thing, and argue that it was probably what they really wanted anyway, or that the thing that I did was really the same thing, or that the thing that I did communicates better than the thing that they wanted.
Karl talked about people who changed the words as being people trying to understand God in a different world from the one in which the scriptures arose. To me, that's a close paraphrase for "the thing that I did communicates better than the thing that they wanted".
I think there's an argument to be had here, though - I think most people would be comfortable with a new translation that used different words because the older words had changed in meaning in common use, or perhaps had passed out of use completely. But that's not really what the "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" people are doing - their dispute is more with the imagery than with the language per se. This may be a fine point - you could argue that if a set of words conjures different imagery from the imagery that you think was intended, then the meaning has shifted, and so on, but I find it hard to read "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" as a translation of the triune name.
Karl talked about people who changed the words as being people trying to understand God in a different world from the one in which the scriptures arose. To me, that's a close paraphrase for "the thing that I did communicates better than the thing that they wanted".
That presupposes that the forms in tradition and Scripture are "what they wanted".
I'd say that's actually the thing that's being questioned. I'd say what we have is, at best, "what they wanted" filtered through a different culture and one or more different languages.
Re-evaluation and revision doesn’t seem unreasonable under the circumstances. It is, if you like, trying to explore what they wanted.
I also think that creator, redeemer, sanctifier or sustainer… Those are words about God’s relationship with us and with creation. Not about the members of the Trinity amongst Themselves, within the Godhead.
I also think that creator, redeemer, sanctifier or sustainer… Those are words about God’s relationship with us and with creation. Not about the members of the Trinity amongst Themselves, within the Godhead.
I can agree with that up to a point. “Father” and “Son” are definitely about relationship within the Trinity.
But “Holy Spirit,” not so much, or at least not without a lot more work than “Father” and “Son” need to do.
I also think that creator, redeemer, sanctifier or sustainer… Those are words about God’s relationship with us and with creation. Not about the members of the Trinity amongst Themselves, within the Godhead.
I can agree with that up to a point. “Father” and “Son” are definitely about relationship within the Trinity.
But “Holy Spirit,” not so much, or at least not without a lot more work than “Father” and “Son” need to do.
I do agree about that—though the HS can still be the HS apart from creation.
I also think that creator, redeemer, sanctifier or sustainer… Those are words about God’s relationship with us and with creation. Not about the members of the Trinity amongst Themselves, within the Godhead.
When one is being baptized, though, which of these two scenarios is being invoked?
I also think that creator, redeemer, sanctifier or sustainer… Those are words about God’s relationship with us and with creation. Not about the members of the Trinity amongst Themselves, within the Godhead.
When one is being baptized, though, which of these two scenarios is being invoked?
I don’t think that changes the formula we have been given to use. I mention the above as an “also”—an additional reason to stick to that.
Baptisms are public services and one departs from standard formulae and practices at one's peril. I think it unwise to adopt unfamiliar words, dress, or actions to make a point or meet the supposed preferences of those attending. I remember a relative attending a very evangelical C of E church (not his own) for a baptsm and being shocked when the officiant took the service in 'civvies'.
Baptisms are public services and one departs from standard formulae and practices at one's peril. I think it unwise to adopt unfamiliar words, dress, or actions to make a point or meet the supposed preferences of those attending. I remember a relative attending a very evangelical C of E church (not his own) for a baptsm and being shocked when the officiant took the service in 'civvies'.
But the second sentence of your post contradicts the third! It would be "non-standard" for the evangelical officiant to robe up for the service in this case and if they did, that could also cause confusion. Indeed I've seen similar things happen, with evangelical visiting preachers fully robing up (to the bemusement of the congregation) because they'd thought that's what would be expected of them in a middle-of-the-road environment...
In the C of E it is normal for clergy to robe for all services, regardless of churhmanship. My relayive is evangelical, and the family thought it disrespectful for the officiant not to have done so.
In the C of E it is normal for clergy to robe for all services, regardless of churhmanship. My relayive is evangelical, and the family thought it disrespectful for the officiant not to have done so.
When I was a CofE Charevo (80s) robes were very seldom worn; minimal allowed by rubrics for HC was about it. Otherwise a dog collar at most.
