Ship of Fools: Eccles: Private Christenings / Baptisms

Thread: Eccles: Private Christenings / Baptisms 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=000818

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

News report just in headlines David Cameron's daughter has been christened in a private ceremony attended by family and friends.

Shipmates may disagree but I regard this as being unacceptable.

I do not believe it was just a naming ceremony. It was in fact a baptism.

And, IMO baptisms shoud take place in the context of the worshipping congregation. Private ceremonies seem to me to negate the meaning of the event.

But who am I to protest?

[ 29. September 2011, 07:36: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I don't know anything about David Cameron's event, but I do think there are times when a private ceremony may be hard to avoid.

Suppose your newborn child is in the ICU, not expected to live. You might like to have the child baptized before dying. Some people regard this as important.

Suppose you suffer from agoraphobia and you would find it intensely painful to be in front of a congregation in a large room. You might nonetheless want to become a Christian and therefore want to be baptized.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

Your friends and family ain't a worshipping community?

I seem to remember some dude saying wherever two or more are gathered in Jesus' name...

[ 04. March 2011, 20:17: Message edited by: Spiffy ]

Posted by John D. Ward (# 1378) on :

In the case of the Prime Minister's child, the first thing that comes to mind is the security requirements.

The second thing that comes to mind is that the family and friends are a worshipping congregation. "When two or three are gathered together..."

<Edit> Cross-posted with Spiffy

[ 04. March 2011, 20:23: Message edited by: John D. Ward ]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I don't know anything about David Cameron's event, but I do think there are times when a private ceremony may be hard to avoid.

In the Orthodox Church, in theory, you cannot have a private baptism (or a private wedding, for that matter). They are sacramentes of the Church, and are therefore the concern of the whole Church.

In practice, of course, private ceremonies are sometimes held. Most often, they're not truly private; they're just scheduled quietly and without fanfare. No one is forbidden from attending, but by not announcing the service, the number of attendees is limited to invited guests.

And occasionally, they really are private. For example, when Mirina Sirtis married, it was definitely by invitation only. It had to be, to prevent the wedding from being turned into a Star Trek Con.

Posted by Roots (# 16193) on :

quote:
Posted by Shamwari.

I do not believe it was just a naming ceremony. It was in fact a baptism.

I dont really go for it being a baptism as I believe that can only come on ones own decision. David Cameron would however had enough witnesses to make it acceptable.

Yet, we all have our own understanding of baptism, and if 1 Cor 10 verse 2 is to be understood correctly, we should have all our cattle and donkeys, chariots and gold and silver baptised too, as they went with the Israelites as they passed through the cloud and sea. It could put a whole new perspective on things.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Roots: I am willing to bet my last shirt that the Clergyman said " I baptise you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit". So it was a baptism.

Joesphine: Fairly typical of the Church. Espouse one thing in public affirmation but do another in practice.

I allow for exceptions. But as a rule I insist that baptisms be done in the context of normal public worship.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I allow for exceptions. But as a rule I insist that baptisms be done in the context of normal public worship.

Am I to understand that security concerns and that the Camerons' high public profile might encourage lots of oddballs to turn up are not allowable exceptions in your view?

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
News report just in headlines David Cameron's daughter has been christened in a private ceremony attended by family and friends.

Shipmates may disagree but I regard this as being unacceptable.

I do not believe it was just a naming ceremony. It was in fact a baptism.

And, IMO baptisms shoud take place in the context of the worshipping congregation. Private ceremonies seem to me to negate the meaning of the event.

But who am I to protest?

It's a very Reformed sentiment. [Smile]

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I ask Spiffy what if the two or three gathered together have no connection with the Christian Church, do not acknowledge the Christian Faith and are gathered together purely for familial reasons?

It happens all too often in my experience.

In which case the whole exercise is a farce.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Joesphine: Fairly typical of the Church. Espouse one thing in public affirmation but do another in practice.

The principal of economia allows us a great deal of flexibility in practice, without having to compromise on principal.

quote:
I allow for exceptions. But as a rule I insist that baptisms be done in the context of normal public worship.

Are you a bishop? How do you get to insist how baptisms are done?

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I ask Spiffy what if the two or three gathered together have no connection with the Christian Church, do not acknowledge the Christian Faith and are gathered together purely for familial reasons?

It happens all too often in my experience.

In which case the whole exercise is a farce.

I answer shamwari that I'd call it a teaching moment, myself, proclaiming the Gospel to people who otherwise wouldn't dare darken the door of a church.

But I suspect we've got different concepts of family and faith.

[ 04. March 2011, 20:46: Message edited by: Spiffy ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I ask Spiffy what if the two or three gathered together have no connection with the Christian Church, do not acknowledge the Christian Faith and are gathered together purely for familial reasons?

In which case the whole exercise is a farce.

In this case, there were 90 of 'em, so you'd hope some of them believed in God.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Anglicant: If David Cameron went to church as a matter of custom then the necessary security would be in place anyway. If, during the service, he had his daughter baptised and the additions tothe congregation were by personal invite the so-called odd balls would never know.

Strikes me we are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
But who am I to protest?

Good point. In fact it's your best one.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

If you attend a popular church, most baptisms are family-only anyway. That's because there are far too many baptisms to have them in the main Sunday service, so they mostly take place on Sunday afternoons.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
If you attend a popular church, most baptisms are family-only anyway. That's because there are far too many baptisms to have them in the main Sunday service, so they mostly take place on Sunday afternoons.

I attend a popular church but we herd 'em in and herd 'em out at the 8:30 and 11:00 Eucharists on dunking Sundays. That really is the norm in TEC.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I have been to a mass baptism and thought how awful it was - rather like a mass moonie wedding I'd expect. There was no sense that each family was special to God, more like a wet bank holiday session at the local swimming pool 'river rapid ride' - lots of water and chaos. Much better that the priest can spend time with the individual child and family concerned.

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

my childrens baptisms were "private", meaning they were a separate ceremony, rather than done as part of the regular Sunday liturgy.

I invited many friends who were not regular members of the congregation, alhtough many members of the congregation were also specifically invited, and all were welcome. as someone pointed out any event in held in a church is, by default, open.

I think I understand the point of the OP, though. I know of some "baptisms" where the family of the child, the "godparents" not to mention the guests are not regular members of any congregation (or even more than nominally christian), who have a ceremony because it's just the thing to do, rather than because they belive in the sacramental nature of a baptism. I wonder why they even bother. I have the same reaction to weddings that are held in a chruch not becuause it's the chruch attended by one or the other prinicpal, or their parents, but because it's pictuesque (no regard for denomination). I mean, there are certain unique situations where choosing a church out of a phone book may be appropriate, but I think they are few and far between. so I know what you mean..

but I don't think every weding must be done with the entire congregation there, and same for baptisms. for one thing, that would usually limit the space available for other guests. and baptisms, weddings, and funerals are all events to which one reasonably may want to invite friends from other spheres of one's life! at my daughter's baptism, well over half the guests were membrers of the congregation, but the rest were from work, college fiends, neighbors... friends from other cities/parishes.

it was a huge event, but it was "private" in that it was scheduled separately from the regular chruch services.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

Perhaps because it is our norm and also because we rehearse it on the Saturday before there is no chaos. And the rubrics of our BCP specifically say "Holy Baptism is appropriately administered within the Eucharist as the chief service on a Sunday or other feast." so that's what we try to do.

