Tree of Church History: How are branches changing currently within Ancient Christian spaces or Traditional ones?

Gxg (G²) · Oct 19, 2025

Good Day,

I hope all here are doing well. I has been a long time since really being present here in the forums - and a lot of things (traumatic, to be honest) that have happened which caused me to need a substantial break. If I am honest, after seeing a tendency in some spaces I left literally embrace open American civil religion / Eurocentrism and xenophobia, it was a lot to process. Awhile ago, I was saddened at how other Evangelicals (Converts, more so in the tradition of Fundamentalists) who came into one parish was investing in started to then try and explain that slavery itself was not really a "bad thing" for African Americans in the U.S.

Although I had just had a good/encouraging discussion with others on what God was doing in communities through genealogy/helping kin to find one another again because of forced separations, a group of others came in/ interjected into the conversation once the Civil War was brought up. They dismissed the experiences of churches who addressed the matter, including Black Catholics who've shared and others I brought up such as the Brotherhood of St.Moses the Black. Moreover, they tried to use appeal to Monarchy in Byzantium to conclude that others were wrong to ever speak out against abuses in the government with slave trafficking/Black Codes and things that Christians did to certain groups.

The conclusions led to me being told at one point that what happened to those in my family (as my grandmother was the daughter of a slave and we had documents) was silly - and that there was no documentation to show that chattel slavery itself was bad. What stood out to me in the process of conversation with others was that many said openly (as folks with Rural Georgia roots) that they felt the church gave them pride as a white person cause they were told that being country/rural meant they were less...and at the same time, they also noted it was a major struggle for them because they weren't really comfortable with Black folks sharing their experiences AND they ended up merging their ideology (the belief that things shouldn't change) with what they saw in the church.

While I am glad others did speak out, it intrigued me the priest (British) could relate because of what happened with the Irish in the early church and having to reshape themselves uniquely in the era of St. Patrick and St.Columba when they had a lot of major problems occurring (Including trafficking) and the Celtic. The dynamics are very similar to what happened for the Kongolese Catholic Christians when kidnapping was forced upon them and they had to fight back, separating themselves from the Portuguese Catholics who wanted to practice kidnapping in their space.

The work of Dr. Justo Gonzales came to my mind immediately for many reasons. He noted what happened when Catholics came to the Americas and those who were impacted (Indigenous) ended up creating new experiences in their expression of their faith - and that led to competition with other expressions that didn't want their voices.

With that being said, I have been discussing with others lately on how so many things seem to develop over trauma/traumatic events and branches in the church can be shaped by this. I would love to hear from others on the following points: What are significant world events that have caused the the church or groups within it to change substantially? Do you feel that there are dynamics today that are leading into more groups within Traditional Church circles to develop in ways that differ from others in the same camp?

-

Clare73 · Oct 19, 2025

Gxg (G²) said:
Good Day,

I hope all here are doing well. I has been a long time since really being present here in the forums - and a lot of things (traumatic, to be honest) that have happened which caused me to need a substantial break. If I am honest, after seeing a tendency in some spaces I left literally embrace open American civil religion / Eurocentrism and xenophobia, it was a lot to process. Awhile ago, I was saddened at how other Evangelicals (Converts, more so in the tradition of Fundamentalists) who came into one parish was investing in started to then try and explain that slavery itself was not really a "bad thing" for African Americans in the U.S.

Slavery, in itself, is ordained by God (Lev 25:39-46) and while,
like poverty (1 Sa 2:7, Mk 14:7), sickness (Dt 32:39) and disability (Ex 4:11, Jn 9:2-3) also ordained by God,
it is not immoral, it can be undesirable.

Gxg (G²) · Oct 19, 2025

Clare73 said:
Slavery, in itself, is ordained by God (Lev 25:39-46) and while,
like poverty (1 Sa 2:7, Mk 14:7), sickness (Dt 32:39) and disability (Ex 4:11, Jn 9:2-3) also ordained by God,
it is not immoral, it can be undesirable.

