Thread: Purgatory: Anglican Anabaptism Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000615

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
Mrs Trisagion has recently taken up a post as the Administrator of the local Anglican benefice. This morning she was introduced to the people who attend the three churches making up the benfice at their monthly joint service. During this service a young baby, the child of a (practising, daily Mass-going) Catholic father and an Anglican mother, was baptised. So far so good. The only problem is that the baby was baptised here (in the local Catholic Parish church) yesterday: same baby, same parents, same Godparents.

What to do?

What do we (the pastoral team at the Catholic parish) do with regard to the parents? What do we say to the father about baptism, about his concealing of this second ceremony from us during the baptismal preparation?

What do we say to the Vicar about this business? What are the Anglican rules and what can be done about any breaches?

You can imagine how sensitive this all is and I would genuinely welcome views, particularly from Anglicans and Catholics (but any perspectives will be gratefully received), on how to handle this difficult situation.

[ 08. May 2007, 10:30: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
 

---

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
The Anglican rules are the same as the RC rules - one baptism once. It's more likely that the couple didn't let anyone know that they were having two ceremonies, and were just covering all the bases (!) And quite honestly, if you were either of the two priests, you wouldn't think to ask...

One of those occasions where we realise how much our ecclesial practice is out of kilter with people's supermarket choice mentality.

I'd make sure the Anglican priest knows, so that he/she can add a note to the register to the effect that the child had already been baptised. And then get the two clergy to talk to each other about how they pick up the obvious need for pastoral instruction in this particular case...
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Oh, dear.

I think my main caution would be to avoid the dangerous syllogism: "Something must be done, this is something, this must be done". I face an analogous scenario in a few months time as I am C of E and Mrs Callan is Methodist. We've provisionally decided on a joint service with an Anglican officiant and a Methodist preacher (which is the reverse of what we did when we got married.) The question is horribly sensitive and the potential for the two of us winding each other up over it is quite marked despite both of us wanting not to hurt the other. I can understand why the couple might have gone down this route and I also understand quite how you feel about it!

The question that strikes me is why the couple concerned didn't explore this particular route. That means addressing their relationship with their respective churches and their relationship with each other. Why did they not feel they could explore their options with your church and/ or the united benefice? Did they have any options, beyond one partner agreeing for the baptism to take place at the others church? The Anglican rules prohibit rebaptism so, if the Anglican vicar knew about it he was being very naughty, although if they didn't tell your lot its quite likely they didn't tell him, either. If they don't feel they can talk to their respective clergy about the sensitivities and issues arising from this, that strikes me as being desperately sad and both the couple and the churches need to address the matter.

Good luck!
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
Sounds to me like the Anglicans may have been in the same darkness as the Catholics on this one: you've all had the wool royally pulled over your eyes by the baptismal family.

As an Anglican marrying a Catholic, I imagine the mother of the child would have promised initially to raise the children Catholic. So she's broken faith there. And on the other hand, the father clearly dissembled to you guys. Probably they decided they couldn't definitively decide which denomination in which to raise their children. What a mess.

From the Anglican point of view, you can be reassured that we too believe firmly (well, officially) that once baptised, always baptised, and that baptism is never to be administered again, so long as it was performed in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The ONLY situation in which a form of (re-)baptism might occur, is if there was any doubt as to the validity of the rite (eg, done in the Name of Jesus only, or in the Name of Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer, or some other variation), or indeed, doubt that it was done before.

An example in the parish in which I work: an autistic child and her siblings and cousins were brought for baptism. There was doubt as to whether the autistic child had been baptised - when she was born, a chaplain had had to be called because the life of the child hung in the balance. The parents weren't sure of the denomination of the chaplain, weren't sure what the chaplain had done (whether a blessing or a baptism), there wasn't a baptism certificate, and no register entry to be found (I rang the hospital, I traced every lead I could). Given that the child was being brought with other family members, the parents felt that her being left out would be more problematic than inclusion. And so the priest agreed to provisionally baptise her, with the words, "N. if you have not already been baptised, I baptise you..." etc. And this time a certificate was given and an entry made in the church register! By my own hand.

The thing that bothers me about your case, Trisagion, is the fact that the couple clearly did not understand that baptism is (almost) universal, that Romans these days accept as valid baptisms done with the Trinitarian formula, and ditto for Anglicans. They also seem to be confused as to what baptism is actually all about - did they actually absorb the baptismal preparation (if any) provided by either the RCs or the Anglicans? Either that, or the parents think they can be the harbingers of RCC/Anglican union through offering their child at the fonts of both places...

As to how to handle it, I'd be having a chat with the Anglican priest, and asking for his/her take on the story. (Or getting Mrs T to do so, as it was in that capacity that she discovered the discrepancy.) He/She may not be aware that you guys baptised the child, in the same way you didn't know the child was being baptised at the Anglican pile. I am sure he/she will be equally horrified at this irregularity. Well, I would be. I'd be terribly embarrassed, actually. And nettled. And I'd want to know.

For the parents: I just don't know. Is it worth kicking up a stink about? Presumably as a good Catholic the father is not into contraception (but we won't go there), and so other children can be expected. Perhaps the quietest way to go would be to wait for the next child, and then tackle the parents on the issue of making a choice: Us OR Them, not both. And clarifying their understanding of what baptism is all about.
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The Anglican rules are the same as the RC rules - one baptism once. It's more likely that the couple didn't let anyone know that they were having two ceremonies, and were just covering all the bases (!)

---

quote:

---

One of those occasions where we realise how much our ecclesial practice is out of kilter with people's supermarket choice mentality.

---

quote:

---

I'd make sure the Anglican priest knows, so that he/she can add a note to the register to the effect that the child had already been baptised. And then get the two clergy to talk to each other about how they pick up the obvious need for pastoral instruction in this particular case...

---

Thank you. I think, having in mind the Vicar's knowledge of the whole picture, that might prove problematic.
 

---

Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
Someone from an anabaptist perspective has to snigger at some point in this thread, so it may as well be me . As I mention whenever this sort of thing comes up, my wife was rebaptised as an infant in an anglican church for no sounder reason than getting the photos and the cake.

I agree that there's a gap between church practice and consumerism, but, given that "one church per state" is an anachronism, and that consumerism looks like it's here to stay, I'm not convinced that trying to move the world to fit in with the church is viable, let alone desirable. In the meantime, I stand by my conviction that the best way to leave the widest range of options open to children is not two baptisms but no baptism.
 

---

Posted by Love the You you hide (# 12249) on :
 
I am totally outraged by the response of the Vicar in this case! It's not a game he's playing - what did he hope to achieve? This is certainly not ecumenism, by any stretch of the imagination!

I have a Catholic friend with an Anglican husband, and they chose to baptise their children in the Anglican church, but bring them up as Catholics (again, slightly odd, but a baptism is a baptism, after all...)
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:

---

Sadly the Vicar's comments at the service made it all too apparent that he did know, "Isn't it nice that the Xs are able to do this. This baby was baptised at the Catholic Church yesterday and today we're going to baptise her again. What a lovely ecumenical family we have." I quote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Love the You you hide:
This is certainly not ecumenism, by any stretch of the imagination!