Baptisms are public services and one departs from standard formulae and practices at one's peril. I think it unwise to adopt unfamiliar words, dress, or actions to make a point or meet the supposed preferences of those attending. I remember a relative attending a very evangelical C of E church (not his own) for a baptsm and being shocked when the officiant took the service in 'civvies'.
Both _Rivlets were baptized in private services. In the ECUSA they don't have to be public.
Do you mean the "peril" of some people's sensibilities being momentarily tread upon, or the baptism itself not actually taking place, spiritually/cosmically?
I'm not criticising, please don't take it that way, but might I ask why you went for private baptisms, or to make it general if I'm prying why do people in general do it? I have been to baptisms at church very poorly attended by members and I felt a bit sad.
My view is baptism is welcoming someone into the church so it's good for as many as can come to be present. Is a private baptism seen as more a personal than corporate event in one's life?
Look, nobody is saying GOD says to worry about these details. We are saying that WE, as ordinary fragile and fallible humans, worry about these details, and that simple kindness to the rest of humanity should prevent people from playing games with the instructions we were given.
@Enoch implied that God might care about the details - otherwise what's all the business about spiritual health or eternal destiny about?
I can identify with what @Lamb Chopped said about how discovering that some self-important reverend chose to pronounce the wrong words over one instead of the words Christians were given to use, might give someone a very bad night. One might hope that God might not sweat the small stuff, but plenty of people do.
What I was really getting at, though, is what either ignoring scripture and tradition or deciding you don't like them and so are going to go against them, betokens about a minister's inner attitude towards the God he or she claims to serve and represent. It is the assumption that so many people have when it comes to anything theological, they know better than God. If they don't understand something, or don't like it, it must be wrong. That doesn't do a great deal for a lay person's spiritual capacity for growth. It is both lethal and dangerous for those in ministry.
I think many people feel that the ancient Scriptures and traditions no longer communicate the underlying concepts quite as well in a milieu far removed from those from which they arose, and they need reinterpreting for a moder age - not because they "know better than God" but in order to better understand what God is actually saying.
In connection to this, this article from The Living Church, an Episcopal/Anglican publication, might be of interest: ”Translating the Trinity,” by Elizabeth Anderson. As I understand it, The Living Church is generally considered a moderate-to-conservative publication.
The article was prompted by discussions in the Episcopal Church. Dr. Anderson notes at the outset that:
We too often seem to forget in our liturgical debates that even the most central aspects of our liturgical life, such as the Scriptures and the Creeds, were not revealed to us in English, and that therefore much of our prayer is already an exercise in translation. The question of how we name the persons of the Trinity in particular involves a number of linguistic issues to which it may be helpful for us all to be more attentive. While on the surface it might be easy to assume that words such as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have fixed meanings that are identical across languages, times, and cultures, the truth is that all words have a semantic range of meaning, and such semantic ranges may expand or contract or migrate over time and across different languages.
It would surely be a poor kind of orthodoxy that would insist reflexively only upon the persistent use of a particular word while paying no attention to the ways in which the meaning of that word may have shifted across the centuries. Therefore, fidelity to the tradition that we have received demands that we be open to a fearless consideration of the ways in which our language has changed over time, and that we reflect on whether the words we use still adequately convey the meaning that we intend by them.
Interestingly, she argues that in the modern English context, “Father has so narrowed in its range of meaning that it no longer conveys the fullness of the orthodox dogmatic claim we were trying to express.”
However, there are traditional reasons for a concern about whether the term Father still adequately conveys the fullness of the intended meaning. Specifically, changing understandings of medicine and the nature of paternity have shifted the semantic range of the term in some surprising and potentially theologically problematic ways, with the result that naming God as Father for a modern speaker of English seems to be (at best) vastly more deficient now and (at worst) potentially heretical.
The semantic range of Father has historically encompassed a number of things, including authority and governance, providence and protection, the active power of creation (a creation that is by will rather than by emanation or generation), and a loving intimacy of relationship.
Another article at The Living Church—“Invoking the Trinity,” by Hannah Bowman—cites Anderson’s article as it explores possible ways to talk about the Trinity. (This second article also speaks of “the entirely heretical and Sabellian Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer.”)
Both are interesting and thought-provoking reads, I think.
I have already said that I think the traditional Father, Son, Holy Spirit formula is non-negotiable in baptism. I say this partly for the reasons @Lamb Chopped has given, but probably even more because of the ecumenical implications. It is very important, I think, that baptisms not be done in ways that we know will not be recognized ecumenically.
I also feel I should explicitly say that I think when it comes to liturgical use, those with responsibility for providing words should do so consistently with their denomination’s or tradition’s requirements and expectations. So, for example, in an Episcopal context, the words should be consistent with the Book of Common Prayer (1979), other authorized supplemental liturgical resources, and any other relevant canons or directives from the appropriate bishop. Likewise, in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the words should be consistent with the church’s confessions and with its Directory for Worship.
And in all cases, pastoral sensitivity is very important. Words should enhance the worship of those gathered, not treat them like guinea pigs.
Of course the validity of the baptism is unaffected by whether or not the officiant is properly vested. I note the The Riv is dismissive about 'some people's sensibilities being momentarily trodden on'. opinions may of course differ, but when taking a service the minister represents 'The Church' to those attending, who may only rarely come in contact with it. It gives a poor impression if they go away thinking 'The Vicar couldn't be bothered to dress properly'. He or she has let the church, and the congregation down, albeit from (probably) a desire to emphasise the priesthood of all believers - a point probably lost on those attending, if unexplained. Better to avoid treading on anyone's sensibilities.
Of course the validity of the baptism is unaffected by whether or not the officiant is properly vested. I note the The Riv is dismissive about 'some people's sensibilities being momentarily trodden on'. opinions may of course differ, but when taking a service the minister represents 'The Church' to those attending, who may only rarely come in contact with it. It gives a poor impression if they go away thinking 'The Vicar couldn't be bothered to dress properly'. He or she has let the church, and the congregation down, albeit from (probably) a desire to emphasise the priesthood of all believers - a point probably lost on those attending, if unexplained. Better to avoid treading on anyone's sensibilities.
I think this reaction would mainly come from people with some contact with or background in the church, who have expectations about what they think a vicar ought to be wearing. If someone really has little to no previous contact with the church - and in England I'd say this is the majority of the population - they're more likely to find the robes weird. But then they are likely to find the whole thing weird anyway.
Personally I prefer either robes or casual dress as favoured in charismatic/open evangelical places , not the "clerical suit plus dog-collar" I've sometimes seen in more conservative evangelical circles. Robes emphasise the righteousness of Christ; casual dress emphasises the priesthood of all believers; suits give me a "business executive hierarchy" vibe that I find offputting.
It seems to me that one argument for public rather than private baptism (of a child) is that baptism is the occasion when a child is presented to the congregation and the community, as in "this is our child, and we are proud of our child".
It seems to me that one argument for public rather than private baptism (of a child) is that baptism is the occasion when a child is presented to the congregation and the community, as in "this is our child, and we are proud of our child".
To take that a step further, in my tradition the entire congregation makes promises at baptism. If a baptism outside the regular Sunday service is necessary for some reason, there is an expectation that representatives of the congregation, other than family, be present.
But then they are likely to find the whole thing weird anyway.
Maybe that’s a good thing. Christianity is weird. We worship a God nailed to a tree and eat and drink His Body and Blood. Leaning into that at least lets people know what they’re in for.
But then they are likely to find the whole thing weird anyway.
Maybe that’s a good thing. Christianity is weird. We worship a God nailed to a tree and eat and drink His Body and Blood. Leaning into that at least lets people know what they’re in for.
This thread has caused me to ponder: if someone were baptized in the name of Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer, would I consider that valid for local parish/congregational purposes (such as participating in Holy Communion)? Hmm. I'd find that discernment difficult. I'm okay with some kinds of gatekeeping - maybe even many kinds! - but I wouldn't have an automatic answer for this.
It wouldn't surprise me to encounter people who had been baptized in the United Church of Canada in the name of CRS. Because of Canada's immigration patterns, especially in Western Canada where there are "thinly spread" and denominationally mixed villages and towns, ecumenism is a practical necessity rather than a vague ideal.
Maybe it's a form of ecumenism localized to Canada to accept CRS baptisms. I don't know. If you are in a context and have a personal and ecclesial history that allows for more narrow interpretations, good on you, but that may not be realistic here. Insisting on baptism - likely to be considered re-baptism - in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would be more likely to drive the person away from church altogether, rather than result in co-operation with theological and ecclesial rigour.
I would suggest that such a baptism ought to be valid, because although the formula could be interpreted in a modalist way I imagine that that is not the intention. The intention is to express "what the Church means and has always meant by baptism in the name of the Trinity" in different words, not to say "this is something different from what the Church used to believe".