That would go directly against (in light of the whole history of scripture) where God already condemned trafficking directly. At several points.

The Bible forbids kidnapping a person and selling them, with the punishment being death (Exodus 21:16). The New Testament discourages becoming enslaved to humans, even with the phrase "You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings" (1 Corinthians 7:23). In the Old Testament, Israelite regulations freed slaves every seventh year (Ex. 21:2), commanded the death penalty for man-stealing (Ex. 21:16), and generally sought to limit the institution in protection of the slave. Further, slavery was generally not organized by race but by circumstance and economics (for example, foreigners, debtors, and so on). Paul even clearly laid out from 1 Timothy 1:9-11 that slavery or trafficking was already condemned according to the law. Deuteronomy 24:7, which prescribe the death penalty for kidnapping and selling a person - and The New Testament also shows the spiritual and ethical contradictions of slavery, especially with verses like Galatians 3:28 ("There is neither slave nor free") and 1 Corinthians 7:23 ("do not become slaves of human beings").

People confused the concept of servant in the Old Testament with ethnicity and that's why there were branches in the church that literally said it was okay to enslave Indigenous communities in the Americas or those across Africa. However, there were Catholic branches of the church that never went with this and this is a point that has been fascinating to me. A good read on the issue would be “Does the Bible Condone Slavery? - Christian Think Tank” () / ). There have been others who have pointed out that Kongolese Catholicism led to many slave revolts because they understood scripture itself never condoned abusing anyone, in the same way the Hebrews were not allowed to abuse as they were abused in Egypt by the Egyptians.

But to the main point, there's generally a dismissal and rarely an engagement with the text. In regards to the OP, I am curious about how branches in the church have long been impacted by cultural norms allowing for things to happen to others that God never sanctioned.

Clare73 · Oct 19, 2025

Gxg (G²) said:
That would go directly against (in light of the whole history of scripture) where God already condemned trafficking directly. At several points.

The slavery ordained by God did not allow kidnapping for slavery.

Gxg (G²) · Oct 19, 2025

Clare73 said:
The slavery ordained by God did not allow kidnapping for slavery.

That was not slavery in the sense as it occurred in the Americas - Chattel Slavery/race-based - and as it concerns what God set up, it was a form of indentured servitude. Nothing close to what happened overall, from the Barbary Slave Trade to the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade and further. We know abuses were NOT allowed and others were to be set free - and it was NEVER allowed to claim someone's ethnicity means they were meant to be enslaved.

The Bible never condoned slavery and insisting such goes against the entire text - and practical places for review can be found here in “Does the Bible Condone Slavery? - Christian Think Tank” () - as it concerns the entire Old Testament context where servants hired themselves out.

Hebrew 'slavery' (i.e., a Hebrew 'servant' of a Hebrew 'master'; we will do foreigners next) occurs in a very specific socio-economic-religious context, and only actually makes sense (in its structure) in that context. Like the ANE, the context is a constant struggle for economic stability. The Mosaic law contains numerous initiatives designed to preclude someone having to consider voluntary slavery as an option:

"Pentateuchal prescriptions are meant to mitigate the causes of and need for such bondservice. Resident aliens, orphans and widows are not to be abused, oppressed or deprived of justice. When money is lent to the poor, they are not to be charged interest. (Elsewhere in the ancient Near East exorbitant interest rates on loans were the chief cause of people being sold into slavery)." [OTictOT5, s.v. "Slavery"]

· There were not supposed to be any poor in Israel at all! (Compliance with the spirit and letter of the covenant would have produced a society marked by righteousness, compassion, and prosperity.)

However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, 5 if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. (Deut 15.4)

This makes any economic situations involving slavery exceptional.