---

You're right: if we carried on down this route we'd have to let all those anabaptist denominations into the ecumenical club, and that would never do!
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
I think there is a world of difference between an Anabaptist honestly baptising someone who they sincerely believe has not been baptised with someone who knows damn well that a child has been validly baptised, according to the teaching of their own church, and rebaptising anyway.
 

---

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
The proper Anglican response is as we all know 'don't ask, don't tell.'

If he did know then he certainly should not have rebaptised, let alone advertising it as ecumenism - driving a horse and coach through his own church's rules and another's is the very opposite of ecumenism. I can't understand his attitude at all. TBH if I was in the Catholic church in question I'd want to know from the Anglican Bishop if this was now Diocesan policy.

Having said which, although I do explain that baptism is once for all and is into the Christian church not just our bit of it, I have never thought to ask at baptism prep 'you haven't had the baby baptised anywhere else have you?' but I will now!
 

---

Posted by Love the You you hide (# 12249) on :
 
LOL @ Melon!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:
TBH if I was in the Catholic church in question I'd want to know from the Anglican Bishop if this was now Diocesan policy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Love the You you hide:
This is certainly not ecumenism, by any stretch of the imagination!

---

You're right: if we carried on down this route we'd have to let all those anabaptist denominations into the ecumenical club, and that would never do!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:

---

Sadly the Vicar's comments at the service made it all too apparent that he did know, "Isn't it nice that the Xs are able to do this. This baby was baptised at the Catholic Church yesterday and today we're going to baptise her again. What a lovely ecumenical family we have." I quote.

---

That's just wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:
I didn't know they were excluded - don't Baptists come under the definition of anabaptist?

---

quote:

---

The Anglican rules are the same as the RC rules - one baptism once

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
What do they teach Anglican clergy in ordination training these days...

---

I'm pretty clear about why the font is by the door and what the Liturgical Movement thinks about adult initiation.
 

---

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
anabaptism remains the dark secret that means we'll never be fully welcome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
I share Melon's reservations...

---

• It's seen by many as connected to membership, and membership tends to be central to the concerns of church leaders
• It's one of the two sacraments that everyone agrees on, so refusing to pay lip-service to agreeing about even those two sacraments makes an already perilous exercise in looking for lowest common denominators seem doomed
• Unlike communion (where what everyone does looks superficially similar despite enormous underlying differences in theology), anabaptism (in the "believer's baptism" form) is superficially very different to paedobaptism (and, also, there are pretty big differences in theology)
• Paedobaptists sometimes seem to see the mere existence of anabaptism as saying that their churchmanship is wrong and their own salvation is in doubt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Well, clearly if the vicar did know what was going on, it needs to be taken up. If not with him, I'd get the RC priest to talk to the Area Dean so that the information on this guy's cluelessness can be fed back to the Bishop.

<Mutter, mutter..irascible old fogey mode> What do they teach Anglican clergy in ordination training these days...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
The OP issue is that the carefully and comparatively recently-spun ecumenical understanding of baptism doesn't work for at least one set of parents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:
Isn't it more that it doesn't seem to be working for that vicar?

---

The push for a double baptism presumably came from the parents. However clueless the minister, I can't imagine him offering a "2 for 1" deal to baptismal parties leaving the catholic church.

quote:

---

Having said which I'm not really sure what the issue is in terms of salvation. Presumably the second baptism is just surplus to requirements rather than acting as an anti-baptism to invalidate the first?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
About a kind of ecumenism that is not really ecumenical, about the non-convincing arguments in this thread that were put forth against the practice, and about today's practices not being consistent with the practices of our past.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:
So do anabaptists anabaptise more than once?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
Does that mean that you think that ecumenism should be based on something other than the recognition of our common baptismal dignity?

---

quote:

---

So am I now to take it that you have reached a position where you are happy that a child baptised by and Orthodox priest, who later wishes to manifest his faith by joining a Protestant Church that believes in "believers baptism" (by which they mean "believers-only baptism) should be "re-baptised"?

---

quote:

---

Does this mean that you agree with Melon that a couple where one is a Catholic and one an Orthodox should have two baptisms in order to better express that which we should "applaud" as best expressing "their understanding of the Church universal"?

---

I didn't say that they should do this, and I think the norm would be one baptism. What I'm saying is that behind the inconvenient DIY praxis is an inkling of something quite good, and that majoring on that in any pastoral response seems like a much better plan than scolding them for having used the wrong colour pen to tick your administrative boxes. Jesus never taught that pouring expensive ointment over the carpet was a sacrament, but he was smart enough to focus on intentions rather than ritual when it happened.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to say that I think Edward Green's solution is a wise one (because I don't often get to agree with him ), although it's not a lot of use after the event as in this specific case.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
At the risk of derailing the thread, it might be of interest that there is an 'Anabaptist Network' in the UK which includes people at Bristol Baptist College, Stuart Murray-Williams and his 'emerging'/post-christendom anabaptist connections and like-minded folk across the traditional denominations - including Anglican vicars.

I hasten to add that the emphasis here is the 'Anabaptist' one of peace (a la the Quakers), radical lifestyle, non-Erastian Christianity etc.

All of which emphases don't necessarily presuppose a believers'-only baptism to my mind. I can understand how a CofE vicar could explore these areas and more and remain a committed paedobaptist.

Interestingly, Murray-Williams speaks appreciatively of the Donatists in his book 'Post Christendom' so what we might be seeing here is a reintroduction of old 'heresies'( was Donatism a heresy or simply an overly rigorous approach to the issue of human frailty with elements of perfectionism?).

I've got a lot of time for the Anabaptist tradition (other than in its Munzer/Munster monstrous phase)but I'm always suspicious when it starts drafting Lollards and Waldensians and even Cathars and Albigensians to its cause - as though anything non-Catholic/non-Erastian was ipso facto kosher.

Anyway, as to the main point of the OP. I've been in believers'-only baptism circles for the last 20-odd years but I still find the vicar's approach puzzling. Presumably he sees the RC and Anglican baptisms as mutually reinforcing. I'd have thought that one would have sufficed in either/or of the parents' churches given that, whatever their understanding of baptism, they were coming from a paedobaptist perspective.

An odd one and no mistake.

Gamaliel
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Trisagion

quote:

---

Not that your answers to these questions help me resolve the issues identified in the OP, but then I don't suppose that was what you were seeking to do anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Anyway, as to the main point of the OP. I've been in believers'-only baptism circles for the last 20-odd years but I still find the vicar's approach puzzling. Presumably he sees the RC and Anglican baptisms as mutually reinforcing. I'd have thought that one would have sufficed in either/or of the parents' churches given that, whatever their understanding of baptism, they were coming from a paedobaptist perspective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
but I'm always suspicious when it starts drafting Lollards and Waldensians and even Cathars and Albigensians to its cause - as though anything non-Catholic/non-Erastian was ipso facto kosher.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
What do they teach Anglican clergy in ordination training these days...

---

I'm pretty clear about why the font is by the door ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
So if part way through the service the priest and the family up and parade to the back of the church, it leaves almost the entire congregation effectively cut out of participation -- and specifically, cut out of their role as witnesses to the event.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
What do we (the pastoral team at the Catholic parish) do with regard to the parents?
What do we say to the father about baptism, about his concealing of this second ceremony from us during the baptismal preparation?