I’m pretty sure I remember from ecumenical discussions involving my denomination that neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Churches would recognize a baptism done in the name of the “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer.” It’s also my recollection, at least with the Catholic Church, that if a denomination permitted that formula to be used, even if it wasn’t common, then no baptisms from that denomination would be recognized, as there couldn’t be certainty that “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” was used.
The applicable governing provision for my denomination provides: “As there is one body, there is one Baptism. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) recognizes all baptisms by other Christian churches that are administered with water and performed in the name of the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
The Orthodox will only 'receive' by chrismation those who have been baptised in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Some jurisdictions are more rigorous than that and will baptise everyone, just in case as it were. The Russians seem to do that from what I can gather.
So, no, we wouldn't be comfortable with a baptism using a formula that could be interpreted in a Modalist way.
As far as enquirers from particular churches or denominations go, then it seems to me that the position is assessed on a case by case level, although I've come across priests who assume that a baptism in an Anglican, RC or mainstream / mainline Protestant denomination is more likely to have included a Trinitarian formula than one administered in an independent fellowship of some kind.
I've had to point out to several Orthodox clergy that the vast majority of independent evangelicals, charismatics and Pentecostals baptise in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
There appears to be an assumption that because some 'Oneness' Pentecostals and some independent charismatic groups baptise in the 'name of Jesus only" that this practice is more common than it actually is.
I haven't made my point very clearly. I'll try again.
ISTM that there are localized, fuzzy, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" forms of ecumenism, quite apart from denominational bodies' official theologies, policies and practices.
Localized ecumenism may take the form of "UtShay UpWay" (shut up, in pig Latin) about matters on which the denominational body and the local context might differ.
For example, it is my understanding that the Anglican church worldwide is very much in favour of matrimonial monogamy. It is also my understanding that this is not always proclaimed vociferously in areas where polygamy is part of the local cultural context.
It is true that according to the World Council of Churches' "Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry" (BEM) that official ecumenical agreement recognizes baptisms in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I respect that document and those agreements. As Gamma Gamaliel and Nick Tamen have pointed out, that is the official state of things.
But... what I'm saying is, given the real possibility of people around here baptized in the name of Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer - who seek active participation in other denominations - it is a more present, less academic, contextually difficult situation.
I note the The Riv is dismissive about 'some people's sensibilities being momentarily trodden on'. opinions may of course differ, but when taking a service the minister represents 'The Church' to those attending, who may only rarely come in contact with it. It gives a poor impression if they go away thinking 'The Vicar couldn't be bothered to dress properly'. He or she has let the church, and the congregation down, albeit from (probably) a desire to emphasise the priesthood of all believers - a point probably lost on those attending, if unexplained. Better to avoid treading on anyone's sensibilities.
I asked a question about what was meant by “peril.” It is actually possible for people to have silly sensibilities about words for words’ sake, like some are about the KJV being the only ‘real’ Bible. Not that much if any of that kind of superficial justification has been mentioned here, but I am dismissive of that, yes.
Between God, the officiant and the person baptised, intention that matters, in my opinion. As far as ecumenical relaions, and congregational sensibilities are concerned, those are separate issues.
Comments
That's worth bearing in mind, particularly in Christian traditions that put great store on things being done 'properly' or in a particular way.
It doesn't mean that we should be slapdash though - banana milkshake and Dorritos - Vaseline instead of chrism oil - unless Vaseline was the only material available, perhaps. They might be a rubric for that ...
But neither does it mean that people are going to Hell because they don't observe this, that or the other practice.
All that said, there does seem to be some scriptural warrant for dire consequences when people get things wrong - Nabab and Abihu offered 'strange fire before the LORD' - Leviticus 10. Poor old Uzzah copped for it when he tried to 'steady the Ark' - 2 Samuel 6.
In St Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians we read about those who 'eat and drink judgement on themselves' for approaching communion in an 'unworthy manner' - although this seems to involve greed and discriminatory behaviour rather than not observing particular rubrics or rituals.
However we understand those verses and examples, the point is that these are things that should be taken seriously and not messed around with. That doesn't mean that we have to use King James Version style English or stand in a particular way or perform particular gestures otherwise we will be thrown into the Lake of Fire.
Heck, my own adopted Christian Tradition can be positively obsessive about particular details, crossing oneself in the right way, observing this, that or the other rubric.
But none but completely fanatical liturgical obsessives would claim that you are going to Hell unless you do this, that or the other 'correctly'.
You might get told off by the ya-yas and babushkas though.
The different churches have very different ideas about ecclesiology, the Sacraments, and so on, and sometimes about God Himself. When you're not sure if you're definitely receiving the Body and Blood of Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist, and/or if someone really is a priest or bishop in Apostolic Succession, and so on, that's kind of important. I think that interfaith relationships, and churches working together on common-ground interests, are better than pretending these differences aren't there.
I suppose it depends on how you define "magic." I'd definitely say supernatural (and I know you would too
And this: And this: But when you started by saying this Can you see why it might not have been obvious to some us that what you're talking about is a concern for your own well-being, and a pastoral concern for the well-being of others?
I saw "The Land Before Time." There were... adolescent dinosaurs.
'I Was A Teenage Tyrannosaurus.'
@ChastMastr, I would draw a distinction between something 'supernatural' or 'supranatural' in Christian terms and 'magic', which, it seems to me, is all about manipulation and seeking one's own ends by apparently supernatural means.
I remember the highly 'Scholastic' RC Shipmate, InGoB arguing that the Mass was magic and the RCC performed the real and genuine magic and that all other forms were approximations or counterfeits.
Something like that.
I thought he was over-egging the pudding.
I'll get me coat ...
Or my magic carpet.
https://www.dmns.org/catalyst/museum-stories/teen-rex-discovery-roars-into-denver/
Though we must not forget the animated series about Denver, the (teenage) last dinosaur, though he was not a tyrannosaurus per se.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9iN9rKLves
I think the words can be used in both ways. I mean if someone says they found (say) a magic tree, or a bag of magic beans, or the like, they don't mean the sense of manipulation and such--it just is. Magical creatures, etc. But I do know what you mean about the sense of manipulation meaning as well.
Charles Williams thought that "arch-natural" was a good word to use. In Humphrey Carpenter's The Inklings, quoted here:
I think I believe that as well. I really need to re-read my Williams as well as my Lewis. I need a refresher.
I can identify with what @Lamb Chopped said about how discovering that some self-important reverend chose to pronounce the wrong words over one instead of the words Christians were given to use, might give someone a very bad night. One might hope that God might not sweat the small stuff, but plenty of people do.
What I was really getting at, though, is what either ignoring scripture and tradition or deciding you don't like them and so are going to go against them, betokens about a minister's inner attitude towards the God he or she claims to serve and represent. It is the assumption that so many people have when it comes to anything theological, they know better than God. If they don't understand something, or don't like it, it must be wrong. That doesn't do a great deal for a lay person's spiritual capacity for growth. It is both lethal and dangerous for those in ministry.
I very much doubt if many people "think they know better than God".
I think many people feel that the ancient Scriptures and traditions no longer communicate the underlying concepts quite as well in a milieu far removed from those from which they arose, and they need reinterpreting for a moder age - not because they "know better than God" but in order to better understand what God is actually saying.
Now, you may be of the opinion that their endeavour is mistaken, but do you have to assume the worst of people in this way? Why not at least assume until proven otherwise that they're well intentioned , rather than throwing this "you think you know better than God!" accusation at them? Otherwise, frankly, from my position as one of those terrible people who can't just swallow whatever tradition or Scripture throws at them, the "just do as we were told" faction seems every bit as arrogant as you are painting the explorers and reinterpreters.
Once again I get the impression some people would sooner people like me for whom a lot of conventional Christianity means diddly-squat would just feck off into atheism than try to make this faith actually work.
I’m a very “traditionalist” (I hate that word though because of the attitude it’s come to mean) and I agree.
Indeed, decades ago when I was wrestling with leaving the Episcopal church for one of the breakaway churches that had left over various issues, that well-intentioned aspect was a major deciding factor—I considered what I saw from the breakaway group to be, while technically doctrinally orthodox, bitter and unloving, and I decided even if I might encounter lots of things I didn’t agree with in the Episcopal church (depending on the individual church), at least they were trying to love people. And I believe I made the right decision.
And then Enoch tries to explain his point of view to you, which is also doubtless based on experience--and you tell him no such people exist, he must have got it wrong. Well, I've met people like this--people whose arrogance is palpable. Why are you telling him he's wrong about his own experience?
It's enough to make me think I'm wasting my time opening my heart and mind on a thread like this. Why should we tell you things we've been through if you're just going to keep taking potshots at us and telling us we don't know what the hell we're talking about? And adding a heap of guilt on top of that, too?
Thing is, I also know people who change the words and do things differently. I don’t recognise any of this condemnatory description of them. They are IME people trying to understand God in a world completely different to the one in which the traditions arose.
I'm not trying to take pot shots at anyone. I'm trying to explain how this looks from a different perspective. And that the people @Enoch is definitely taking potshots at may not be the terrible arrogant people he assumes them to be.
I don't think it's used liturgically, but St Symeon the New Theologian (new as in 10th/11th century!) has a prayer to the Holy Spirit: https://www.stgeorgeto.org/mystical-invocation-st-symeon-the-new-theologian/
There are hymns on the Holy Spirit at Matins which I like.
I do like the "O Heavenly King..." prayer; a priest told me to ponder its words about being everywhere present and filling all things when I bushwalk (hike). It is a blessing to look at all the life, flora and fauna, and ponder the Holy Spirit creating and sustaining it.
I totally agree about "screwing around with the baptismal formula"--I just think that the people doing it, wholly wrong though I believe they are, are not generally doing it because they believe they know better than God--it's more to do with their view of the Church, and/or Christian Tradition, and/or Scripture, etc. I hope I didn't come across as mean (to you or to @Enoch) or anything. *worried* *sending more hugs*
(As I said, I literally left one church because they used one of those "alternate" invocations of the Trinity in the service, on a regular basis, in place of Father, Son and Holy Spirit--and I'd do it again.)
If someone - a relative or friend, say - asks me to do something, then I'm going to do the thing that they've asked me to do, as close as I am able. I'm not going to do some different thing, and argue that it was probably what they really wanted anyway, or that the thing that I did was really the same thing, or that the thing that I did communicates better than the thing that they wanted.
I think there's an argument to be had here, though - I think most people would be comfortable with a new translation that used different words because the older words had changed in meaning in common use, or perhaps had passed out of use completely. But that's not really what the "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" people are doing - their dispute is more with the imagery than with the language per se. This may be a fine point - you could argue that if a set of words conjures different imagery from the imagery that you think was intended, then the meaning has shifted, and so on, but I find it hard to read "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" as a translation of the triune name.
That presupposes that the forms in tradition and Scripture are "what they wanted".
I'd say that's actually the thing that's being questioned. I'd say what we have is, at best, "what they wanted" filtered through a different culture and one or more different languages.
Re-evaluation and revision doesn’t seem unreasonable under the circumstances. It is, if you like, trying to explore what they wanted.
But “Holy Spirit,” not so much, or at least not without a lot more work than “Father” and “Son” need to do.
I do agree about that—though the HS can still be the HS apart from creation.
When one is being baptized, though, which of these two scenarios is being invoked?
I don’t think that changes the formula we have been given to use. I mention the above as an “also”—an additional reason to stick to that.
But the second sentence of your post contradicts the third! It would be "non-standard" for the evangelical officiant to robe up for the service in this case and if they did, that could also cause confusion. Indeed I've seen similar things happen, with evangelical visiting preachers fully robing up (to the bemusement of the congregation) because they'd thought that's what would be expected of them in a middle-of-the-road environment...
When I was a CofE Charevo (80s) robes were very seldom worn; minimal allowed by rubrics for HC was about it. Otherwise a dog collar at most.
Both _Rivlets were baptized in private services. In the ECUSA they don't have to be public.
Do you mean the "peril" of some people's sensibilities being momentarily tread upon, or the baptism itself not actually taking place, spiritually/cosmically?
My view is baptism is welcoming someone into the church so it's good for as many as can come to be present. Is a private baptism seen as more a personal than corporate event in one's life?
The article was prompted by discussions in the Episcopal Church. Dr. Anderson notes at the outset that:
Interestingly, she argues that in the modern English context, “Father has so narrowed in its range of meaning that it no longer conveys the fullness of the orthodox dogmatic claim we were trying to express.”
Another article at The Living Church—“Invoking the Trinity,” by Hannah Bowman—cites Anderson’s article as it explores possible ways to talk about the Trinity. (This second article also speaks of “the entirely heretical and Sabellian Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer.”)