· But God is a realist (Deut 15.11!); hence He made a wide range of provisions in the Law for the poor. Some of these are:

1. He enjoins the Israelites to be generous toward the destitute (this would function to preclude/reduce voluntary or debt slavery), in the same passage He expressed the hope of pan-success:

"If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. 8 Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. … There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." (Deut 15.7ff)

2. Interestingly, the passage above recognizes that this 'lending' (best for self-respect of the recipient) might turn into 'giving' (best for economic good of the recipient) quickly, but that the Hebrew should not let this obvious risk deter his heart:

"Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. 10 Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to." (Deut 15.9)

"Moses left the realm of law for a moment to appeal to his fellow Israelites’ hearts. The law of debt cancellation (vv. 1-6) was intended to instill a spirit of generosity within the Israelites and thus a freedom from the love of money and things. Therefore a calculating Israelite was guilty of sin if he refused a loan for a poor brother (v. 7; cf. needy brother, v. 9) out of fear that it might not be repaid since the seventh year was near. Being hardened or tightfisted meant he was not trusting the Lord to bless . . . all his work." [BKC, in loc]

3. There are numerous instructions to merchants and farmers to provide special help for the disadvantaged (again, reducing the need for someone to sell themselves or family members).

§ The entire seventh year of the planting cycle was dedicated to the poor (and servants)!

"For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, 11 but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what they leave. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove. (Ex 23.10)

Whatever the land yields during the sabbath year will be food for you -- for yourself, your manservant and maidservant, and the hired worker and temporary resident who live among you, (Lev 25.6)

§ They were instructed to leave the margins around the fields unharvested, and to not go over the fields but once:

"`When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God. (Lev 19.10; 23.22; Deut 24.19f)

§ The poor were to be exempt from interest, and were to be buy food at cost.

"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. (Lev 25.35ff; note the quote above that interest rates were the dominant cause of voluntary servitude in the ANE.]

[Note: Israel was allowed to charge interest to foreigners, and to no forgive their unpaid loans in the year of Jubilee (Deut 23.21). Tigay [JPStorah, in loc] explains the sociological rationale for this: "This exception is similar to 15:3, which exempts loans to foreigners from remission. As Shadal notes, the foreigner is normally a businessman visiting the country for purposes of trade, and he borrows in order to invest in merchandise and make a profit, not to survive poverty. There is no moral imperative to remit loans made for such purpose or forgo interest on them. Furthermore, assuming the risk of lending and making the sacrifice that remission and interest-free loans entail are special obligations toward one's countrymen (Heb, ahim, lit 'brothers') and for the sake of maintaining equilibrium in Israelite society. The law does not require assuming the same risk and sacrifice toward others who do not share the same obligation."

§ The entire Levitical tithe of EVERY THIRD YEAR was to be shared with the poor!

28 At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, 29 so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. (Deut 14.28ff)

4. Even the sacrificial system made allowances for economic status:

"`If he cannot afford a lamb, he is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for his sin -- one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering..."`If he cannot afford a lamb, he is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for his sin -- one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering." (Lev 5.7,11; see also Lev 14.21)

If anyone making the vow is too poor to pay the specified amount, he is to present the person to the priest, who will set the value for him according to what the man making the vow can afford. (Lev 27.8)

5. Indeed, there was even a major structure in the economic system designed to support the poor--the automatic cancellation of debts every seven years!

At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD's time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you. (Deut 15.1ff)

· Many of God's commands to Israel about treatment of 'slaves' are cast in light of Israel's experience of harsh slavery in Egypt (which generally DID conform to the "western" paradigm described above). She is told to remember her slavery and to not oppress the slave or the alien in the Land. There are many, many verses relative to this (e.g. Deut 5.6; 6.12, 21; 7.8; 15.15; 16.12; 24.18, 19). Just to cite a couple:

Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. (Deut 5.13f)

When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. 22 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this. (Deut 24.21)

If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today. (Deut 15.15; note: this is a 'standard' case of debt-slavery, and is different from cases of 'selling a daughter' for a dowry-less marriage--a la Exodus 21--discussed below.)