---

quote:

---

What do we say to the Vicar about this business?

---

quote:

---

What are the Anglican rules and what can be done about any breaches?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
I am still interested in knowing what the theological implications are of being baptised twice in this way, for those ascribing to the beliefs of the Anglican and RC churches. Does it actually matter in some way for the child's spiritual status - or is it just poor practice and a redundant act ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
What do they teach Anglican clergy in ordination training these days...

---

I'm pretty clear about why the font is by the door ....

---

It is?

I'd certainly not want to base any theology or training on the symbolism of that.

---

Well I suppose I'm just lucky you weren't my liturgy tutor then!
 

---

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
The thing that puzzles me is what the Anglican priest thought he was doing. I can understand an Anglican priest who may (after discussion) baptise an oolder person who wishes to be rebaptised for some reason (though I don't think I'd do it myself) and I can understand a priest who baptised the baby again because s/he didn't think to ask if there had already been a baptism or wasn't sure about the validity of that baptism - but if you believe baptism is a once for all act, and you know it has been done once, how can you baptise again? It does imply that really the vicar in question sees baptism it as a mere ritual or symbolic act and not as a sacrament at all.

I know vicars do all sorts of things around baptism though - years ago I was asked to a baptism for an unchurched friend's baby. No water was used, even as a new Christian I thought it was odd, turns out that vicar didn't do infant baptism at all as he didn't believe in it so just did a thanksgiving and told the parents it was a baptism!
 

---

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
What to do?

What do we (the pastoral team at the Catholic parish) do with regard to the parents? What do we say to the father about baptism, about his concealing of this second ceremony from us during the baptismal preparation?

What do we say to the Vicar about this business? What are the Anglican rules and what can be done about any breaches?

...(but any perspectives will be gratefully received)...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
What do they teach Anglican clergy in ordination training these days...

---

I'm pretty clear about why the font is by the door ....

---

It is?

I'd certainly not want to base any theology or training on the symbolism of that.

---

Well I suppose I'm just lucky you weren't my liturgy tutor then!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:
I know vicars do all sorts of things around baptism though - years ago I was asked to a baptism for an unchurched friend's baby. No water was used, even as a new Christian I thought it was odd, turns out that vicar didn't do infant baptism at all as he didn't believe in it so just did a thanksgiving and told the parents it was a baptism!

---

That's dreadful! Makes the "double" baptism look tame by comparison!
 

---

Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
However, the second attempt presents a very confused view of what baptism is and actually far from being ecumenical it re-inforces splits by implying that we are baptised into a denomination not into the Church. It's not just poor practice but appalling theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:
At the risk of derailing this thread entirely I've heard that one of the big evo Anglican churches in Oxford re-baptises...apparently its not that unusual in evo Anglican circles. Does anyone know more about this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The Anglican rules are the same as the RC rules - one baptism once. It's more likely that the couple didn't let anyone know that they were having two ceremonies, and were just covering all the bases (!)

---

Sadly the Vicar's comments at the service made it all too apparent that he did know, "Isn't it nice that the Xs are able to do this. This baby was baptised at the Catholic Church yesterday and today we're going to baptise her again. What a lovely ecumenical family we have." I quote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
So what happens if the child is later confirmed in the anglican church?

---

quote:

---

He muttered 'I want some of that!' ran forward and received communion from the Bishop...

---

Jesus told us that the Spirit blew exactly where he wanted...
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Arietty, wow!

(And with that, off to All Saints for some idle post-count boasting)
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Trisagion

How awful! As I think you know, I worship in a church which practises baptism of those who have come to faith, but my different perspective on baptism doesn't get in the way of seeing the wrongness in this.

It might help to look at what is of first importance and what can be done first. I think the husband's concealment is of first importance, given his position. And that is a matter for the Catholic pastoral team. There is also a suggestion of collusion by others in keeping it quiet. I've no doubt there was a rationalisation of the behaviour, but the concealment does seem to me to amount to a breach of obedience and trust. In any case, that looks like a logical place to start. What happens as a result of that might change the best way of tackling any wider issues.

The double baptism, which was neither necessary nor right, is probably not the most important issue. It's a hard thing to say, but it looks as though there has been both self-deception and deception here. It feels like a mockery.

My sympathies to both of you. It must have been very uncomfortable to be there, receive the welcome and no doubt lots of good wishes, while trying to come to terms with what had happened.

For all concerned.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Arietty, I love that story.

Yesterday at the Evil Liberal church I sometimes go to in Sheffield, the sermon was on the Wedding at Cana.

The slant the (evil, heretical, "Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer") preacher put on the story was this: Jesus turned the water used for ritual washing into wine. This means that Jesus has turned the rules and regulations of Judaism into the abundant holy anarchy (that's my phrase, but I just thought of it and like it) of the grace of God. Your story illustrates that perfectly; we can have as many rules and regulations about the Sacrament as we like, but when Jesus turns our water of rules and regulations into wine, they go out of the window, replaced by the abundant grace of God.

Just what I needed this morning, so I thank you.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Yes, it is a lovely story and I'm not in favour of binding people in regulatory straightjackets either. But surely liberty is not licence? Pastoral oversight may also involve correction. There is a world of difference between the childlike enthusiasm of a convert and the apparently calculated concealment in this case.
 

---

Posted by My Duck (# 11924) on :
 
I'm with Foaming Draught.

What is more desirable, baby baptised twice (despite the rules) or not at all?

ISTM that if the vicar knew about the previous event there might be some private matter that he thought justified doing it twice.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Yes, it is a lovely story and I'm not in favour of binding people in regulatory straightjackets either. But surely liberty is not licence? Pastoral oversight may also involve correction. There is a world of difference between the childlike enthusiasm of a convert and the apparently calculated concealment in this case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Pastoral oversight may also involve correction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
A bit like the ARCIC documents; the theologians and church leaders may agree, but it's a very different picture at the grass roots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
if you weren't more liberal than standard anglican teaching, what implication would it have ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
the second attempt presents a very confused view of what baptism is and actually far from being ecumenical it re-inforces splits by implying that we are baptised into a denomination not into the Church. It's not just poor practice but appalling theology. That's why I think the bishop needs to be informed.

---

quote:

---

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
Between baptism and confirmation, the child is a pan-denominational-barring-anabaptists church member.

---

quote:

---

Once the baptism that conferred that status is confirmed, the child is either in the anglican communion or the catholic communion. In bald terms, that "theology" says that the child is effectively excommunicated from whichever communions he is not confirmed into.

---

quote:

---

So in what sense was the initial baptism that is being confirmed universal?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
No one can, at present, be a member in good standing of both Catholic and Anglican communions. The church is divided. I'd like to be able to be in communion with all Christians, but at present that is simply impossible.