Besides, I'm not sure it's about how special the family is.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Anglicant: If David Cameron went to church as a matter of custom then the necessary security would be in place anyway. If, during the service, he had his daughter baptised and the additions tothe congregation were by personal invite the so-called odd balls would never know.

Once again illustrating our different views of faith and family, more than likely from vastly different experiences of the same.

If I was a public figure and invited a 'small' number of family (taking numbers from Christmas shindig at the ancestral Ranch in 2010, it'd be about 75 people), about half the invites would be on eBay and a quarter of them would be negotiating with paparazzi for film rights to their cell video.

Thank God I'm not a public figure. Or a parent.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

It was held at the normal parish church of the family in London. I don't know how often they go there or whether they are on the roll there, but they are certainly known there. I don't think it was private in the sense of 'private' just not public in the sense of the world's press being invited. It's a church that is used to minor royals, politicians, etc.

Posted by Angel Wrestler (# 13673) on :

Not sure about the specifics of the Cameron christening, because I don't know the reasons given for holding a christening apart from the main service.

Baptisms are to be done in the community of believers with which one is affiliating. However, there are extraneous circumstances that might prohibit this. I did one at someone's home because there was an illness that prevented church attendance. They invited family and friends from the church, but due to the logistics, could not host everybody. As mentioned up-thread, a baby in the ICU - that was the circumstance of the very first baptism I did (and happily enough, the baby had heart surgery and came through wonderfully).

Another time, the youth of a confirmation class decided they wanted to be baptized by immersion. Not only was that mode fairly common in the area, but the class and I had explored the symbolism behind the different rituals of the Sacrament. Since there was no baptismal pool in the church, we used one of the girls' backyard pool. To make it a congregational event, the family hosted a party for the church. Fortunately, it was a small church and that was possible. It was very nice.

There are reasons to hold christening outside the normal main worship service, but I agree that a good representation of the congregation must be there; a key part of the sacrament is the congregation's promise to the one being baptized.

Ultimately, we're not asking people to claim someone's life; we're asking God.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I'm still not at all sure it is right to baptise 5 or 6 babies all at once every week, though. Sine Nomine seems to think that is fine, I don't. To me it smacks of a conveyor belt system.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Shipmates may disagree but I regard this as being unacceptable.

I guess you learn something new every day. I've never heard of anyone having this attitude. I thought that private baptisms were far more common than public ones.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

There is no such thing as a private service. As shipmates have pointed out, 'where two or three are gathered together'.

But even if only one were present, s/he stands with angels and archangels and all the company of heaven. Quite a crowd, I'd have thought.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I'm still not at all sure it is right to baptise 5 or 6 babies all at once every week, though. Sine Nomine seems to think that is fine, I don't. To me it smacks of a conveyor belt system.

This is how adult baptisms seem to work, in my experience. Several people get baptised in one service. I've never seen it as a conveyor belt system - more a fellowship thing (and with adult baptisms, there is the practicality aspect of getting the pool out).

Of the infant baptisms I've been to, most were private (as in a separate service, where family and friends were invited and attended - I'm not sure if the services were open to others if they wanted to come). I went to one where several babies were baptised together, and I liked that one more - there was more of a sense of church community (but then that happened in the context of regular church attenders having their babies baptised as part of their church experience, whereas the others were people who didn't normally attend church doing it because it's the thing to do).

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
Of the infant baptisms I've been to, most were private (as in a separate service, where family and friends were invited and attended - I'm not sure if the services were open to others if they wanted to come). I went to one where several babies were baptised together, and I liked that one more - there was more of a sense of church community

That's my experience too. My church is quite large and only occasionally do people choose to have baptisms as part of the regular Sunday service. Usually they happen immediately afterwards with a smaller group of friends and family, not that they are not open to anyone who would like to come.

Posted by Lola (# 627) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I'm still not at all sure it is right to baptise 5 or 6 babies all at once every week, though. Sine Nomine seems to think that is fine, I don't. To me it smacks of a conveyor belt system.

We used to have 5 or 6 babies baptised at the same time in the morning Eucharist but only once a month. The new rector changed this and now baptisms happen in a separate ceremony and the families are invited to come to the regular service on the following Sunday to be welcomed by the congregation.

Actually I miss the mass baptisms. But I'm not in charge.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Are you a bishop? How do you get to insist how baptisms are done?

Shamwari is a Methodist minister. The practice as to how baptisms are done in the church(es) where (s)he has pastoral charge is indeed up to him/her. I'm also a Methodist minister: my own practice (which is fairly typical) is that baptisms are normally administered during the principal act of public worship on a Sunday. I would derogate from that in cases of emergency or other serious pastoral necessity. I doubt, however, that baptising the Prime Minister's child is a situation with which I am going to have to contend!

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Usually they happen immediately afterwards with a smaller group of friends and family, not that they are not open to anyone who would like to come.

This is what I was thinking (although, as I've tended to go to churches which do adult baptism, I wasn't sure) - that these services are not private in terms of exclusive. Anyone can attend, but in all likelihood, it will just be friends and family who attend, because most people aren't likely to turn up to random baptisms just because they can. Particularly if the family who are having their baby baptised are not actually regular church attenders, and they are just doing the baptism out of tradition. People who don't know them would likely feel like they were intruding, or it might be awkward.

But with the Prime Minister, everyone knows who he is, so there wouldn't be the same sense of appropriateness and respect. There's the whole fame aspect, so people would want to take photos. There's the fact that lots of people hate him, and might want to heckle. Potentially thousands of people would want to turn up for all kinds of reasons, and very few would be about the actual meaning of baptism. So to me it makes perfect sense for him to make it a private ceremony - for the safety of him and his family, for the sanctity of the occasion.

Posted by +Chad (# 5645) on :

Unless I'm misreading certain posts, there seems to be some confusion about the term private service.

A celebration of Holy Baptism outside of the principal service on a Sunday does not constitute a private service. It may be that the only people present are the family and friends of the baptismal candidate, but that does not make it private. The doors are open, and anyone may enter. The law prescribes unhindered access to services.

I don't know if the doors were locked for the baptismal service in S Mary Abbots yesterday. I would be surprised if they were. Only family and friends attended, that doesn't mean others were physically prevented.

I don't doubt that security was tight, and that there were heavies near the door, inside and out.

My guess is that it was a situation similar to this from Josephine's post:

quote:
In practice, of course, private ceremonies are sometimes held. Most often, they're not truly private; they're just scheduled quietly and without fanfare. No one is forbidden from attending, but by not announcing the service, the number of attendees is limited to invited guests.

Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :

My brother's children were baptized in a Roman Catholic church with just the family present. It was just the way it was done. Although that is not my tradition, it didn't feel like anyone was shortchanged.

In Presbyterian congregations,for those of my parents' generation, baptisms were done at home with just the family present and not in the church building. It has been quite a shift and is much lamented by some who prefer that way.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

My littlest great-niece was baptised in a public service with some 10-12 other babies/toddlers immediately after the last Mass of the Sunday, but it was certainly well publicised. In practice though, only family and interested friends were there to observe, although had others wished to join the cheerful chaos I am sure they would have been welcome.

Recently I have only seen one infant baptism which was held as part of a regular service. The parents requested that. I have also observed baptisms taking place before Mass.