· Finally, the Covenant Community and its law was meant to demonstrate 'how it should be done' within ANE communities. The content of the Mosaic law was designed to show forth both the compassion of God (e.g. treatment of neighbor and the disadvantaged) and the holiness/purity of God (e.g. the sacrificial system and cleanness stipulations). One would therefore expect that intra-Hebrew dealings would reflect a much higher standard than the law codes of the surrounding nations (as indeed the historical record generally confirms).

See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. 6 Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? 8 And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today? " (Deut 4.5)

19 He has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel. 20 He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws. (Ps 147.19)

The point, however, of the OP isn't about what God defined with servants in the Old Testament. This is the question: What are significant world events that have caused the the church or groups within it to change substantially? Do you feel that there are dynamics today that are leading into more groups within Traditional Church circles to develop in ways that differ from others in the same camp?

Clare73 · Oct 20, 2025

Gxg (G²) said:
That was not slavery in the sense as it occurred in the Americas -

Slavery is the owning of persons.
A just slavery is not immoral, for God ordained slavery (Lev 25:39-46) and gave the rules for a just slavery.
An unjust slavery is immoral.
While just slavery is not immoral, it can be undesirable, like poverty (1 Sa 2:7, Mk 14:7), sickness (Dt 32:39) and disability (Ex 4:11, Jn 9:2-3) also ordained by God, can be undesirable.

The Liturgist · Nov 2, 2025

Gxg (G²) said:
That was not slavery in the sense as it occurred in the Americas - Chattel Slavery/race-based - and as it concerns what God set up, it was a form of indentured servitude. Nothing close to what happened overall, from the Barbary Slave Trade to the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade and further. We know abuses were NOT allowed and others were to be set free - and it was NEVER allowed to claim someone's ethnicity means they were meant to be enslaved.

The Bible never condoned slavery and insisting such goes against the entire text - and practical places for review can be found here in “Does the Bible Condone Slavery? - Christian Think Tank” () - as it concerns the entire Old Testament context where servants hired themselves out.

The point, however, of the OP isn't about what God defined with servants in the Old Testament. This is the question: What are significant world events that have caused the the church or groups within it to change substantially? Do you feel that there are dynamics today that are leading into more groups within Traditional Church circles to develop in ways that differ from others in the same camp?

Insofar as the faith of the traditional churches is supposed to be the one received from the Fathers, ideally no.

In practice some mainline churches have been driven by secular political movements to embrace ideas foreign to the early church, or noxious to it, concerning sexual morality, the ordination of women and related issues. Likewise the Roman Catholic Church has been influenced by South American socialism in the form of Liberation Theology, which since Pope Francis, and now regrettably under Pope Piux XIV, appears to remain the dominant force in the RCC, despite the sincere attempt of Pope St. John Paul II (who was been canonized and subsequently overridden by Pope Francis, with several of his achievements such as Ecclesia Dei simply brushed aside), and Pope Benedict XVI to eradicate it.

Shane R · Nov 7, 2025

Gxg (G²) said:
What are significant world events that have caused the the church or groups within it to change substantially?

I appeared on Pastor Brandon Warr's YouTube channel recently and he asked a similar question. I replied with WW2. Upon further reflection, both world wars had a significant impact on 20th century Christianity that is still felt today. It could be that as the generation who participated and their children die that some of the effects could be undone. We shall live it and see.

hedrick · Nov 15, 2025

Catholics and Orthodox are largely avoiding formal splits, though they do have internal differences. But among Protestants, I don't find much interested in the historical issues. Aside from a few Catholics attacking justification by faith, Protestants mostly don't seem to focus on that anymore. The free will arguments in the 19th cent seems largely not to have much heat anymore, though there are a few gung-ho Calvinists (at least there were a few years ago -- I haven't noticed that so much recently). Currently sex and gender seem to be the big dividing line, with inerrancy of Scripture and tradition the root issues. And in the US, MAGA and its associated Christianity dominates much of the differences.

I do see questions about the Trinity in Reddit, but not so much here (perhaps because rules don't permit arguments against it). It seems to be driven by new or prospective Christians who don't understand it, or by interaction with atheist or Muslim apologetics. So that doesn't mean there's serious discussion among informed Christians about the theology. Traditional theology is being drowned out by MAGA, gender and sex.