---

quote:

---

1. The bishop will likely tell the vicar where the complaint came from. This will inevitably sour any working relationship that might exist or develop between this vicar and the Catholic parish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:
I know vicars do all sorts of things around baptism though - years ago I was asked to a baptism for an unchurched friend's baby. No water was used, even as a new Christian I thought it was odd, turns out that vicar didn't do infant baptism at all as he didn't believe in it so just did a thanksgiving and told the parents it was a baptism!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:
At the risk of derailing this thread entirely I've heard that one of the big evo Anglican churches in Oxford re-baptises... apparently its not that unusual in evo Anglican circles. Does anyone know more about this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
I have a horrible feeling that if complaint is made it will be treated as a disciplinary matter under the C of E's shiny new disciplinary procedures as the matter is not trivial and, I think, the Catholic priest is a legitimate complainant*. IIRC, under those rules the complainee is entitled to know who his accuser is.

*Basically you have to be in a position to claim that the action had some impact on you, so the Catholic priest can complain because it has complicated relationships between him and his parishoner but none of us could complain just because we read about in on SoF. I think the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate complainers is one of the best things about the new clergy discipline measure.

---

quote:

---

Wouldn't this be solved if the 'appeal' was preceeded by, 'If you've never been baptised before - not even as a child because it still counts - then please come forward....'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
b) I have seen a bishop make a similar off-the-cuff invitation at a confirmation/baptism service.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The Anglican rules are the same as the RC rules - one baptism once.

---

quote:

---

Could one of the shipmates from the Anglican communion provide a quote from C of E or Episcopalian canon law, or from a generally recognised Anglican catechism, stating that baptism is never to be repeated? Of course the tradition asserts this, and every Anglican priest is supposed to assent to the Creed -- "I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church". Cor ad cor

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Wouldn't this be solved if the 'appeal' was preceeded by, 'If you've never been baptised before - not even as a child because it still counts - then please come forward....'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
[]Only if you think the Bible clearly teaches once-per-lifetime baptism as a mechanism that changes your status in the heavenlies, which a very large chunk of "the Church" alive today doesn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
If I am acting as a minister of the Church of England (which in the very lowliest possible position as a mere trainee Reader I sometimes in a sense do) then it is only honest of me to say what the Church of England isays when I am speaking in its name, and representing it to others.

---

quote:

---

One suspects that some CofE liturgists (such as Colin Buchanan) have a Presbyterian-like attitude that sees infant baptism as a covenant matter, the child becoming a member of the church incorporate in its parents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken:
One suspects that some CofE liturgists (such as Colin Buchanan) have a Presbyterian-like attitude that sees infant baptism as a covenant matter, the child becoming a member of the church incorporate in its parents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
Does that mean that you think that ecumenism should be based on something other than the recognition of our common baptismal dignity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
Does that mean that you think that ecumenism should be based on something other than the recognition of our common baptismal dignity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
I suspect that if anabaptists were more numerous

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Guys, the argument "the creed says one baptism so our view is the right one" excludes from the creed the Orthodox, since there are many many instances when people even from the Roman Catholic Church are received through baptism. And even when no baptism is used, it is generally said that this is done on economy (exception) and not on precision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
Worse, in fact, since it is the equivalent of hanging a big sign on the church door: WE ARE THE ONLY CHRISTIANS AROUND.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
I confess I have not heard of real life anabaptists...

---

quote:

---

Only if your sole criterion for measuring exclusiveness is adherence to a strained reading of "one baptism". As Matt Black says, others would say that vaguely orthodox views about God and salvation were a better place to start.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Well, if God doesn't recognize second baptisms it's just an extra bath, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
it is hard to see how this "extra bath" can fail to bring about strife and conflict as the child grows up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
For anabaptists, if the detestable heresy of paedobaptism did not exist they would not be obliged to rebaptise anyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
By the way, I'd like to ask you about the Arians... You know, that historical heresy... I say historical because today there are no Arians, although there are others who rejects Jesus' divinity... Do you think they are part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church? The ancient arians, I mean... Because they were received with chrismation only... I would be objecting strongly, if someone dealt with me the way the ancients dealt with the arians, unless I was convinced I have fallen in as serious a heresy as them.

---

A contemporary rephrasing of that question would be "Do you recognise the Salvation Army, which does not practice baptism, as a church?"
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Which would bring the question what a church is...
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
...and is it in turn linked to the issue of what a Christian is...?
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
...and whether the Kingdom is available to heretical Christians or not...
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
The poem "If", by Rudyard Kipling
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 


To bring the thread back on topic: Trisagion, have you decided on a course of action?
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
Nunc, I'm laying in bed with an awful stomach bug, God is good...this is stopping me doing or saying anything precipitate.

[ 16. January 2007, 13:01: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
 

---

Posted by Miffy (# 1438) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Love the You you hide:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:
I know vicars do all sorts of things around baptism though - years ago I was asked to a baptism for an unchurched friend's baby. No water was used, even as a new Christian I thought it was odd, turns out that vicar didn't do infant baptism at all as he didn't believe in it so just did a thanksgiving and told the parents it was a baptism!

---

That's dreadful! Makes the "double" baptism look tame by comparison!

---

Indeed. And implies that preparation didn't exactly figure in the grand scheme of things, either. How else could the parents have remained in ignorance? I noticed Arietty says 'years ago.' I remember the service of thanksgiving for the birth of a child being around at the time my youngest was an infant nearly 17 years ago. Maybe preparation wasn't as extensive as it is now - I have no idea.

Incidentally, can a vicar legally refuse to 'do' infant baptism nowadays, as opposed to push his/her own preferences for adult baptism? I'm sure there are situations when it's felt that the family of the child should be presented with an acceptable alternative, but surely not on the basis that the incumbent just happens to come from a different end of the theological spectrum?
 

---

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miffy:
Incidentally, can a vicar legally refuse to 'do' infant baptism nowadays, as opposed to push his/her own preferences for adult baptism? I'm sure there are situations when it's felt that the family of the child should be presented with an acceptable alternative, but surely not on the basis that the incumbent just happens to come from a different end of the theological spectrum?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mili:
sometimes I think it would have been easier for me personally just to have been baptised as an infant.

---

Mili that's a brave admission (I like it though)
 

---

Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mili:
I think it would have been easier for me personally just to have been baptised as an infant.

---

quote:

---

Once you have your children baptised, you've given them a choice between sticking to your baptismal dogma or running the "common baptismal dignity" gauntlet, and I can't see why any parent in the 21st Century would want to do that to their kids.

---

Personally I don't see a problem. I was done as a baby and as an adult, before deciding that my adult baptism was just a very wet renewal of my baptism vows. At no point during my anabaptist phase did my infant baptism bother me and I don't lose any sleep about my adult baptism now. I don't think God much minds invalid sacramental acts done with good intentions.

I hope ours, when it arrives, grows up to be a good Anglo-Catholic. Or failing that a Methodist. It's certainly getting baptised. But if it decides to become an Anabaptist in later life I will happily attend his or her baptism and refrain from using the phrases 'sacramental validity' and 'common baptismal dignity' at any point in the party afterwards. I think parents have to do what they think is right and accept that children, when they grow up, may have other ideas.

That said, if it goes down that route it had better join one of the peace churches and not the sort of place where the Left Behind books are taken seriously or there will be trouble!
 