The norm when I was younger was that a child was bought within a day or two of its birth to be baptised. This was done either in the Church or the home, as circumstances dictated. In either case there was a gathering of at least 4 or 5 Faithful to participate - priest, infant, parents and god-parent(s). In practice, I would say siblings, grandparents, and other close relatives were there as well.

Different strokes for different folk, I'd say.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Isn't holding baptisms during the primary Sunday service a pretty recent preoccupation in the Church of England?

Here in the US, it's getting pretty common to hold four baptism services a year during the primary Sunday service. Honestly, at most Episcopal parishes there isn't anyone to baptize half the time.

Zach

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

All of this seems to assume there is a "principal Sunday service." I'm familiar with many Anglican churches were this is true (maybe it's universal), but it's not the norm in RC Churches. Thinking of just one former parish of mine, there were six Sunday services (one Saturday night, four Sunday morning, one Sunday evening). Some were better attended than others, but there wasn't a sense that any was 'principle' and the others were in some way derivative or lesser.

The practice at that parish was an interesting test case for this question. We had a baptism service almost every Saturday afternoon (taking a few off around Christmas and Easter I think). Each of these would typically have two or three infants. It was public in the sense of open to anyone, but normally only family and guests attended. On a few Sundays throughout the year, there would be baptisms as part of one of the Sunday Masses. To 'get in' at one of these was seen as some kind of prize, reserved for people who were involved with some kind of ministry at the parish.

Part of me completely understands that we couldn't do all the baptisms that (thanks be to God!) were requested at Sunday Masses, but it's good for the faithful for there to be some, so you've got to select somehow. Part of me was slightly uncomfortable with the 'reward' element of the whole thing.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I suppose the main reason why some say that baptisms should be done within the context of the worshipping community is theological.

Is it incorporation into the Body of Christ, the worshipping community? Or is it regeneration?

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Yes, to both of those. [Smile]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
If you attend a popular church, most baptisms are family-only anyway.

OH NOES!!!!!

We aren't popular enough!!!!!

[Ultra confused]

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I thought that private baptisms were far more common than public ones.

I'm pretty sure our parish hasn't done one for twenty years - and I wouldn't know about before then.

Baptisms maybe about six or ten times a year, in the ordinary mornign service, with anything from one to five babies being done.

If even half of them stayed to become regular attending members of the church we'd have outgrown our building long ago.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And occasionally, they really are private. For example, when Mirina Sirtis married, it was definitely by invitation only. It had to be, to prevent the wedding from being turned into a Star Trek Con.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

This is now an exception in the Anglican Church of Canada , Having said that Mr Cameron being in the position he is maybe didn't want to make a spectacle of it. And for the record the Royal family baptisms are always private, defined as family only. [Smile]

Posted by lurcher (# 12704) on :

I am afraid as a priest, I don't offer private baptisms. I am though willing to offer a service of thanksgiving at any time. I regard baptism as a sacrament, and have baptised parents and godparents before the baby is done.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Yes, St Chad is correct when I refer to private baptisms I mean ones that are conducted in an afternoon service to which families and friends are invited. But the baptisms are announced in the pew sheet and the doors are open, so anyone can come in, specifically invited or not. The same happens at weddings. We don't get it so much now, but we used to get people just turning up because they liked to see a wedding, even if they didn't know the couple.

I should imagine that, even if St. Mary Abbots adopted this policy, they would have had security staff on the door for the baptism of the Prime Minister's daughter, just as they would for any event involving senior government staff. That said, when Charles Kennedy turned up to a wedding in our church a while ago, I don't remember seeing any security staff anywhere. He was just treated like any other guest. Perhaps you actually have to be Prime Minister for anyone to take any notice.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Isn't holding baptisms during the primary Sunday service a pretty recent preoccupation in the Church of England?

Here in the US, it's getting pretty common to hold four baptism services a year during the primary Sunday service. Honestly, at most Episcopal parishes there isn't anyone to baptize half the time.

And when there is, in my experience, it's almost evenly split between itty bitty babies and adults.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I am aware of two baptisms in recent years which were held privately (as in, doors-closed, by invitation, outside main services) on account of security and media-avoidance reasons. In the circumstances, this was entirely sensible and I could not think of calling them unacceptable.

As well, in Ontario (and likely other places) some smaller diasporic churches do not have enough members in some places for regular services, and travelling clergy only come around for baptisms and weddings--Armenians and Antiochians in Cornwall, Copts in Perth, Assyrians in Picton.

I also don't see why a baptism must be held at the main (hour-long, hymns and sermon, etc) service. If the parent(s) are habitual frequenters of vespers or an early morning Mass and are members of those worshipping communities, then why force them to go to another service where they know few people (if anyone) -- if we're going to do that sort of thing, surely it would be better to get back to our roots and return to the patristic and late apostolic practice of the bishop performing all baptisms at Easter. The symbolism of incorporation into the Church would work far better and, should other churches join in at the event-- especially those which are engaged in covenant relationshsips, we would have powerful symbolism of Christian unity and overcoming division.

Posted by Hare today (# 12974) on :

"Private" Baptisms are not and have not been unusual. I was baptised by my Grandfather at a private CofE ceremony nearly 72 years ago. My two sons were baptised in the Methodist church at baptismal services where only the families of the two children being baptised were present as congregation. For the 10 years when my wife ran the village church choir there was a monthly baptism service for (usually) about six children. The families filled the church. The parents were invited to attend morning service the following week so that the child could be welcomed into the congregation. On a few occasions they came.

Baptisms in the cathedral are usually shortly after the Sunday morning service and the congregation are invited to join the family if they wish.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hare today:
The parents were invited to attend morning service the following week so that the child could be welcomed into the congregation. On a few occasions they came.

That's the sad thing, isn't it?

What is the point in having your child baptised if you don't intend being part of the Church?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
What is the point in having your child baptised if you don't intend being part of the Church?

Because you don't have to attend church to be a child of God.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
What is the point in having your child baptised if you don't intend being part of the Church?
Because you don't have to attend church to be a child of God.

Nor do you have to be baptised to be a child of God.

Baptism is about joining the Church family, not God's family.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Being 'part of the church' doesn't just mean being part of the church visible. It means being part of the whole church catholic, visible and invisible, militant, expectant, and triumphant, on earth and beyond the grave.

By baptism a person joins that vast community. It does not need a set amount of people to be present for that to happen. All it needs is for someone to administer the sacrament. All Christian traditions hold that this can be done by any other Christian, male or female, ordained or lay.

Not only is it something we do, but more importantly one might argue, something that God does for/to us. Family only, in a packed church at morning service in front of the whole congregation, by the shores of Galilee, at a hospital bedside, in an ancient font or in a swimming pool, in a puddle by the side of the road, it is all the same.

Who is there, at what time of day, the desirablilty or not of full visibility -it is irrelevant.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I seem to remember that when Philip baptised the Ethiopian eunuch it was a 'private baptism'.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

Upon the advice of an Ecclesiantics Host I am recognizing what I should have recognized upon first reading this thread -- this is about a worship practice and thus belongs in Eccles. Fasten your seatbelts and enjoy the ride, and please continue discussion in your new venue.

Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

In a rural context a given parish church may have 2-3 clergy led services a month.

One of these may be 8.30, which is not great for a baptism, and another worship that is not ideal for Baptisms (BCP, Mattins H/C, Said Service, Evensong, etc).

This leaves one Sunday in the month which is probably a family service with a priest that may or may not be Eucharistic.

Clergy are then faced with the choice of either forcing particular dates or being willing to offer private services.

In my training parish we had a different problem. Up to 7 baptisms a month, with 40+ guests each.

The 'Baptism Sunday in family service" would have been impracticable (an my experience of this is that the regulars soon take that Sunday off) due to time and seating. A Baptism every Sunday would really skew the liturgy and teaching of parish life.

So afternoon baptism (of up to 3 or 4 children) with certificates at the monthly family service made sense.

[ 05. March 2011, 19:18: Message edited by: Edward Green ]

Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :

I don't like the idea of baptisms taking place outside of a "normal" service. In the baptism rite, the family and godparents promise to bring the child up in the ways of God and as part of the Christian family. It seems to be thumbing their noses at the "Christian family" to exclude them by having a private baptism. And even for the families that have their children baptised in a service, there are so many times when I've seen the family leave immediately after the child has been baptised, so don't even stay for the Communion, or if they stay, don't bother to take the child to the alter rail,which again goes against the promises they have just made.

I have to admit, I'm not a fan of infant baptisms anyway.

Posted by lurcher (# 12704) on :

Who is there, at what time of day, the desirablilty or not of full visibility -it is irrelevant

I am not sure that is correct? When I baptise someone I am baptised them into the Christian community. Surely, this means the Christian community should be there.

But I take the point about rural communities, but here in Birmingham, I think excuses like people have to travel for an hour to get there are pretty thin.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

What does "private" mean? I can see how calling up a priest to stop by your house and baptize your kid isn't usually a good practice, but as long as it's done in the church where in theory any may attend, I say you are fine. No need to have it on Sunday morning.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Lurcher
the Christian community (as explained in a previous post) comprises also the church invisible - which maybe IS there.

Even in a 'private' baptism part of the whole church is present 'angels and archangels and all the company of heaven'. Indeed, the church expectant and triumphant beyond the grave.

Posted by lurcher (# 12704) on :

Yes, Sebby - I have no problems with that.

I have problems with people choosing a particular time to fit their own convenience because they are not particularly religious.

That seems to me to be beyond the pale. So, therefore I am reluctant ever to baptise outside of a service at which I would expect a good number of regular worshippers to be present

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
For example, when Mirina Sirtis married, it was definitely by invitation only. It had to be, to prevent the wedding from being turned into a Star Trek Con.

And to prevent people trying to see whether she was getting married in the traditional Betazoid manner ... [Razz]

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

I actually had to google to see who David Cameron is - he doesn't seem to have a very high profile in my neck of the woods.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

This morning we had 5 babies being baptised. There were so many parents and godparents and babies flying around that I wouldn't possibly be able to recognise them again if they came again or if I walked past them in the street. Due to sensory overload. When only one or two children are baptised, the congregation can take in details of who they are, which parents they belong to, what the families look like, and are therefore more easily able to recognise them and chat to them when they see them again.

Baptised children may not obviously join in with the church immediately, but there is often a lasting effect. Many of them come on through the church mums and toddler groups, go to Sunday School, etc. We have had several who later joined the choir after being baptised several years earlier - their parents want them to become part of the wider church, just not necessarily all at once and every week.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:

Baptised children may not obviously join in with the church immediately, but there is often a lasting effect. Many of them come on through the church mums and toddler groups, go to Sunday School, etc. We have had several who later joined the choir after being baptised several years earlier - their parents want them to become part of the wider church, just not necessarily all at once and every week.

This is a good point and one I hadn't thought of before.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

However, iyt may not always be convenient or possible to baptise during the main service.

People are so used to being told 'no, office hours are on Mondays' or 'there's the end of the queue' at the DSS office, it would be delightful to think that the church was the one organisation that always said 'yes, of course. How can we help? What is convenient for YOU.'

A digression I know, sorry!

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
All of this seems to assume there is a "principal Sunday service." I'm familiar with many Anglican churches were this is true (maybe it's universal), but it's not the norm in RC Churches. Thinking of just one former parish of mine, there were six Sunday services (one Saturday night, four Sunday morning, one Sunday evening). Some were better attended than others, but there wasn't a sense that any was 'principle' and the others were in some way derivative or lesser.

The term principal service or Mass comes from the old Roman liturgical books, and was used to refer to the High Mass or, if there were more than one, the most solemn and/or well-attended. Most parishes had but one High Mass and it was usually around 11AM or so, so it was relatively easy to identify.

For example, the rubrics directed that the Asperges Me (or in Eastertide, the Vidi Aquam) be celebrated before the principal High Mass every Sunday.

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :

Sacraments don't have to be given in public. They tend to be, yes, but the important thing is the sacrament rather than the public!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Sacraments don't have to be given in public. They tend to be, yes, but the important thing is the sacrament rather than the public!

Surely baptism isn't about anything happening to the child, but is all about the promises the parents are making?

If so, then I'd imagine those promises would be better made alongside the Church family rather than in private - if at all possible?

<typo>

[ 06. March 2011, 14:39: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Sacraments don't have to be given in public. They tend to be, yes, but the important thing is the sacrament rather than the public!
Surely baptism isn't about anything happening to the child, but is all about the promises the parents are making?

If so, then I'd imagine those promises would be better made alongside the Church family rather than in private - if at all possible?

<typo>

I'd have said that baptism binds the child into the Church and conveys grace on him/her, and that the promises of the parents are simply solemn assurances that that grace will not go wasted, but will be the followed by a dedicated Christian upbringing and education, so that the flame of holiness might be fruitfully fanned in him/her.

The promises of the parents would in that sense be an assurance necessary to make the sacrament more fully meaningful in the longer term.

And a promise being a promise, it only needs to be made, and conveniently the priest is there to hear it. It's more normal and more verifiable to have the baptism in public with many to hear the promises, but I can't understand why it would be at all necessary.

A personal example. My great grandmother had all her children baptised in secret, because her atheist husband had gone back on his marital assurances and was opposed to bringing up children in the Church. The mother was there, a godparent was there, and the priest was there. I very much doubt that the absence of miscellaneous other parishioners invalidated the sacrament.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I'm still not at all sure it is right to baptise 5 or 6 babies all at once every week, though. Sine Nomine seems to think that is fine, I don't. To me it smacks of a conveyor belt system.

Surely you're not doing 24 every month in Cream Tea Land are you? Why not spread them out at one or two a week - solves the problem.

I just can't understand how anyone can justify theologically or whatever the idea that a correct baptism: thanksgiving: dedication: immersioncan be performed or undertaken in private - it's meant to be a public declaration. On the two occasions I've been asked to do it outside a "normal" service, I have refused.

The only circumstances I would consider is one of in extremis - e.g someone who is possibly going to die. The prayer book and the rites of the Anglican Church allow for any believer to do just that - not just a "priest."

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I seem to remember that when Philip baptised the Ethiopian eunuch it was a 'private baptism'.

How private is a water hole in the desert? It was public enough for anyone who passed by to see it.

The idea of "private" is surely an issue of intent: fif the baptism is advertised and known it isn't private even if no-one turns up. What I find it impossible to acept is that priests choose to conduct baptisms outside normal service times thus depriving the church of the oportunity to offer support and also reinforcing the modren trend of the vast % of baptisms to be simply social events.

Baptising within the context of a broader form or worship allows families to access the worshipping community where they may well be challenged by the gospel. (Of course, the gospel does have to be preached but that's another thread and another story.....)

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Isn't holding baptisms during the primary Sunday service a pretty recent preoccupation in the Church of England?

Zach

Yes. The strength with which some adhere to this relatively new tradition is therefore surprizing. It's rather a neat and tidy little theology that justifies it - nothing wrong with that. But similarly there is good theology and pastoral practice behind baptizing outside of main Sunday service, from time to time, too.

The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. To slavishly tie oneself to one inflexible context of performing a vital gospel sacrament, when in the case of each family the needs and situations are unique, seems not very sensible, to my mind.

Interestingly, because of 'mixed marriages' where I am at the moment, I seem to spend a good part of my time trying to talk families into the Sunday morning service option; who would much rather go 'private'! But my experience in other churches where baptisms were numerous and crowded, the negative effects on everyone concerned of the 'main service only' option would've been considerable. Just because something is pragmatic, doesn't mean it's not theologically justifiable - or right!

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Surely you're not doing 24 every month in Cream Tea Land are you? Why not spread them out at one or two a week - solves the problem.

That means that we would have to have every morning service as a baptism service - which means no adult sermon, no psalm, no old testament reading, and several other important parts of the normal Eucharist missed out. The baptism takes up a large part of the service, and the rest of the service is simplified ('this is our story, this is our song'). Every week that would get very tedious - adults' needs are not the same as children's needs. Also there would be no Sunday school, as the children always stay in for baptisms as they like to watch what goes on. Far better to have in-service baptisms once a month and other baptisms on Sunday afternoons in special services.

(In a typical month, we have about 10 baptisms.)

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Sunday Morning: Holy Communion, which includes, once a month, a welcome, prayers, and blessing for baptismal families (part of their preparation).

Sunday afternoon: baptisms, not more than two families at a time, with members of the regular congregation in attendance. Congregations of up to 150, mostly unchurched family and friends. Opportunity to preach the Gospel and to teach.

This was the pattern in my old parish. It worked. In other parishes when the baptisms HAD to be in the regular Sunday service, the congregation was swamped, the sermon was drowned out, chaos reigned, and everyone went away fed up.

A third option, which I saw used in All Saints Fulham, involved baptising immediately after the principal morning service (which, IIRC, was an Family Service), which would have been attended by the family and friends of the child to be baptised. That seemed to work pretty well too.

In none of these examples could the baptism be called 'private' however. They were held in the church. The doors were open: anyone could attend.
What I think of as a private baptism is one done at someone's house or in the hospital: these, IMO, require special pastoral circumstances.

[ 06. March 2011, 21:47: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
In none of these examples could the baptism be called 'private' however. They were held in the church. The doors were open: anyone could attend.
What I think of as a private baptism is one done at someone's house or in the hospital: these, IMO, require special pastoral circumstances.

I guess this is the norm in most CofE churches. However, there is rather a difference between leaving the doors open for anyone who chooses to come in, and specifically expecting many members of the church to be in attendance to welcome the child. I can't see how it's feasible to expect large numbers of the congregation to turn up to the baptism of a child they don't know and have never heard of, if they have already been to church once that day and may well be coming again to evensong.

Strangely, we did have a large number (5) of baptisms this morning. And the children were really quiet.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

The thing to do is to have a group of volunteers within the congregation whose particular ministry is to welcome baptismal families. Two or three of them can attend each baptism. Simple.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

A bit of recent history which probably fits with what Anselmina has just said.

The Camerons, as far as I know, are CofE, not Methodists, Romans or Baptists. They certainly aren't any variety of US Episcopalian. So it is CofE practice that is relevant, not anyone else's. It sounds though as if CofI practice is similar.

As far as the CofE is concerned, back in the days when all services were 1662, baptisms were normally done as a separate service, often held on Sunday afternoons. This applied when I was baptised (1940s).

Something that has been encouraged under the liturgical changes over the last fifty years or so, has been to have baptisms in main Sunday services. This was the practice by the time my children were baptised (1970s). It has been the usual 'norm' in the churches I have belonged to since. It is widespread. I also get the impression it is generally assumed now to be what usually happens by most those who seek baptism for their children.

It is, however, neither universal not compulsory. I went to a relative's separate Sunday afternoon baptism about 1990.

My own preference is for baptism as part of a main service, but it's not overwhelming. Separate services are a bit old fashioned. I have never heard anyone suggest that either practice is more or less valid than the other, nor that following either practice made it 'just a naming ceremony' despite the presence of water and the three persons of the Trinity.

Nor has there ever been a requirement that a valid baptism must be administered on a Sunday rather than a weekday.

There's a serious issue that divides the CofE (and for that matter the Methodists, URC, Romans and Orthodox) from the Baptists and the Brethren, but for those of us that belong to communions that baptise babies, I would have expected that we welcome Florence Rose Endellion into the household of faith, irrespective of when the baptism took place or who was invited to attend.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Sacraments don't have to be given in public. They tend to be, yes, but the important thing is the sacrament rather than the public!

Nope, sacraments are public. It is an act of worship of the Body of Christ. The more, the better.

It also depends on how many sacraments your eccelesial community believes there are. The most popular numbers are two and seven. I believe there are two.

Posted by moveable_type (# 9673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Isn't holding baptisms during the primary Sunday service a pretty recent preoccupation in the Church of England?

Zach
Yes. The strength with which some adhere to this relatively new tradition is therefore surprizing. It's rather a neat and tidy little theology that justifies it - nothing wrong with that. But similarly there is good theology and pastoral practice behind baptizing outside of main Sunday service, from time to time, too.

The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. To slavishly tie oneself to one inflexible context of performing a vital gospel sacrament, when in the case of each family the needs and situations are unique, seems not very sensible, to my mind.

Interestingly, because of 'mixed marriages' where I am at the moment, I seem to spend a good part of my time trying to talk families into the Sunday morning service option; who would much rather go 'private'! But my experience in other churches where baptisms were numerous and crowded, the negative effects on everyone concerned of the 'main service only' option would've been considerable. Just because something is pragmatic, doesn't mean it's not theologically justifiable - or right!

This thread is thankfully much more good-natured than the previous one on this subject, but it's worth a look, since many of the same issues came up.

Baptism at the main service is strongly encouraged/required in the 1552 and 1662 BCPs, in Canada in the 1962 and also the BAS. (though not, interestingly, in the US 1928) which raises issues that people arguing for private baptism as traditionalists have to answer.

On the other hand, having navigated through two baptisms held at complicated A/C services that conflicted with both babies' nap cycles, I see the practical case for the quiet Sunday afternoon baptisms of the 1950s.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I cannot understand why having a baptism in the context of worship should require that the sermon and/or readings and anything else should be truncated as has been claimed.

My practice is to do the baptism early on in the service with the Junior Church children present. Having welcomed the newest member they leave for Junior Church (together with any children of invitees present) and we go through the service as normal. OT and Gospel readings; full blown sermon; hymns ( and offertory!!)

It also happens to expose all the guests at the baptism to the normal worship of the Church.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

One reason I think baptisms should be part of the main Sunday service is so that those bringing children to baptism can see that the Church is a living and breathing worshipping community. If baptisms are done at a separate service, the church can become to be seen merely as a building that can be hired for weddings and christenings.

[ 07. March 2011, 08:53: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Nope, sacraments are public. It is an act of worship of the Body of Christ. The more, the better.

It also depends on how many sacraments your eccelesial community believes there are. The most popular numbers are two and seven. I believe there are two.

I think you're right that what other sacraments you believe is going to influence your views on this. I totally agree that a sacrament is an "act of worship of the Body of Christ." That doesn't mean it has to be "public" in the sense people here mean it, though. The sacrament of reconciliation, for instance, is very definitely private and I'd very much like to keep it like that!

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I think I might prefer private baptisms. The whole section of the service feels like a private moment, with all the critter's relatives and friends of the family and photographer present. This "renewal of baptismal vows" business sure seems like a new thing they invented to justify the presence of the congregation.

Zach

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
One reason I think baptisms should be part of the main Sunday service is so that those bringing children to baptism can see that the Church is a living and breathing worshipping community. If baptisms are done at a separate service, the church can become to be seen merely as a building that can be hired for weddings and christenings.

Yes - and their reasons for baptism could well be that they see it as somehow changing the child.

It doesn't imo.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Surely you're not doing 24 every month in Cream Tea Land are you? Why not spread them out at one or two a week - solves the problem.
That means that we would have to have every morning service as a baptism service - which means no adult sermon, no psalm, no old testament reading, and several other important parts of the normal Eucharist missed out. The baptism takes up a large part of the service, and the rest of the service is simplified ('this is our story, this is our song'). Every week that would get very tedious - adults' needs are not the same as children's needs. Also there would be no Sunday school, as the children always stay in for baptisms as they like to watch what goes on. Far better to have in-service baptisms once a month and other baptisms on Sunday afternoons in special services.

(In a typical month, we have about 10 baptisms.)

Thanks Chorister! A lopt of baptisms in a month - good news! Much the same for the local Anglican church here not many miles up or down the 386.

Just a few thoughts.

Can't see the tiem problem myself. Don't do infant baptisms (different denom these days) but do offer child thanksgiving/dedications - I can usaully manage these in a morning service without undue problems in just over the hour and this is a church that looks for pretty extensive teaching ministry.

If it can be made to work it will.

As a matter of interest/info, saw an adult baptism last night with 120+ people and all done (sermon, testimony, full explanation) in 70 minutes. It can be done!

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
That said, when Charles Kennedy turned up to a wedding in our church a while ago, I don't remember seeing any security staff anywhere. He was just treated like any other guest. Perhaps you actually have to be Prime Minister for anyone to take any notice.

Cabinet ministers and senior opposition politicians do get offered bodyguards (and those who have been Prime Minister or involved with Northern Ireland sometimes keep them after they resign) Some choose not to be guarded, others are only protected this way when at public events.

But the bodyguards do not, by and large, wear dark glasses and black suits with bulging pockets, or have wires coming out of their ears. Nor do they always crowd round their protectee. They are quite good at blending in to crowds. If there was one in the church the chances are you would not have noticed unless you were looking for them, and maybe not even then. For example, a police bodyguard who is protecting someone in a bar or restaurant might buy themselves a drink, or some food, and sit by themselves at another table atr the side of the room with a view of their principal and of the doors or windows. So maybe if they were guarding someone at a baptism one of them might be part of the baptism party and sit near but not next to the parents - how are you to tell that the young man isn't a cousin or brother-in law? - and another might sit in the pew at the back near the door - might look like just another woman come in to church to pray - and they would probably take part in the service as well.

The Americans, I am reliably informed, do not do things this way.

[ 07. March 2011, 15:01: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I cannot understand why having a baptism in the context of worship should require that the sermon and/or readings and anything else should be truncated as has been claimed.

Because middle-class English people are brought up to believe that it is rude to tell anyone anything about religion that they might not agree with. And it is bad to be rude to guests and visitors. So it is terminally embarrassing to preach Christian doctrine to baptism parties which are full of unbelievers.

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
If you attend a popular church, most baptisms are family-only anyway. That's because there are far too many baptisms to have them in the main Sunday service, so they mostly take place on Sunday afternoons.
I attend a popular church but we herd 'em in and herd 'em out at the 8:30 and 11:00 Eucharists on dunking Sundays. That really is the norm in TEC.

I attend a church that is popular by CofE standards, but we have room in the pews for at least two or three additional gatherings of baptism relatives at every Sunday eucharist, even so. When we first started attending the church, there were no baptisms as part of the main service, but now in addition to the 12 noon baptism service every couple of months, there are probably 5 or 6 a year done in the main service too.

About half of these are of babies of regular congregation members but the other half seem to be random members of the public who don't know that you are supposed to turn off your mobile phone in church, that clubwear is not usual in our congregation, that it is best not to let your toddler wander behind the altar rail (owing to the rather hot thuribles and candles), and that the service ends at the same time for everyone. Though it is of course possible that the parents are regulars (and I don't recognise them) and it's the rest of the extended family that haven't been to church before.

This is not particularly by way of a moan at the behaviour of newcomers to the church, but more making the point that it seems to have previously been the practice for all babies to be baptised out of the main service (in a special occasional baptismal service, with several babies "done" at a time, I gather), even if the parents were members of the regular congregation. These were not just "another service" of the congregation, they were clearly advertised as a baptismal service. Because they were advertised, they could not be termed "private" but they were clearly separate. This is the same as Chorister describes.

Now, some baptisms have shifted to the main service, and it's not all regular members who have shifted - some are clearly new or unfamiliar with our church.

I am fairly sure I have not seen any baptisms within the main service of more than one baby (maybe siblings). It may be that there are very large numbers of additional babies being "dunked" at the separate baptismal services, and it is of course possible that some families are advised not to have their baptism in the main service as their guests would overwhelm the congregation - but we could always seat them all in the side chapel or something.

But it seems to me that the separate services grew up somehow but recently the church has realised this is not the best way to welcome a child and family into the Church. The fact that the separate services persist suggests to me that either some families are far huger than I can imagine, or that some families want their child baptised but don't want to have to come to a regular Sunday service to do it.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The thing to do is to have a group of volunteers within the congregation whose particular ministry is to welcome baptismal families. Two or three of them can attend each baptism. Simple.

I like that idea.
As Chukovsky says, it seems to work well in GB to have a mixture of baptisms-within-main-services and also baptisms in a separate Sunday service. (And if the separate Services have members of the congregation there as well, all the better. Perhaps they could introduce the family to other church groups suitable for parents and young children, too.)

I'm not too sure how it gets decided which services which families are encouraged to attend, but suspect that the parents are offered the choice of both. Some parents are more confident than others; some babies cry more than others - maybe some families feel more confident if they are able to have a quieter service than the main Sunday one.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

As an usher I grumble on 'baptism Sundays' because of the number of non-regulars present who don't know the offertory or communion drills, talk loud before the service, etc. But that's just me being grumpy. The rubrics say what the rubrics say and we try to do the best we can. Of course we're in a different position in TEC compared to the CofE, which apparently English citizens view as 'their tax dollars at work' when it comes to providing spiritual services.

I forgot how many Sundays are considered 'appropriate for baptisms' although I know the next one up is of course the Great Vigil – which really can be a cattle call what with all the baptisms and confirmations.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

How many infant baptisms per parish?

There are about 700,000 live births in England and Wales per year - about one for every 50 people.

Less than one baby in five is baptised in the Church of England - so 140,000 maximum. About one baptism for every ten people who attend church, or for every 250 who don't.

There are abut ten thousand CofE churches, so we would guess 14 per church per year.

Children (other than those whos parents are on the parish electoral roll) will normally be baprised in the poarish their parents live in, so other things being equal we would expect more of them in small rural parishes than in large urban parishes.

Round here parishes typically have populations of six to ten thousand. A parish of four thousand is likely to be merged with another unless it has a very popular church that draws people from oputside. A parish of two thousand probably will be closed.

In rural areas parishes of less than two thousand are common - I think in Hereford the mean parish population is under one thousand, including the towns. Many are smaller than that, four or five hundred is not uncommon. A parish that size is unlikely to have more than ten to twenty regular adult worshippers and probably can't put a service on every Sunday - or if it does they will be lay led. But apart from the children of those regular churchgoers they are likely to have one or two baptisms a year. So why not have them in the main service?

A large urban parish is going to have 30-40 infant baptisms a year. But it ought to have the resources to cope with that. Baptisms once a month maybe?

I think we typically have about twenty but I haven't checked. As I said I think we just baptise in the main Sunday morning service, and we have done that for as long as I've been at this church, now over twenty years. If there are hole-in-a-corner baptisms in the afternoons they don't tell me about it.

[ 07. March 2011, 15:58: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
A bit of recent history which probably fits with what Anselmina has just said.

The Camerons, as far as I know, are CofE, not Methodists, Romans or Baptists. They certainly aren't any variety of US Episcopalian. So it is CofE practice that is relevant, not anyone else's.

And it seems important to remember, in line with what ken says above, that the CofE is in a quite different position from any American church. As I understand it, as the national church it must provide for the baptism of all comers who live within the parish. Is that right? (And is it the same in the Church of Scotland?)

We don't have the same situation here. Here, I think the normal pattern (among those who baptize infants) would be that baptisms are mostly limited to the children and perhaps grandchildren of members of the parish or congregation. It's a different dynamic.

[ 07. March 2011, 16:31: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by shamwari:
[qb] ... it is bad to be rude to guests and visitors. So it is terminally embarrassing to preach Christian doctrine to baptism parties which are full of unbelievers.

Why?

Does their golf club let me set the rules on the course?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
As an usher I grumble on 'baptism Sundays' because of the number of non-regulars present who don't know the offertory or communion drills, talk loud before the service, etc. But that's just me being grumpy.

Does it really matter whether they know or not? Surely its better that they are inside rather than outside?

If u were a grumpy usher at our place your post would soon be advertised! One of the things most likely to put people off church is grumpy people ....

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Ken posted

"Because middle-class English people are brought up to believe that it is rude to tell anyone anything about religion that they might not agree with. And it is bad to be rude to guests and visitors. So it is terminally embarrassing to preach Christian doctrine to baptism parties which are full of unbelievers."

I am not sure whether Ken is posting what he thinks should be the case = avoid being rude. I suspect not.

Fact is baptism is a Christian sacrament. And to hell with those who think that preaching Christian doctrine at a specifically Christian event is rude or insensitive or whatever.

The real pastoral work is done is pre-ceremony briefings with the parents. The proclamation of the Gospel in a service is without regard to whether people like to hear it or not. Whether it offends them or not.

The Gospel (like the sacrament) is all about acceptance and inclusiveness and forgiveness and new life. If that is considered rude I am happy to be rude.

Posted by lurcher (# 12704) on :

Isn't the key the proper preparation given rather than timing. CofE Clergy do have the right to insist that parents and godparents come to preparation, and people do not usually refuse to do so.

lurcher

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
And it seems important to remember, in line with what ken says above, that the CofE is in a quite different position from any American church. As I understand it, as the national church it must provide for the baptism of all comers who live within the parish. Is that right?

That's right. It's part of the "hatching, matching and despatching" trio. It's important to remember that the CofE isn't, and isn't supposed to be, a gathered church although some clergy like to treat it as such.

Here in sunny Croydon baptisms can be done in the main Sunday service, or at midday (they may also happen on other days but I'm not sure of that). The main Sunday service baptisms tend to be regular congregation members but I don't think it's a hard and fast rule either way. Overall we get a lot of baptisms here and I believe the vicar is firmly of the view that the important thing is to introduce the baptism party to some religion and not to frighten them away completely by forcing them into the parish's worship mould.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

As a pastor friend of mine is wont to say...it all comes down to cases.

Ideally, I think baptisms should take place in the context of Sunday worship, for all the good reasons others have stated.

Yes, there are some logistical issues with that, including the "cattle call" Sundays (a phenomenon in my church as well...and I will wager that the assortment of family and friends who show up for ours rival Sine Nomine's crowd for inappropriate behavior/general cluelessness); on the other hand, it can be difficult to keep the thematic flow of the lectionary going from week when there may be a baptism on any given Sunday.

I can see circumstances when pastoral discretion are in order. I once heard about a woman with agoraphobia who wanted to be baptized but was afraid of leaving her home, who got attitude from a pastor who insisted that she do so if she were serious. (My observation -- why not have "the Church," in the form of caring Christian friends/family/church members, come to her? Duh!) On the other hand, in the case of entitlement-mentality families who think of the whole thing as a quaint little ritual that one has "done" at one's convenience, and that shouldn't be spoiled by having strangers/the wrong sort of person present...well, if I were the pastor, I think I'd draw my line in the sand there: "We'll see you in church Sunday morning the __th, then. Or not." [Two face]

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

If the C of E MUST provide baptism for all within the parish does that mean it will happily baptise the child of Buddhist parents who really want to get them into a CofE school (not for faith reasons but because it is a damned good school) and the school demands a baptismal certificate?

I am aware of many parents who seek baptism for reasons of educational prospects. My own son for one!!

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
If the C of E MUST provide baptism for all within the parish does that mean it will happily baptise the child of Buddhist parents who really want to get them into a CofE school (not for faith reasons but because it is a damned good school) and the school demands a baptismal certificate?

I thought that 40% of places in CofE schools could go to students of other faiths, so long as their family practised the faith. And I live in the US and know this...

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I am aware of many parents who seek baptism for reasons of educational prospects. My own son for one!!

Really? Did you have it at the main Sunday service? And how often have you attended since then?

[ 07. March 2011, 17:52: Message edited by: Spiffy ]

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
your post would soon be advertised!

Really? What do you pay? It's got to be more than I'm making at the cathedral, which is nothing – other than the joy of working in the Lord's vineyard, of course.

I did have a baptism mom come up to me and another usher one time and thank us for being there – like we'd gotten out of bed and dressed just for her. I really did want to say "Actually I would have been here anyway' but I'm sure she meant well in an ego-driven sort of way.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
As I understand it, as the national church it must provide for the baptism of all comers who live within the parish. Is that right? (And is it the same in the Church of Scotland?)

In the Church of Scotland there's an obligation to provide funerals for anyone within the parish. There's no obligation with baptisms, though. A minister can refuse a baptism if s/he feels the parents will be taking vows which they have no intention of keeping. I don't know how often that happens, though; my minister will baptise any baby, even if it's blatantly clear the parents are treating the whole thing as an opportunity for cute photos and a family knees-up (or if they're having the baby dunked to keep granny happy.) Alternatively, the baby can simply be blessed.

Baptisms are in front of the congregation, unless, of course, it's a baptism for a sick baby.

We have a couple of dozen a year, so generally two or sometimes three at a time. We had one excellent combined baptism/parents wedding.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

My teeth-bruxing moment always comes when the pastor intones a list of spiritual formation responsiblities for Christian parents and then asks, "Do you promise to help your children grow in the Christian faith and life?"

