Feminist baptisms

[spiritually inclined]

Feminist Baptismal Formula

Do you think these baptisms are valid?

Why or why not?

I personally find much of the talk about valid sacraments as opposed to invalid sacraments trivial and superstitious.

James

 

[PureX]

Her Baptism prayer is the more accurate.

 

[Troublemane]

The words are the same, only the names have been changed to protect the innocent.

...actually I think its kind'a kewl. PureX is right they are more accurate. :angel2:

 

[Tau]

Feminist Baptismal Formula

Do you think these baptisms are valid?

Why or why not?

I personally find much of the talk about valid sacraments as opposed to invalid sacraments trivial and superstitious.

James

Perhaps then the Church should excommunicate her immediately and stop whining about it, that is exactly what I would do (if I was Archbishop) to someone who was perverting a religion she was entrusted to uphold for her own amusements, its not all about her and her feminist beliefs, she supposedly has a diocese to minister to.

She is out of line and should create her own schism and leave the Anglican Church.

Still they allowed women to be vicars, their own stupid fault.

 

[spiritually inclined]

The above comments are sickening. How is this perversion of a religion? Isn't patriarchy perverted? Religions will always evolve to accommodate changing social views, more sophisticated images of the divine, new knowledge and scientific fact.

Believe it or not, she does have a diocese to minister to and it looks like she's doing just that. She is performing baptisms. Does it really matter that the words are gender neutral? The gospels are not history. They are not eyewitness accounts. There is too much evidence to the contrary. Therefore, Jesus probably never uttered the baptismal formula recorded in Matthew 28:19. Acts doesn't even mention the formula: it usually speaks of baptisms performed in the name of the Lord or Jesus (which doesn't mean they necessarily spoke a formula.)

She doesn't need to leave the Anglican Church. There are lots of people on her side.

Your last comment about women reveals a lot about your bigoted sexist mentality.

James

 

[Tau]

The above comments are sickening. How is this perversion of a religion? Isn't patriarchy perverted? Religions will always evolve to accommodate changing social views, more sophisticated images of the divine, new knowledge and scientific fact.

Believe it or not, she does have a diocese to minister to and it looks like she's doing just that. She is performing baptisms. Does it really matter that the words are gender neutral? The gospels are not history. They are not eyewitness accounts. There is too much evidence to the contrary. Therefore, Jesus probably never uttered the baptismal formula recorded in Matthew 28:19. Acts doesn't even mention the formula: it usually speaks of baptisms performed in the name of the Lord or Jesus (which doesn't mean they necessarily spoke a formula.)

She doesn't need to leave the Anglican Church. There are lots of people on her side.

Your last comment about women reveals a lot about your bigoted sexist mentality.

James

You reckon James?

I personally would have women priests in my religion but the Bible clearly says you can't, I am not a Christian so I don't understand how the anglican church can pick what it likes from Christianity yet still call itself a christian church.
That female vicar must at least honour the faith she was entrusted to uphold, sexist or otherwise.

I am not sexist James but you can label me whatever you want, I really don't care, I know myself.

 

[spiritually inclined]

I personally would have women priests in my religion but the Bible clearly says you can't, I am not a Christian so I don't understand how the anglican church can pick what it likes from Christianity yet still call itself a christian church.
That female vicar must at least honour the faith she was entrusted to uphold, sexist or otherwise.

That is a very narrow view of the Bible and Christianity. Why do you think such narrow beliefs should speak for all Christians? Why should Christians not confront the bigotry in their religious texts and traditions while keeping what is valuable? All religions change. All societies change. Christianity is forced to be subjected to change, especially when it comes in contact with other cultures.

I am not sexist James but you can label me whatever you want, I really don't care, I know myself.

This comment makes me disagree with you:

Still they allowed women to be vicars, their own stupid fault.

James

 

[Tau]

Ok james but if the Church of England decides to allow women vicars then it should expect a further evolution from the mother church, whose doctrine stands against female priests to this day, my point is she is changing something and if others follow suit, then little by little the whole faith system changes.