---

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
I'm very glad that I was baptised as a baby. It fits my experience of growing up in the church well. I did not need to make a decision about whether I really believed, or believed enough to be baptised. Interestingly, my mother came under the influence of people who did not accept infant baptism, but what stopped her was knowing that it would hurt her parents. Since then she has come to be very pro-infant baptism herself.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Personally I don't see a problem. I was done as a baby and as an adult, before deciding that my adult baptism was just a very wet renewal of my baptism vows. At no point during my anabaptist phase did my infant baptism bother me and I don't lose any sleep about my adult baptism now. I don't think God much minds invalid sacramental acts done with good intentions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
I did not need to make a decision about whether I really believed, or believed enough to be baptised.

---

quote:

---

Interestingly, my mother came under the influence of people who did not accept infant baptism, but what stopped her was knowing that it would hurt her parents. Since then she has come to be very pro-infant baptism herself.

---

That sounds to me like exactly how the system is designed to work .
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
Nunc, I'm laying in bed with an awful stomach bug, God is good...this is stopping me doing or saying anything precipitate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
I did not need to make a decision about whether I really believed, or believed enough to be baptised.

---

I'm glad that your baptism was a good fit for you, but the above is precisely what I want to avoid for my own children.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Interestingly, my mother came under the influence of people who did not accept infant baptism, but what stopped her was knowing that it would hurt her parents. Since then she has come to be very pro-infant baptism herself.

---

That sounds to me like exactly how the system is designed to work .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
A friend of mine from a believers-only tradition struggled for a long time about whether she believed enough because she had never had a conversion experience because she had grown up in the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
What do you mean by that? Her parents would have been upset because being baptism at that age would have been a rejection of how she had been brought up and of their sort of Christianity. I think that's why parents find it difficult because it comes across as `you're not a proper Christian'.

---

quote:

---

Her parents would have been upset because not forcing her own children to eat spinach would have been a rejection of the way they had brought her up. It comes across as "you weren't a proper parent". In the end she became quite pro-spinach-for-children herself.

---

And I don't think the "you weren't a proper Christian" argument has any place in an adult discussion. You bring up children the way you think best, and then they make their lives. It's their ability to become successful independent adults that ultimately validates your overall parenthood strategy. My in-laws didn't vaccinate their children, and clearly felt that if we vaccinated ours it would suggest that we thought they had been irresponsible parents. Which was quite perceptive really . And then life goes on.

I have no problem with parents deciding to have their children baptised. But parents who try to manipulate their grown-up children through guilt need to grow up themselves, IMHO. And there's a direct correlation between how much one bangs on about common baptismal dignity and ONE baptism and how much guilt you pump into your loved ones.
 

---

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
What do you mean by that? Her parents would have been upset because being baptism at that age would have been a rejection of how she had been brought up and of their sort of Christianity. I think that's why parents find it difficult because it comes across as `you're not a proper Christian'.

---

But it's identical in process terms to

quote:

---

Her parents would have been upset because not forcing her own children to eat spinach would have been a rejection of the way they had brought her up. It comes across as "you weren't a proper parent". In the end she became quite pro-spinach-for-children herself.

---

---

quote:

---

And I don't think the "you weren't a proper Christian" argument has any place in an adult discussion. You bring up children the way you think best, and then they make their lives. It's their ability to become successful independent adults that ultimately validates your overall parenthood strategy. My in-laws didn't vaccinate their children, and clearly felt that if we vaccinated ours it would suggest that we thought they had been irresponsible parents. Which was quite perceptive really . And then life goes on.

---

quote:

---

I have no problem with parents deciding to have their children baptised. But parents who try to manipulate their grown-up children through guilt need to grow up themselves, IMHO. And there's a direct correlation between how much one bangs on about common baptismal dignity and ONE baptism and how much guilt you pump into your loved ones.

---

quote:

---

I have no problem with parents deciding to have their children baptised. But parents who try to manipulate their grown-up children through guilt need to grow up themselves, IMHO. And there's a direct correlation between how much one bangs on about common baptismal dignity and ONE baptism and how much guilt you pump into your loved ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
I was talking about whether she would be (re-)baptised as an adult not whether she was going to have her children baptised. So your analogy does not work at all.

---

quote:

---

Maybe it has no place, but IME it is one that comes up when a person who was baptised as an infant decides to be (re-)baptised as an adult and not just implicitly especially if the church the person now attends is one with a narrow definition of what is Christian.

---

quote:

---

but her respect from them helped her to withstand the pressure she was getting from believers-only baptism people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
the general mechanism is still perceived pressure from the parents to do like they did, and it seems to me that paedobaptist churches do nothing to discourage that mechanism

---

quote:

---

It's the one remaining informal sanction that remains, now that the rather more up-front anti-anabaptist sanctions of the past have disappeared.

---

quote:

---

And any paedobaptist parent who kicks and screams like a spoiled toddler because their child has decided to go to a church they don't approve of would also appear to have a rather narrow definition of what is a Christian.

---

quote:

---

Or, from another equally objective standpoint, helped to keep her in awe of what in her generation was the status quo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

It's the one remaining informal sanction that remains, now that the rather more up-front anti-anabaptist sanctions of the past have disappeared.

---

In what way? No paedobaptist church I ever heard of rejects adult baptism. So there is no sanction at all against anyone baptised as an adult. I don't understand what you are getting at here.

---

quote:

---

Yes. Obviously. But what on earth has that got to do with the subject we are discussing?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Or, from another equally objective standpoint, helped to keep her in awe of what in her generation was the status quo.

---

I don't understand this either. Whose generation? Are you saying that adult baptism is now normal, the status quo but that older people might not understand that yet?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brojames
The NT view, after all, seems to be that baptism is a once in a lifetime event.

---

Is it? I can think of one verse that might say that if you have a vivid imagination. The argument is surely almost entirely from silence, ie we don't see anyone being baptised twice. But then we don't see any baptisms of infants either, which, apparently, means that infant baptism is what God always intended as the very basis of Christian unity

One response to that is that the context of the church changed to make baptism for children of believers a pastoral necessity. And my response to that is that the contemporary context of disunity between denominations, building on a history of national church monopolies and persecution of everyone else, cannot possibly be compared with the situation described in the New Testament. If St Paul was posting here, I'd expect him to be going bananas about no longer being able to say "the church in the city of x".

We don't have a NT theology of papering over the cracks of schism...

[ 17. January 2007, 16:49: Message edited by: Melon ]
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
And any paedobaptist parent who kicks and screams like a spoiled toddler because their child has decided to go to a church they don't approve of would also appear to have a rather narrow definition of what is a Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
think it means that I do not have an egalitarian attitude towards other faiths, when one choses to leave his faith to enter a different one...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:

quote:

---

Yes. Obviously. But what on earth has that got to do with the subject we are discussing?

---

"Narrow" was Carys' term to describe the position of many anabaptists.

---

quote:

---

My response is that the use of emotional blackmail by paedobaptist parents betrays a similar narrowness. In other words, I think it's the height of hypocrisy for paedobaptists to accuse anabaptists of narrowness while continuing to bang on about a "common baptismal dignity" as if half the churches in their town don't qualify as churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
The problem between paedobaptists (though I prefer the term omnibaptists as we do not only baptise infants) and anabaptists/believers-only baptists types is that the latter do not recognise the baptism of the former if done as an infant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
The problem between paedobaptists (though I prefer the term omnibaptists as we do not only baptise infants) and anabaptists/believers-only baptists types is that the latter do not recognise the baptism of the former if done as an infant.

---

No, the problem is that baptism doesn't mean the same thing to you and to me, which is one reason why "one baptism" as a basis for unity is a logical non-starter. I recognise your baptism as having exactly as much effect on your status with regard to Christ and the church as my own baptism, ie absolutely none whatsoever. Paedobaptists want me to accord more efficacity to their baptism than I accord to my own baptism as a condition for ecumenical dialogue, which seems a little unreasonable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
Paedobaptists want me to accord more efficacity to their baptism than I accord to my own baptism as a condition for ecumenical dialogue, which seems a little unreasonable.

---

quote:

---

...some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

...Our thoughts turn first to those Christians who make open confession of Jesus Christ as God and Lord and as the sole Mediator between God and men, to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We are aware indeed that there exist considerable divergences from the doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning Christ Himself, the Word of God made flesh, the work of redemption, and consequently, concerning the mystery and ministry of the Church, and the role of Mary in the plan of salvation. But we rejoice to see that our separated brethren look to Christ as the source and center of Church unity. Their longing for union with Christ inspires them to seek an ever closer unity, and also to bear witness to their faith among the peoples of the earth.

A love and reverence of Sacred Scripture which might be described as devotion, leads our brethren to a constant meditative study of the sacred text. For the Gospel "is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and then to the Greek".

While invoking the Holy Spirit, they seek in these very Scriptures God as it were speaking to them in Christ, Whom the prophets foretold, Who is the Word of God made flesh for us. They contemplate in the Scriptures the life of Christ and what the Divine Master taught and did for our salvation, especially the mysteries of His death and resurrection. ... Sacred Scriptures provide for the work of dialogue an instrument of the highest value in the mighty hand of God for the attainment of that unity which the Saviour holds out to all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
I recognise your baptism as having exactly as much effect on your status with regard to Christ and the church as my own baptism, ie absolutely none whatsoever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
*snip* I can't for the life of me see how you get from Trisagion's comment, in the context of an Anglican vicar who rebaptised someone he shouldn't
*snip*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
So what's the point of being baptised?

---

quote:

---

though I think we're a long way from the OP here which wasn't about your sort of anabaptism at all

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
I recognise your baptism as having exactly as much effect on your status with regard to Christ and the church as my own baptism, ie absolutely none whatsoever.

---

But you are perhaps unusual in that.

Baptists-with-a-capital-B (who are far more numerous than people in the old Anabaptist tradition) very often hold that baptism does have an real effect on church membership. Many - probably most in thic country until perhaps very recently - are in closed fellowships which do not allow membership to those who aren't baptised under there rules. Many Baptists in the USA - millions of them - are in churches that insist that Baptism must be by full immersion and only recognise Baptist churches as churches, rejecting even full immersion believer's baptism practiced by other churches, iuncuding those that don;t baptise children. Some of them - at least a large minority - make it a salvation issue.

Now I know you don't take that view, but a lot of people do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
I recognise your baptism as having exactly as much effect on your status with regard to Christ and the church as my own baptism, ie absolutely none whatsoever.

---

But you are perhaps unusual in that.

Baptists-with-a-capital-B (who are far more numerous than people in the old Anabaptist tradition) very often hold that baptism does have an real effect on church membership.

---

quote:

---

Barnabas62, you are correct. That is exactly what I heard him say. I also now know that the Baptismal Register at the Anglican Church shows the baby to have been baptised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
But Melon was talking about the effect of baptism on relationship to Christ and, I presume, the church universal, not membership of a local congregation.

---

quote:

---

Membership of the church universal comes through saving faith in Christ, not through any sacrament, whether the sacrament has your brand name or mine on it.

---

Which, clearly, is a major difference between those of us who are sacramentalists and those of us who are not. (Notwithstanding random protestants playing fast and loose with the Articles of Religion in the nineteenth century. )
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
...which is why those of a more (ana)baptist persuasion (and I would suspect most evangelicals generally) take umbrage at all this talk of 'one baptism' being the basis for further ecumenical dialogue...
 

---

Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
Barnabas62, you are correct. That is exactly what I heard him say. I also now know that the Baptismal Register at the Anglican Church shows the baby to have been baptised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
...which is why those of a more (ana)baptist persuasion (and I would suspect most evangelicals generally) take umbrage at all this talk of 'one baptism' being the basis for further ecumenical dialogue...

---

quote:

---

The paedobaptist consensus on this thread seems to be that what the parents did is wrong because it queers the pitch for ecumenical dialogue based on syntactic agreement about "one baptism" (and maybe because that puts the couple and their child in a confused position wrt the churches engaged in that dialogue). That just feels totally wrong to me: the focus of both church's concern should surely be the welfare and intentions of the parents, and, if the "one baptism" thing makes that impossible, it's probably time to reconsider how the "one baptism" thing functions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
Is anyone saying that 'one baptism' is the only basis for ecumenical dialogue?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Include me out of the paedobaptist consensus, then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
Yes, but (and this is my other problem with much on this thread), the OP isn't about RC-anglican dialogue, it's about a couple deciding that they don't want to play the "who gets the baby?" game. (

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:

The paedobaptist consensus on this thread seems to be that what the parents did is wrong because it queers the pitch for ecumenical dialogue based on syntactic agreement about "one baptism" (and maybe because that puts the couple and their child in a confused position wrt the churches engaged in that dialogue).

---

quote:

---

don't worry Callan, I saw the register open on the Vicar's desk when I took over Mrs T's post yesterday afternoon

---

Masterfully done, Holmes
 

---

Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
The problem seems to me, Melon, old fruit, is that in the over 20% of the posts on this thread that are down to you, you have decided that the OP was about turf wars and an opportunity for you to pick the scab on your own wounds.

---

I don't think I have a lot of wounds on this subject to pick over. I haven't been rebaptised, and in the sort of interdenominationalism that I see most of the time the consensus is anabaptist anyway.

I don't think that I've ever suggested that the OP is about turf wars per se - it sounds like the churches involved are on good terms, which is great. My suggestion was and is that the "one baptism" thing that makes the actions described in the OP a problem is a remnant of the days when paedobaptists literally ruled the Earth and turf wars were fought with armies, that its biblical support is dubious (regardless of which side of the anabaptist fence you sit), and that if churches were less hung up about "one baptism" it might make things a lot simpler. I'm sure most paedobaptist ministers are lovely, generous people who want to do right by those they pastor. My question is whether they do this in spite of a theological position that was designed for a very different situation to our own.

I still can't see many options for reading your "one baptismal dignity" sentence.

Why do you think the parents wanted two baptisms? It must be their idea, and getting the same baptismal party to both services suggests that they invested quite a lot in making it happen. I can't think of an explanation that doesn't involve some variant of keeping ecclesial options open for them and/or the child.

Glad you appear to be feeling better, btw .

[ETA: If the double baptism was the initiative of the vicar, which is not an idea I had seriously considered, add my vote to the "idiot vicar who needs a good slapping" pile.]