I just commented in a different thread that you can see changes here. There's little serious theology. It's all politics. Most of the congregational or community groups are moribund or dominated by one person. Theology discussion is at the level of Reddit.

The Liturgist · Nov 15, 2025

hedrick said:
The free will arguments in the 19th cent seems largely not to have much heat anymore, though there are a few gung-ho Calvinists (at least there were a few years ago -- I haven't noticed that so much recently).

Alas they are still very much with us.

hedrick said:
Currently sex and gender seem to be the big dividing line

That’s what you’d think, except on CF at least I keep finding myself and Episcopalian friends such as @PloverWing and @seeking.IAM in mutual opposition to Restorationists who attack all traditional churches including the Episcopal Church, which I still love greatly (and which also still has, to be fair, more moderate and conservative members than most people realize, with such members present even on CF), Nashotah House, a seminary so traditional in every respect it once assisted the major Eastern Orthodox seminaries in the US), and the Orthodox Church, traditional Lutherans and so on over our refusal to embrace Sabbatarianism or Iconoclasm, or more recently with @seeking.IAM in opposition to the idea of replacing the word “kingdom” in the Lord’s Prayer wirh “kin-dom” being engaged in by some theologians which seem more interested in political correctness than in any kind of adherence to traditional theology.

I would also point to this Traditional Theology forum as an example of traditional Christians uniting despite having substantial disagreements on some issues.

hedrick · Nov 15, 2025

The Liturgist said:
I would also point to this Traditional Theology forum as an example of traditional Christians uniting despite having substantial disagreements on some issues.

I think there's a lot to be said for the de facto Anglican idea that as long as we're willing to worship together we should be able to coexist. But this goes against the grain of heresy hunting going back to the 2nd Century.

Until recently I didn't see much of an issue in PCUSA worship. However our current pastor has started changing standard liturgical texts. The Lord's prayer with "save us from temptation" instead of "lead us not into temptation," but most recently Father, Son and Holy Spirit seem to be disappearing in favor of Creator, Christ, and Holy Spirit. I've generally argued that this is modalist. The Western tradition ,at least, sees the distinction among the persons as being the relationship between them. Father and Son are both relational words. All 3 persons are involved in all activities, including creation.

RamiC · Nov 16, 2025

hedrick said:
Father and Son are both relational words. All 3 persons are involved in all activities, including creation.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16 NIV

When this becomes "For the Creator so loved the world that we were given the Christ that whoever believes in Christ shall not perish but have eternal life." the crucifixion starts to look a lot less personal, human and agonised. This is God suffering as one of us, for our sakes, and because of our sins, such that they are forgiven. It is important to know the extent of that love.

hedrick · Nov 16, 2025

RamiC said:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16 NIV

When this becomes "For the Creator so loved the world that we were given the Christ that whoever believes in Christ shall not perish but have eternal life." the crucifixion starts to look a lot less personal, human and agonised. This is God suffering as one of us, for our sakes, and because of our sins, such that they are forgiven. It is important to know the extent of that love.

Normally, including our church, what changes are the kind of thing printed in the bulletin, not Scripture. Also, the PCUSA has an agreement with the RCC that would prevent doing this in the words used for baptism.

The Liturgist · Nov 16, 2025

RamiC said:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16 NIV

When this becomes "For the Creator so loved the world that we were given the Christ that whoever believes in Christ shall not perish but have eternal life." the crucifixion starts to look a lot less personal, human and agonised. This is God suffering as one of us, for our sakes, and because of our sins, such that they are forgiven. It is important to know the extent of that love.