Both are interesting and thought-provoking reads, I think.
I have already said that I think the traditional Father, Son, Holy Spirit formula is non-negotiable in baptism. I say this partly for the reasons @Lamb Chopped has given, but probably even more because of the ecumenical implications. It is very important, I think, that baptisms not be done in ways that we know will not be recognized ecumenically.
I also feel I should explicitly say that I think when it comes to liturgical use, those with responsibility for providing words should do so consistently with their denomination’s or tradition’s requirements and expectations. So, for example, in an Episcopal context, the words should be consistent with the Book of Common Prayer (1979), other authorized supplemental liturgical resources, and any other relevant canons or directives from the appropriate bishop. Likewise, in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the words should be consistent with the church’s confessions and with its Directory for Worship.
And in all cases, pastoral sensitivity is very important. Words should enhance the worship of those gathered, not treat them like guinea pigs.
I think this reaction would mainly come from people with some contact with or background in the church, who have expectations about what they think a vicar ought to be wearing. If someone really has little to no previous contact with the church - and in England I'd say this is the majority of the population - they're more likely to find the robes weird. But then they are likely to find the whole thing weird anyway.
Personally I prefer either robes or casual dress as favoured in charismatic/open evangelical places , not the "clerical suit plus dog-collar" I've sometimes seen in more conservative evangelical circles. Robes emphasise the righteousness of Christ; casual dress emphasises the priesthood of all believers; suits give me a "business executive hierarchy" vibe that I find offputting.
Maybe that’s a good thing. Christianity is weird. We worship a God nailed to a tree and eat and drink His Body and Blood. Leaning into that at least lets people know what they’re in for.
Yes, I think there is something to that.
It wouldn't surprise me to encounter people who had been baptized in the United Church of Canada in the name of CRS. Because of Canada's immigration patterns, especially in Western Canada where there are "thinly spread" and denominationally mixed villages and towns, ecumenism is a practical necessity rather than a vague ideal.
Maybe it's a form of ecumenism localized to Canada to accept CRS baptisms. I don't know. If you are in a context and have a personal and ecclesial history that allows for more narrow interpretations, good on you, but that may not be realistic here. Insisting on baptism - likely to be considered re-baptism - in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would be more likely to drive the person away from church altogether, rather than result in co-operation with theological and ecclesial rigour.
The applicable governing provision for my denomination provides: “As there is one body, there is one Baptism. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) recognizes all baptisms by other Christian churches that are administered with water and performed in the name of the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
So, no, we wouldn't be comfortable with a baptism using a formula that could be interpreted in a Modalist way.
As far as enquirers from particular churches or denominations go, then it seems to me that the position is assessed on a case by case level, although I've come across priests who assume that a baptism in an Anglican, RC or mainstream / mainline Protestant denomination is more likely to have included a Trinitarian formula than one administered in an independent fellowship of some kind.
I've had to point out to several Orthodox clergy that the vast majority of independent evangelicals, charismatics and Pentecostals baptise in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
There appears to be an assumption that because some 'Oneness' Pentecostals and some independent charismatic groups baptise in the 'name of Jesus only" that this practice is more common than it actually is.
ISTM that there are localized, fuzzy, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" forms of ecumenism, quite apart from denominational bodies' official theologies, policies and practices.
Localized ecumenism may take the form of "UtShay UpWay" (shut up, in pig Latin) about matters on which the denominational body and the local context might differ.
For example, it is my understanding that the Anglican church worldwide is very much in favour of matrimonial monogamy. It is also my understanding that this is not always proclaimed vociferously in areas where polygamy is part of the local cultural context.
It is true that according to the World Council of Churches' "Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry" (BEM) that official ecumenical agreement recognizes baptisms in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I respect that document and those agreements. As Gamma Gamaliel and Nick Tamen have pointed out, that is the official state of things.
But... what I'm saying is, given the real possibility of people around here baptized in the name of Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer - who seek active participation in other denominations - it is a more present, less academic, contextually difficult situation.
I asked a question about what was meant by “peril.” It is actually possible for people to have silly sensibilities about words for words’ sake, like some are about the KJV being the only ‘real’ Bible. Not that much if any of that kind of superficial justification has been mentioned here, but I am dismissive of that, yes.
Is baptism done for God, or for each other?