[ 18. January 2007, 13:45: Message edited by: Melon ]
 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
Melon, I would have thought that even from a believer's baptism perspective there might be issues if someone as, say, a teenager was baptised on profession of faith in their local Baptist Church, and then subsequently after drifting away from faith came back to a nearby independent church, say, and were baptised again on profession of faith.

ETA even more so if they did it in two chronologically close ceremonies one at the Baptist church because it was , e.g., their parents church and then in the independent church because it was where they worshipped themselves

[ 18. January 2007, 15:03: Message edited by: BroJames ]
 

---

Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
If it happened because NFI didn't believe the local baptist church was sound enough, I can well imagine the baptists being miffed, but I think they would be no more miffed about the baptism than about the implied unsoundness, ie it would be about as bad as a baptist moving to NFI because "they are open to the Spirit and you are not". If NFI was rebaptising baptists because only those in NFI are true believers, that would be upsetting, but it would be upsetting because of the claim to hold a monopoly on salvation, not because of the baptism itself.

My wife was baptised for the third time (following two infant baptisms) in a methodist church, with the full knowledge of the circuit, by a methodist minister. I wasn't really aware of the wider politics involved.

IME, best practice is for the pastor of the receiving church to have a chat with the pastor of the releasing church to check that the person in question isn't running away from some particular issue. Generally, the releasing pastor would be a bit sad that his congregation hadn't been able to meet the person's needs, but would prefer them to be somewhere than nowhere.

[ETA: I can't imagine believer's rebaptism happening for the reason you suggest in your ETA. It is quite possible to be a member of more than one congregation, because membership is a local church thing and is not contemporaneous with baptism. Dual membership happens when it makes sense, eg for some students and some missionaries.]

[ 18. January 2007, 15:15: Message edited by: Melon ]
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
[I can see how you come to that conclusion, but, with respect, I think you are still reading paedobaptist thinking into what you see of anabaptist practice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I would be unlikely to do that as I disagree with infant baptism and did not have my own daughter baptised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
Evangelical anglicans will count among their number sacramental paedo-baptists and (my position and I guess the majority) covenant paedo-baptists. If they don't think that either position is valid, then why are they anglicans?

---

quote:

---

Now that we've had confirmation that the second service was a baptism, my gripe has nothing to do with the mode or theology of baptism, but that the anglican minister treated so cavalierly what is a sacrament to other folk, including a sizeable chunk of his own church.

---

I suppose, apart from the vicar himself, only Trisagion who presumably knows him reasonably well, can attempt to expain his motives. On the face of it it seems like crass discourtesy masquerading as an attempt to be 'nice' . As there at least seems to be some attempt at ecumenical co-operation in that place, I fail to understand why he could not have approached the RC priest well in advance to discuss a strategy. It's not as if he regards RCs as less than Christians as he is reported as affirming the Catholic baptism before performing his own redundant ceremony.

Incidentally, FD, the 'sizeable chunk' of the C of E who believe baptism to be a sacrament must be 100%... unless they are disloyal to the 39 Articles.
 

---

Posted by JSwift (# 5502) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I would be unlikely to do that as I disagree with infant baptism and did not have my own daughter baptised.

---

Ok, fair enough, but I still think that your reading of the Southern Baptists is inaccurate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JSwift:
As one married to a Southern Baptist here in the U.S. I would say that his reading is extremely accurate.

---

quote:

---

29. Baptism
1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the person who is baptised - a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
2. Those who actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects for this ordinance.
3. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, in which the person is to be baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
4. Immersion - the dipping of the person in water - is necessary for the due administration of this ordinance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Melon, I've just looked back, and I can't see where ken specifically named Southern Baptists, or claimed that any wider church organisation such as the SBC had a formal policy of the sort you're asking to say. Ken spoke of the practice of individual US baptist churches, and I've no reason to think he's wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
Any chance of a link to a Southern Baptist statement of faith that supports this? I can quite believe that there are nominal southern baptists who believe all sorts of things, but then I have questionnaire data suggesting that 25% of those who self-identify as catholics in France believe in reincarnation, which is not to say that the pope agrees with them.

[ETA: This is about as definitive as you get for Southern Baptists, and it seems to me to say exactly what I said it would say, with symbolic sacraments, no mention of the necessity of baptism for salvation, and church membership being a local church issue.] [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I was under the impression nowadays that you didn't have to be loyal to the 39 Arts to be an Anglican - at least that's the impression I've gained on these boards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
the OP isn't about RC-anglican dialogue, it's about a couple deciding that they don't want to play the "who gets the baby?" game [...]
The paedobaptist consensus on this thread seems to be that what the parents did is wrong because it queers the pitch for ecumenical dialogue based on syntactic agreement about "one baptism"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Maybe you or someone else explained this higher up the thread, FD, but for the benefit of thickies like myself could you say what you mean by 'covenant paedo-baptists'?

---

quote:

---

Originally chucked in cheekily by Callan:
Notwithstanding random protestants playing fast and loose with the Articles of Religion in the nineteenth century.

---

That wasn't us

[ 18. January 2007, 21:19: Message edited by: Foaming Draught ]
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
When I wrote

quote:

---

Many Baptists in the USA - millions of them - are in churches that insist that Baptism must be by full immersion and only recognise Baptist churches as churches, rejecting even full immersion believer's baptism practiced by other churches,

---

quote:

---

Some of them - at least a large minority - make it a salvation issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I wasn't thinking particularly of SBC but of only some SBC churches and also some of the as far as I know numerous independent Bapatist churches who are affiliated to smaller connexions than SBC or no connexion at all. [snip] Some of them - at least a large minority - make it a salvation issue. which I think is the case. [snip] Some of them make baptism a salvation issue. [snip] Not all, or even most, but enough to take notice of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I know a fair number of noncos who are now very comfortable with the notion of communion as both memorial and feeding, and the act of baptism being a time and a place when God does something through the water.

---

quote:

---

"Churches of Christ" and the like aren't found in Britain as far as I know

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro:

quote:

---

"Churches of Christ" and the like aren't found in Britain as far as I know

---

In Great Britian they are part of the United Reform Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
the efficacy of sacraments suggests a "thin place" between God in eternity and the here and now. Through that thin place, God chooses out of his grace and mercy to bless people with the gift of himself.

---

Ok, I could probably fit that sort of notion into my theology But it doesn't seem to have anything to do with salvation or membership of the church universal.

(I don't think that a symbolic understanding of the sacraments has to mean treating the sacraments as worthless. I remember talking to a US army chaplain who had been involved in one church where the leftover bread sometimes ended up being swept up with the other rubbish at the end of the service. He managed to bring about a change in practice by proposing to wash said floor using the American flag, because it's only a symbol you know...)
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Melon

I think I get you - God may bless sacramentally but he doesn't save sacramentally? I think that takes us back to Ephesians 2:8-9. Or maybe I'm just being dumb again?
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro:

quote:

---

"Churches of Christ" and the like aren't found in Britain as far as I know

---

In Great Britian they are part of the United Reform Church.


Also remember that the SBC did what other US conservative groups do and left their more liberal international grouping. So when David Coffey was in Israel/Palestine with the Archbishops representing amoung others the Baptist World Alliance (he is the nearest thing Baptists have to a Pope) he was not representing Southern Baptists as they withdrew from the Baptist World Alliance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
God may bless sacramentally but he doesn't save sacramentally?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro:

quote:

---

"Churches of Christ" and the like aren't found in Britain as far as I know

---

In Great Britian they are part of the United Reform Church.

---

Thats exactly what I was trying to get at. The UCC is associated with the British URC. But the "Churches of Christ" mentioned here are a different lot altogether, and we don't have anything like them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro:


Also remember that the SBC did what other US conservative groups do and left their more liberal international grouping. So when David Coffey was in Israel/Palestine with the Archbishops representing amoung others the Baptist World Alliance (he is the nearest thing Baptists have to a Pope) he was not representing Southern Baptists as they withdrew from the Baptist World Alliance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Melon

I realised at some stage in my journey that I was dumb about sacramental theology. I still am in lots of ways; suffice to say that in my own understanding, the efficacy of sacraments suggests a "thin place" between God in eternity and the here and now. Through that thin place, God chooses out of his grace and mercy to bless people with the gift of himself. The water may wash, the bread may feed. In short, though human awarenesses and choices are significant, they do not necessarily determine what is going on in the divine exchange.

---

I would tie it into an deep understanding of the Incarnation (sometimes called the Proto-Sacrament) and the idea that therefore matter matters. It's not just about things in `the heavenlies' but stuff in the here and now. As God took flesh so he uses material things to effect changes.

But this is wandering from the point of this thread and perhaps deserves a thread all of its own.

Carys
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Yes Carys, that's very good. I was trying and failing to find a way of saying that and "matter matters" is an excellent summary. I agree it links deeply with the Incarnation.

I think it is worth another thread but I'm not sure I can find a coherent way of putting it. "Sacraments revisited" might be a neat title. Feel free if you can come up with something.
 

---

Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
I'm up for another thread. And I totally agree that "matter matters", it's the contention that a few small bits of matter matter much more than all the other signs of God's grace that I struggle with.

At the ecumenical service I attended last night, the catholic priest told a story about his medieval theology lecturer who, when he himself was a student, got into deep trouble for taking biology textbooks to meditations. That's the kind of sacramentalism I can do business with
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
Thank you all for your comments.

After much reflection, I brough this up with the Vicar about it last night after our WOPFCU service. I did so in the presence of my Parish Priest (but otherwise privately).

His (the Vicar's) response was to say that he didn't see it as a big deal, that he didn't believe in baptising infants any way and only did it because that was what they did at St X's. He said he hadn't had any of his children baptised and he couldn't se what we were so exercised about since didn't we have confirmation when it could all be sorted out.

Lovely.
 

---

Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
Ok, I take back everything I said, it was an anabaptist plot after all . Seriously, even I can see why this is not really what you want or expect from an anglican minister, and, whatever the parents' motivation, it doesn't sound like the minister's agenda had much to do with their concerns.
 

---

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
Thank you all for your comments.

After much reflection, I brought this up with the Vicar about it last night after our WOPFCU service. I did so in the presence of my Parish Priest (but otherwise privately).

His (the Vicar's) response was to say that he didn't see it as a big deal, that he didn't believe in baptising infants any way and only did it because that was what they did at St X's. He said he hadn't had any of his children baptised and he couldn't see what we were so exercised about since didn't we have confirmation when it could all be sorted out.

Lovely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
If I had a priest who displayed such theological crassness, pastoral ineptitude and such disdain for the canons,

---

Bit more difficult when it's your diocesan and Primate
 

---

Posted by Love the You you hide (# 12249) on :
 
Am I allowed to refer to a Vicar as "a jerk"? Please note I am not actually calling him one at this time, just questioning whether I CAN? Anything you may wish to infer from this is at your own discretion...
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foaming Draught:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
If I had a priest who displayed such theological crassness, pastoral ineptitude and such disdain for the canons,

---

Bit more difficult when it's your diocesan and Primate

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
I did not need to make a decision about whether I really believed, or believed enough to be baptised.

---

I'm glad that your baptism was a good fit for you, but the above is precisely what I want to avoid for my own children.

---

That's not to say I did not make a decision, but that I did not have the issue of whether I had really decided. A friend of mine from a believers-only tradition struggled for a long time about whether she believed enough because she had never had a conversion experience because she had grown up in the Church. I did decide at 13 to be confirmed but that was only a step in a process which had begun at my baptism. I think that baptism as an infant is a far better way of dealing with children born to believers.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Interestingly, my mother came under the influence of people who did not accept infant baptism, but what stopped her was knowing that it would hurt her parents. Since then she has come to be very pro-infant baptism herself.

---

That sounds to me like exactly how the system is designed to work .

---

What do you mean by that? Her parents would have been upset because being baptism at that age would have been a rejection of how she had been brought up and of their sort of Christianity. I think that's why parents find it difficult because it comes across as `you're not a proper Christian'.

Carys

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gill H:
Been there, got the wet T-shirt, sure that God doesn't particularly mind how many times I got wet, but wish I hadn't upset my dad in such a profound way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
Is anyone saying that 'one baptism' is the only basis for ecumenical dialogue?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Of course not, But Paul, for one, seemed to think that the notion of 'one baptism' was quite important.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
Rebaptism was a non-issue in the Early Church AFAIK, so you'd hardly expect to find Paul addressing it head-on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Now it would be anachronistic to read this as directly speaking to contemporary ecumenical debates, but it is equally wrong to see it as a statement about anabaptism. Baptism, for the author of this NT letter, is integrally connected to the unity of the new humanity which is ours in Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
..to clarify, my point is that, since variation in baptismal practice means that we do not, in our lived reality as churches in the 21st century, have 'one baptism', this is something that ought to worry us in the light of Ephesians.

---

I agree, but I'd say that the concern ought to focus on the non-unity of the Body of Christ, not on the technical aspects of one example that the author of Ephesians picked to illustrate that unity. (It seems to me that he's describing some of the reasons why the church is one, not the minimum set of criteria to meet in order for two Christians to be unified.)
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Just noticed this thread.

The decision has no eternal significance whatsoever (apart from whether someone has told a lie, which matters).

I baptise our daughters 7 times a week, sometimes 9, and they love it.
 

---

Posted by Max. (# 5846) on :
 
I must be really stupid you know but Gordon..... WTF?

Max
 

---

Posted by Love the You you hide (# 12249) on :
 
I think he's talking about full immersion... in the bath!
 

---

Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :
 
As a card-carrying Anabaptist, I wish I'd seen this thread when it was still short enough for me to read it all. Now I can't say anything that hasn't probably been said by someone else.

I do think the crux issue is what the parents in question think baptism means. (The second crux issue is what the Anglican vicar in question thinks it means!)

All I can say is, I'm so glad my parents (a secular Jew and a lapsed Catholic) didn't have me 'christened' - awful term - as a baby so I could have the privilege of choosing baptism at 16!

BTW Anabaptist (like 'Christian') was a term of abuse used about the movement by its opponents. The earliest Anabaptists didn't think they were re-baptising as they thought what they had been subjected to as infants was not truly baptism. The later ones weren't rebaptising because the people they baptised hadn't been 'baptised' before.

Modern Anabaptists do not re-baptise, we baptise once, on profession of faith.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0