It might not be a nice label but it is corruption or deviation from a supposedly older and thus more empirical form.

Surely it would be better to start again?

 

[spiritually inclined]

Ok james but if the Church of England decides to allow women vicars then it should expect a further evolution from the mother church, whose doctrine stands against female priests to this day, my point is she is changing something and if others follow suit, then little by little the whole faith system changes.

Yes, it does change, which in many ways is good. I would hope, for instance, that most Christians in America wouldn't support burning people at the stake anymore. All religion changes. Christianity itself was born from Judaism, and early Jewish Christians were deeply connected with their Jewish background to such an extent that many liturgies still have hints of Judaism today.

It might not be a nice label but it is corruption or deviation from a supposedly older and thus more empirical form.

Why does older imply that it is more empirical? How is religion empirical at all?

Surely it would be better to start again?

Religion has established deep roots, traditions, and cultures. People aren't going to just start over. It will evolve bit by bit.

James

 

[Tau]

If a religion is forever changing then logically it will eventually change completely from its original form, then how is it empirical?

It is supposedly a system of information based on the wisdom of the ancients (Ie God in the Bible's case) if this information changes because the times change then this supposedly ancient wisdom is forgotten, the Bible says Women cannot be priests yet there are female anglican vicars, a contradiction, why should I honour any of the Bible if your Church allows whatever suits it?
So what if female 'equality' is a 'good' thing and must extend to all aspects of society but the cost is that if you don't take your holy book seriously, then I never will lol.
This applies to other areas in the bible as well.

My point is (IMHO), a true religion that is based on unconditional truth does not change nor would it contradict itself, remaining in stasis, perfect and timeless....

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

While I don't believe this woman had the right to change the baptismal formula, which is given to us by Christ himself: "baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit", I would not personally consider a baptism under "God, Christ and Holy Spirit" to be invalid, as they essentially indicate the same thing (hopefully).

If the intention is somehow to undermine the Trinitarian doctrine, then a further pursuit of the matter would be required. You can not belong to a Church that professes the Trinity as a criteria of faith, and then incorporate members into that Body by a deliberate denial of a central tenet of that Body's faith.

Again, invalid? I wouldn't say so. Christ is the Son, and the Father is God, so I would think all the essentials are still there.

 

[sojourner]

You reckon James?

I personally would have women priests in my religion but the Bible clearly says you can't, I am not a Christian so I don't understand how the anglican church can pick what it likes from Christianity yet still call itself a christian church.
That female vicar must at least honour the faith she was entrusted to uphold, sexist or otherwise.

I am not sexist James but you can label me whatever you want, I really don't care, I know myself.

Actually, the Bible never "clearly says you can't -- perieod." That's one interpretation, but it's one many Christians don't share. All faithful weigh scripture. Jesus modeled that for us: "You have heard it said...but I tell you..."
Sexism is wrong. The high place of women in the NT alludes to that.

 

[sojourner]

Ok james but if the Church of England decides to allow women vicars then it should expect a further evolution from the mother church, whose doctrine stands against female priests to this day, my point is she is changing something and if others follow suit, then little by little the whole faith system changes.

It might not be a nice label but it is corruption or deviation from a supposedly older and thus more empirical form.

Surely it would be better to start again?

and, God knows, change is bad and is something to be feared. Change is never a dynamic presented Biblically as acts of God. Xy is exactly the same as Mother Judaism.
Maybe the whole faith-system needs to change, in order to reflect a less narrow world view.

 

[sojourner]

If a religion is forever changing then logically it will eventually change completely from its original form, then how is it empirical?

It is supposedly a system of information based on the wisdom of the ancients (Ie God in the Bible's case) if this information changes because the times change then this supposedly ancient wisdom is forgotten, the Bible says Women cannot be priests yet there are female anglican vicars, a contradiction, why should I honour any of the Bible if your Church allows whatever suits it?
So what if female 'equality' is a 'good' thing and must extend to all aspects of society but the cost is that if you don't take your holy book seriously, then I never will lol.
This applies to other areas in the bible as well.

My point is (IMHO), a true religion that is based on unconditional truth does not change nor would it contradict itself, remaining in stasis, perfect and timeless....

The problem here is that you're not taking into consideration the human factor, which had a heavy hand in producing the Bible, and does not have a good handle on Truth. As we develop and learn, and new information and intuition is brought to light, our understanding of what constitutes truth changes. Since religion is a human institution about God, it must change in order to remain useful for human beings, who change.
We take the Bible seriously enough to test our understanding of what it says, and to test the understanding of the authors. We take it seriously enough to weigh its tenets carefully, rather than accepting its words at face value. Feminization is not a thing the Church has taken (or takes) lightly, on a whim. It is something that we contiue to wrestle with. At least we're honest enough to admit that we have not and do not understand the whole of Truth, and are brave enough to wrestle with the tough questions, rather than binding them over to answers that are too easy.

 

[Tau]

Actually, the Bible never "clearly says you can't -- perieod." That's one interpretation, but it's one many Christians don't share. All faithful weigh scripture. Jesus modeled that for us: "You have heard it said...but I tell you..."
Sexism is wrong. The high place of women in the NT alludes to that.

Name one female author of the Bible......

 

[sojourner]

Name one female author of the Bible......

Since the greatest preponderance of scripture does not list authorship (other than Paul's letters), and since the prevailing social order of the day didn't allow females to be educated, your challenge is moot.

 

[Tau]

Since the greatest preponderance of scripture does not list authorship (other than Paul's letters), and since the prevailing social order of the day didn't allow females to be educated, your challenge is moot.

Ie None.

I was just pointing out that Christianity was never a religion with much room for women, your saying those were the times when women were not educated (most people were not in reality), yes different times....what was relevant then isnt now or even legal in many cases, thus Christianity was never empirical and never will be, in my lowly opinion anyway, but thats irrelevant in the grand scheme of things I am sure.

 

[sojourner]

Ie None.

I was just pointing out that Christianity was never a religion with much room for women, your saying those were the times when women were not educated (most people were not in reality), yes different times....what was relevant then isnt now or even legal in many cases, thus Christianity was never empirical and never will be, in my lowly opinion anyway, but thats irrelevant in the grand scheme of things I am sure.

Xy has always had a lot of room for women. The prostitute washed Jesus feet -- touched him -- which was not allowed. The bleeding woman approached Jesus -- which she was not supposed to do -- and he healed her instead of having her arrested and flogged. Jesus spoke to the Samaritan whore at the well, and had her give him a drink. Mary sat at Jesus' feet with the men and learned from him (which women were not allowed to do). In Acts we find women in charge of congregations. I don't know where you're getting your facts, but methinks you're misinformed.

 

[uu_sage]

My church uses the traditional "Father, Son and spirit" language in the baptismal formula yet allows for "one God, the Mother of us all"

 

[Smoke]

Putting on my old Christian hat:

For Trinitarian Christians, I think there is a theological difficulty in referring to "God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit." Even the Orthodox doctrine of the Monarchy of the Father doesn't justify referring to Christ and the Holy Spirit as if they were separate from God, and seeking a gender-neutral term for "the Son" seems implicitly to deny the theology of the Church. One cannot, after the Incarnation, separate the second hypostasis of the Holy Trinity from the actual man, Jesus. By his incarnation Christ has united the divine and the human, making possible the salvation of humanity and the theosis of the faithful. Ms. Byrne's formula has both christological and soteriological implications that far outweigh her laudable desire to address the sexism of the Church.

However, this is quite an old story, and was when the thread was started. The bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church did not agree. Ms. Byrne was cleared of all charges and reinstated. She retired in 2006. (Miriam Byrne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)