Its also wrong scripturally, since by Christ all things were made, according to John ch. 1, often called The Last Gospel by traditional Western Christians (John 1:1-14 is read at the end of traditional Solemn High Masses by Roman Catholics, Anglo (Anglican) Catholics, Lutheran Evangelical Catholics, Western Rite Orthodox, and also Armenian Orthodox and Maronite Catholics among Eastern Christians, and on Christmas Day or Christmas Sunday, and in the Byzantine Rite and Eastern Orthodox liturgy, at the Paschal Divine Liturgy (Paschal Matins, which immediately precedes it, has the reading of tne Empty Tomb from Mark)

RamiC · Nov 16, 2025

hedrick said:
Normally, including our church, what changes are the kind of thing printed in the bulletin, not Scripture.

I am sorry if my post read as if I was accusing your church of trying to change what the Bible says. I was thinking the change in liturgy which you posted about made the Bible harder to understand, rather than that such a change actually amounted to changing the Gospel itself. I admit I posted my point by editing it into John 3:16, so it could look like I meant to say your Pastor was changing the Bible.

The Liturgist · Nov 16, 2025

hedrick said:
Normally, including our church, what changes are the kind of thing printed in the bulletin, not Scripture. Also, the PCUSA has an agreement with the RCC that would prevent doing this in the words used for baptism.

And who enforces that agreement?

The sad reality is ecumenical agreements such as that if violated harm the one being baptized but will not likely result in repercussions for the clergy in many denominations. The ELCA is part of the Lutheran World Federation which advised all churches not to use the filioque but the original Nicene Creed, however the ELCA has not deposed the pastor of nor severed ties with herchurch, which has objectively set aside Christianity and Lutheranism in favor of worshipping “the Divine Feminine” (their website greets visitors with “Hello, Goddess.”

herchurch sf

www.herchurch.org

This is much worse than any of the liturgical abuses of Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox liturgical rites (particularly Russian and Ethiopian) that have occurred at St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church in San Francisco (which is also violating the Book of Common Prayer and doing things not allowed by Episcopal doctrinal standards).

Now my main concern @hedrick , while I do appreciate greatly the PCUSA’s denominational level commitment to the RCC, the problem with most major Western churches including the Roman Catholic Church in the past decade has been a growing toleration for departures from denominational norms. If your pastor will depart from the prescribed text for the Lord’s Prayer in the Book of Worship and the 2009 PCUSA Hymnal Glory to God, to use a text for the Lord’s Prayer not found in any mainstream translation of the New Testament, would you not consider it a risk that with regards to baptism he might not depart from the formula agreed to with the RCC, especially if asked by the parents?

It’s not as though a Roman diocesan bishop could, or would, even if he could, financially penalize the pastor or the presbytery or send an encyclical to the presbyteries of the PCUSA complaining about your pastor and requesting his termination for violating the agreement.

This takes us to another issue - ecumenical agreements between churches not in full communion are toothless - they depend on the good will of the clergy of the respective churches to adhere to them, but if one of those churches has a pastor that is already departing from normative PCUSA worship standards as well as the Biblical text for the Trinitarian formula and the Lord’s Prayer, and getting away with it (whereas in the past, even the recent past, this would have been beyond the pale in much of the PCUSA), it seems like at a minimum one would have to be prepared to sternly remind the pastor of the ecumenical agreement if one expected it to be followed, and even then, there’s a good chance, particularly if you had an infant born to parents who subscribed to the view that the Trintarian formula is sexist (and we have at least one member on Christian Forums who has expressed a willingness to entertain such a view, and to regard the formula of “the father, son and Holy Ghost” as optional), that the ecumenical agreement will be violated, and thus an infant might be received into the RCC or other denominations under the assumption they were baptized in accordance with the traditional formula of Matthew 28:19, when this did not happen.

A dozen years ago I had the pleasure to speak with the Methodist minister who baptized me, and in a light hearted way I did verify that he had used the correct formula, which he confirmed. Fortunately he was at the time still in good health and was among the many very traditional clergy the Methodists still had at the time, including a dear relative of mine who has since reposed.

Tree of Church History: How are branches changing currently within Ancient Christian spaces or Traditional ones?

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Blood-bought

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Blood-bought

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Blood-bought

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Priest

Senior Veteran

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency