It’s not the same in the UK. The historical position is that baptism and communion are the only sacraments found directly in the New Testament. Describing them as sacraments is normal in the UK at least in my experience.
I don’t mind the term “ordinance” as an alternative. It’s certainly true that the low church understanding of them is distinctive and different to the Traditional understanding. So perhaps it is clearer to use a different term? Not a question I’ve ever considered before.
I do not usually post on Epiphanies threads but was interested in the appearance of references to the Brethren. I have not had much contact with them in recent years but irrespective of what they might maintain about the priesthood of all believers, the Brethren never used to allow Sisters to speak in their meetings at all. Does anyone know if that has changed?
It’s changed where I worship. Women lead and teach. 50 years ago it was different.
It’s not the same in the UK. The historical position is that baptism and communion are the only sacraments found directly in the New Testament. Describing them as sacraments is normal in the UK at least in my experience.
Yes, which is why I was careful to speak in terms of US Baptists.
I've never heard of any orthodox Christian groups that think it's fine to get baptized multiple times. The only times I've heard it condoned are when the group believes no true baptism has ever taken place yet.
I’ve known of some Baptist churches that insist on baptism when joining that particular church, even if one has been baptized (meaning credo-baptism by immersion) in another Baptist church. This practice reflects both those churches’ particular ecclesiology as well as an understanding that baptism is all about the believer’s testimony.
I do not usually post on Epiphanies threads but was interested in the appearance of references to the Brethren. I have not had much contact with them in recent years but irrespective of what they might maintain about the priesthood of all believers, the Brethren never used to allow Sisters to speak in their meetings at all. Does anyone know if that has changed?
In some brethren longer ago than you'd think. In 1990s I knew the father of the first woman to speak at one meeting. Her defense was "My husband told me to". I only have my friends word for this. I have no idea how much earlier this was. I get the feeling that Brethren meetings are pretty congregational so this may not even today be wide spread.
We've had multiple threads about sacraments and ordinances.
Their relevance of them on this thread revolves around whether a traditional approach with male-only clergy/officiants encourages or embodies sexism and misogyny and we've been asked several times to prioritise 'own voice' testimony.
If a separate thread hasn't started already I'll start a new one to stop clogging this thread up with tangents.
I've never heard of any orthodox Christian groups that think it's fine to get baptized multiple times. The only times I've heard it condoned are when the group believes no true baptism has ever taken place yet.
Seconded. I can imagine extreme congregationalist churches declaring that no baptism is valid unless it's performed by that particular church, but I don't think that's orthodox.
I've never heard of any orthodox Christian groups that think it's fine to get baptized multiple times. The only times I've heard it condoned are when the group believes no true baptism has ever taken place yet.
Seconded. I can imagine extreme congregationalist churches declaring that no baptism is valid unless it's performed by that particular church, but I don't think that's orthodox.
As I indicated above, or least tried to, the U.S. Baptist congregations I know of who would require baptism of anyone joining, even if they’ve already been baptized, aren’t thinking in terms of validity or invalidity. Because they view baptism as symbolic, validity (beyond immersion of someone who professes faith) or non-repeatability simply isn’t part of their equation.
They’re not requiring what others might call “re-baptism” because they think an earlier baptism is “invalid,” and they definitely don’t view baptism as doing anything that makes it unrepeatable. Baptism is, in their view, simply obeying the command of Christ in order to testify to their faith, and to their dying, being buried and rising with him. In their view, it’s appropriate, when joining a new community of faith, to make that testimony to that community. And that’s all they see happening.
I think @josephine has a very good point. Essentially, English nonconformist churches only have two sacraments, communion and baptism. We don’t believe the bread and wine are changed, nor that the water changes the person. Rather our understanding is that communion is memorial and baptism is an obedient outward symbol of an inner change. So we don’t need specially chosen and anointed priests to perform these sacraments.
Hance I think the moves re leadership roles have fewer traditional obstacles in their way for us.
So far as Anglicanism is concerned, I think the struggle towards acceptance of women priests is often a reflection of the low church and high church elements within that broad church. And if you unpick that, the high church folks are more traditionally sacramental.
What an interesting point. I wonder if the same dynamic occurs among Lutherans - there are definitely divisions between low church and high church there. I had the impression (decades ago, based on personal experience, so quite limited) that the low church Lutherans (e.g., Wisconsin synod) were less likely to have women involved in positions of leadership and teaching than higher church Lutherans. @Lamb Chopped would likely know far more.
Misogyny and sexism, where they are found, may very well be a different matter. And misogynistic and sexism are still to be found in the low nonconformist churches in the UK. There the arguments and rationalisations are justified by a few biblical texts. (As, historically, were racist attitudes).
I suppose the real argument is whether the Traditional views of the sacraments support the sexists and misogynists, or whether the misogynists and sexists simply make use of them to support their prejudices.
In the US, in the Orthodox Church, certain elements of the far-right apparently appreciate smells and bells, and find our all-male priesthood and our ethnic jurisdictions and national churches quite appealing. I have been told by one who researches such things that, in certain underbellies of the Internet, there are discussions among neoNazis about whether the appropriate religion for them is atheism, Orthodox Christianity, or Odin worship. Some of these folks have joined, or attempted to join, our churches and even become priests themselves. Some of them are promptly excommunicated, and some remain and try to foment "change from within."
We would not have to ordain women as priests to make them run screaming away. Simply restoring the diaconate to women would be enough. But too many of our bishops honestly do not understand the impact of what they think of as "things that happen on the internet." (That is changing. Not fast enough, but it is changing.)
I wonder if the same dynamic occurs among Lutherans - there are definitely divisions between low church and high church there. I had the impression (decades ago, based on personal experience, so quite limited) that the low church Lutherans (e.g., Wisconsin synod) were less likely to have women involved in positions of leadership and teaching than higher church Lutherans. @Lamb Chopped would likely know far more.
IME it doesn't map as neatly as that, but then again I haven't had much exposure to Wisconsin synod congregations. From what I know from ELCA, ELCiC, LCC, and LC-MS (English District) a congregation's position on the liturgical spectrum doesn't tell you much about women in leadership among them.
The LCMS has / has had quite a few women in positions of leadership, as long as it's not what we'd call spiritual leadership--that is, pastors or elders. If it's handling money or making plans, decisions, etc. sure, women do all that, both congregationally and in synodical and auxiliary positions. My own host congregation has had a woman president for years. I myself am in a position of ... not sure we can call it leadership, as I'm not in charge of anybody, but I'm fairly well-known in the Synod. I get occasional cranks gunning for me as a woman, but that can happen anywhere, including the secular world.
"Leadership" is a slippery word in this context, isn't it? I appreciate @Lamb Chopped adding the qualifier "spiritual" leadership in this case.
Certainly there are church bodies in which women are forbidden to take on select forms of leadership, but informally or in other areas, exercise significant leadership. Orthodox and Catholic and fundamentalist Evangelical churches may have women in leadership who effectively tell the clergy how it's going to be, lol, and the clergy crosses them at his peril.
This does not diminish the fact that those church bodies are sexist. They just are. They may defend their sexism on the ground of inherited tradition or Tradition or their understanding of Scripture and/or the authority of Scripture or Aristotelean biology or any number of theories and practices, but they are still sexist. They are actively choosing sexist interpretations of how to be church.
That doesn't mean they don't do good in the world. It does mean that I would not be a good fit as a member of one of those church bodies.
@Barnabas62 the church I became a Christian in was/is a snake-belly-low con-evo Anglican church which opposed women clergy (and afaik still does) - and there are lots of Anglo-Catholic women clergy.
It only comes about rights if being a priest is seen to be about power.
If the right to adminster sacraments is reserved to ordained priests, then ordained priests have power, regardless of the extent to which it is seen as such. That includes being seen by the priests themselves.
In the Anglican church, priests have the right (very rarely exercised nowadays) to refuse to administer the sacraments to you. That's power, even if they don't have anything else to threaten people with.
It only comes about rights if being a priest is seen to be about power.
If the right to adminster sacraments is reserved to ordained priests, then ordained priests have power, regardless of the extent to which it is seen as such. That includes being seen by the priests themselves.
Only if they decide who receives the sacraments. It is totally possible to imagine a situation where another group of people does, indeed these exist within certain Congregational Churches where Church meeting determines who is admitted to sacraments not the minister.
The ELCA has had a female presiding bishop (at the level of an archbishop) 'in the past. I think it was for 12 years. I had the chance to speak to her once when she came to the installation of our local synod's first female bishop. We have no had two local female bishops since.
I don't think I would refer to the national synods high or low churches, though. I have experienced quite high services in the LCMS--with the smells and bells, and I have experienced quite low services in the ELCA. Fact is, the ELCA/Presbyterian congregation I supply prefers the low variety, which I like 'cause I don't like to get dressed up as much any more, and I like to experiment with developing new worship services.
I would say if there is one thing all Lutheran Bodies can agree on is that there are two sacraments, and Christ is really present in, with, and under the elements at the Lord's Supper. We don't try to explain the how, just that he is.
I've never heard of any orthodox Christian groups that think it's fine to get baptized multiple times. The only times I've heard it condoned are when the group believes no true baptism has ever taken place yet.
I believe it is similar to pouring the water on the head three times, each in the name of one of the persons of the Trinity.
To the issue of sexual abuse with female clergy, I know of many who have reported sexual harassment from lay males and ordained males. Sad to say.
If the right to adminster sacraments is reserved to ordained priests, then ordained priests have power, regardless of the extent to which it is seen as such. That includes being seen by the priests themselves.
Only if they decide who receives the sacraments. It is totally possible to imagine a situation where another group of people does, indeed these exist within certain Congregational Churches where Church meeting determines who is admitted to sacraments not the minister.
Thanks, Jengie Jon. My understanding is that most Congregationalist churches don't have an ordained priesthood#, as such, so it wouldn't apply to them anyway. The word "ordain" is used for a wide range of church practices.
# Typically, “once ordained, always ordained” and/or conferred by the laying on of hands by other ordained priests.
@Pease, @Jengie Jon isn't saying that Congregationalists have ordained priests. She knows that tradition well.
What she is saying is that there are settings where it isn't the minister or leader or an 'ordained priest' who determines who can receive communion but another group within that community.
Comments
It’s not the same in the UK. The historical position is that baptism and communion are the only sacraments found directly in the New Testament. Describing them as sacraments is normal in the UK at least in my experience.
I don’t mind the term “ordinance” as an alternative. It’s certainly true that the low church understanding of them is distinctive and different to the Traditional understanding. So perhaps it is clearer to use a different term? Not a question I’ve ever considered before.
It’s changed where I worship. Women lead and teach. 50 years ago it was different.
I’ve known of some Baptist churches that insist on baptism when joining that particular church, even if one has been baptized (meaning credo-baptism by immersion) in another Baptist church. This practice reflects both those churches’ particular ecclesiology as well as an understanding that baptism is all about the believer’s testimony.
In some brethren longer ago than you'd think. In 1990s I knew the father of the first woman to speak at one meeting. Her defense was "My husband told me to". I only have my friends word for this. I have no idea how much earlier this was. I get the feeling that Brethren meetings are pretty congregational so this may not even today be wide spread.
There’s more to the tangent than I indicated and might be worth a separate thread.
Their relevance of them on this thread revolves around whether a traditional approach with male-only clergy/officiants encourages or embodies sexism and misogyny and we've been asked several times to prioritise 'own voice' testimony.
If a separate thread hasn't started already I'll start a new one to stop clogging this thread up with tangents.
Seconded. I can imagine extreme congregationalist churches declaring that no baptism is valid unless it's performed by that particular church, but I don't think that's orthodox.
They’re not requiring what others might call “re-baptism” because they think an earlier baptism is “invalid,” and they definitely don’t view baptism as doing anything that makes it unrepeatable. Baptism is, in their view, simply obeying the command of Christ in order to testify to their faith, and to their dying, being buried and rising with him. In their view, it’s appropriate, when joining a new community of faith, to make that testimony to that community. And that’s all they see happening.
What an interesting point. I wonder if the same dynamic occurs among Lutherans - there are definitely divisions between low church and high church there. I had the impression (decades ago, based on personal experience, so quite limited) that the low church Lutherans (e.g., Wisconsin synod) were less likely to have women involved in positions of leadership and teaching than higher church Lutherans. @Lamb Chopped would likely know far more.
In the US, in the Orthodox Church, certain elements of the far-right apparently appreciate smells and bells, and find our all-male priesthood and our ethnic jurisdictions and national churches quite appealing. I have been told by one who researches such things that, in certain underbellies of the Internet, there are discussions among neoNazis about whether the appropriate religion for them is atheism, Orthodox Christianity, or Odin worship. Some of these folks have joined, or attempted to join, our churches and even become priests themselves. Some of them are promptly excommunicated, and some remain and try to foment "change from within."
We would not have to ordain women as priests to make them run screaming away. Simply restoring the diaconate to women would be enough. But too many of our bishops honestly do not understand the impact of what they think of as "things that happen on the internet." (That is changing. Not fast enough, but it is changing.)
IME it doesn't map as neatly as that, but then again I haven't had much exposure to Wisconsin synod congregations. From what I know from ELCA, ELCiC, LCC, and LC-MS (English District) a congregation's position on the liturgical spectrum doesn't tell you much about women in leadership among them.
The LCMS has / has had quite a few women in positions of leadership, as long as it's not what we'd call spiritual leadership--that is, pastors or elders. If it's handling money or making plans, decisions, etc. sure, women do all that, both congregationally and in synodical and auxiliary positions. My own host congregation has had a woman president for years. I myself am in a position of ... not sure we can call it leadership, as I'm not in charge of anybody, but I'm fairly well-known in the Synod. I get occasional cranks gunning for me as a woman, but that can happen anywhere, including the secular world.
Certainly there are church bodies in which women are forbidden to take on select forms of leadership, but informally or in other areas, exercise significant leadership. Orthodox and Catholic and fundamentalist Evangelical churches may have women in leadership who effectively tell the clergy how it's going to be, lol, and the clergy crosses them at his peril.
This does not diminish the fact that those church bodies are sexist. They just are. They may defend their sexism on the ground of inherited tradition or Tradition or their understanding of Scripture and/or the authority of Scripture or Aristotelean biology or any number of theories and practices, but they are still sexist. They are actively choosing sexist interpretations of how to be church.
That doesn't mean they don't do good in the world. It does mean that I would not be a good fit as a member of one of those church bodies.
Only if they decide who receives the sacraments. It is totally possible to imagine a situation where another group of people does, indeed these exist within certain Congregational Churches where Church meeting determines who is admitted to sacraments not the minister.
I don't think I would refer to the national synods high or low churches, though. I have experienced quite high services in the LCMS--with the smells and bells, and I have experienced quite low services in the ELCA. Fact is, the ELCA/Presbyterian congregation I supply prefers the low variety, which I like 'cause I don't like to get dressed up as much any more, and I like to experiment with developing new worship services.
I would say if there is one thing all Lutheran Bodies can agree on is that there are two sacraments, and Christ is really present in, with, and under the elements at the Lord's Supper. We don't try to explain the how, just that he is.
I believe it is similar to pouring the water on the head three times, each in the name of one of the persons of the Trinity.
To the issue of sexual abuse with female clergy, I know of many who have reported sexual harassment from lay males and ordained males. Sad to say.
# Typically, “once ordained, always ordained” and/or conferred by the laying on of hands by other ordained priests.
What she is saying is that there are settings where it isn't the minister or leader or an 'ordained priest' who determines who can receive communion but another group within that community.