Looking over at the blank-faced parents and sponsors (most of whom I've never seen before), I often find myself thinking, "Yeah...that'll happen..."

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Thanks, North East Quine.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The Church of England is supposed to marry, bury or baptise anyone living within the parish.

ken, current figures out here are something like 8,000 population in a parish to qualify for a parish priest.

We officiated at 63 baptisms last year and have already baptised/booked 28 for this year, with more coming in. We baptise about 50:50 babies and adults/older children. Baptisms are held in the main service around midday, maximum of two or three at a time because it becomes too like a production line otherwise, so some Sundays we've had baptisms at 12:45pm, 1:30pm and 2:15pm and one Sunday we did in the main service, 12:45pm and 1:30pm. We also have a group of parishioners who attend and are part of the welcome - me being one of them

Many of the infants who are baptised are part of the pram service, and quite a few do come to church as they grow up - toddlers and church not being a wonderful combination always.

The CofE service replaces the Creed with the baptismal service including the vows - and there are other additions - when the baptism is carried out in the main services - so a baptism adds a fair chunk into what is already an hour plus of communion service. For churches whose main service is a communion service, it makes a fairly lengthy service for people who aren't used to church and services. The baptism only services are often a better introduction.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The real problem here is that the CW Baptism service is too wordy.

My old parish in Leeds did 'mass' baptisms monthly during the High Mass but we did Series 2 communion service with series 2 baptism service and managed to get it done within an hour.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
your post would soon be advertised!
Really? What do you pay? It's got to be more than I'm making at the cathedral, which is nothing – other than the joy of working in the Lord's vineyard, of course.

I did have a baptism mom come up to me and another usher one time and thank us for being there – like we'd gotten out of bed and dressed just for her. I really did want to say "Actually I would have been here anyway' but I'm sure she meant well in an ego-driven sort of way.

Pay? Pay???? Here in markland (2nd lowest average income in the UK) pay is not an option. Love is though and it can't be bought or paid for, just experienced. that's why we have our best and warmest people up front or on the doors.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Love is though and it can't be bought or paid for, just experienced. that's why we have our best and warmest people up front or on the doors.

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Oh, yes, I'm sure they're never cranky, or grieving, or just generally having an off day. The rest of us mere mortals called to serve at the threshold of the house of God, though, seem to muddle through somehow.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Love is though and it can't be bought or paid for, just experienced. that's why we have our best and warmest people up front or on the doors.
I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Oh, yes, I'm sure they're never cranky, or grieving, or just generally having an off day. The rest of us mere mortals called to serve at the threshold of the house of God, though, seem to muddle through somehow.

Oh dear - a little mouthwash perhaps?

Would you really want someone cranky greeting you in a restaurant? Probably not - so why accept it in a church? IME some people use "cranky" as a rather convenient excuse for all sorts of stuff.

I don't see a problem with grieving nor off day, nor do I think those who greet people shold have the kind of vapid smile you find in too many con evo churches. A kind of "have a nice day" patter is wrong too. Real people, real interest in others. It takes someone special to do that job and not everyone is skilled to do it IMHO.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Real people, real interest in others.

Actually most people seem to primarily want their damn service leaflet but I throw in a smile just to be annoying.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

And after the service leaflet, #2 is 'Where are your restrooms?". #3 - at our place anyway - is 'Oh! You mean this isn't Roman Catholic? Where is the nearest Catholic church then*?'

(*I'd like to say "You're standing in it." but that's not really a discussion you want to get into when you've got a line waiting for leaflets.)

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Sacraments don't have to be given in public. They tend to be, yes, but the important thing is the sacrament rather than the public!
Nope, sacraments are public. It is an act of worship of the Body of Christ. The more, the better.

It also depends on how many sacraments your eccelesial community believes there are. The most popular numbers are two and seven. I believe there are two.

"...wherever two or three come together in my name...", wasn't it?

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Love is though and it can't be bought or paid for, just experienced. that's why we have our best and warmest people up front or on the doors.
I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Oh, yes, I'm sure they're never cranky, or grieving, or just generally having an off day. The rest of us mere mortals called to serve at the threshold of the house of God, though, seem to muddle through somehow.
Oh dear - a little mouthwash perhaps?

Wouldn't have helped, your glurge reply after this made me vom in my mouth again.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Would you really want someone cranky greeting you in a restaurant?

Wait, cranky greetings AREN'T de rigeur in restaurants? Hm, maybe I should stop eating at hipster restaurants...

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
IME some people use "cranky" as a rather convenient excuse for all sorts of stuff.

Uh huh, most of which are things that, you know, make you act cranky but you don't feel like getting that in-depth with someone about.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Real people, real interest in others. It takes someone special to do that job and not everyone is skilled to do it IMHO.

Blargh, vomited in my mouth yet again.

I'm on my way in to the sanctuary to make a real connection with my Lord and Savior in the Eucharist. If I want a real connection with a real person, I'll talk to them during coffee hour afterwards. Hand me my paper, maybe give me a smile (can't promise I'll be smiling, no coffee yet and withdrawal makes me, you know, CRANKY), and get the fuck out of my way.

And I think that's quite enough of this tangent, nu?

[ 07. March 2011, 22:32: Message edited by: Spiffy ]

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
And I think that's quite enough of this tangent, nu?

Yes, please. Let's get back on topic. Thanks muchly.

Mamacita, Eccles Host

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
If the C of E MUST provide baptism for all within the parish does that mean it will happily baptise the child of Buddhist parents who really want to get them into a CofE school (not for faith reasons but because it is a damned good school) and the school demands a baptismal certificate?
I thought that 40% of places in CofE schools could go to students of other faiths, so long as their family practised the faith. And I live in the US and know this...

From the website of our local CofE secondary school:

quote:

The governing body will allocate places using the following criteria, which are listed in order of priority:
1. Children in public care.
2. Places will then be allocated using the following points system which reflects the fact that St Balanced is a Voluntary Aided Church of England School:
Points will be given:
(a) (i) to children whose parents attend public acts of worship at a Church of England or Methodist Church (to a maximum of 6 points)
(ii) to children of parents who attend public acts of worship at other Trinitarian denominational churches which are also members of Churches Together in England or are members of the Evangelical Alliance or Free Churches’ Group, or are included on a list of other churches approved by the Governors (to a maximum of 5 points)
(iii) to children who themselves attend public acts of worship* at Church of England or other Trinitarian denominational churches which are also members of Churches Together in England or are members of the Evangelical Alliance or Free Churches’ Group, or are included on a list of other churches approved by the Governors (to a maximum of 6 points).
*This does not include attendance with school where this is part of the normal school day.
(iv) In addition, for the period of time that parents and children have worshipped with the regularity stated on the Supplementary Form (to a maximum of 5 points in the case of parental attendance and to a maximum of 5 points in the case of the child’s attendance).

(b) to children who attend a St Balanced Trust Foundation Primary School (2 points).
(c) to children who attend any other Church of England Primary School (1 point).
(d) to brothers and sisters of those children who are currently on the school roll and who will be continuing into the next academic year (2 points).
(e) to a child of a marriage where one parent has died and the surviving parent remains a widow or widower (6 points). This reflects the original foundation of the school.
3. In the event that places remain unfilled after the application of criteria 1 and 2, remaining places will be allocated according to the straight line distance from home to school, nearer addresses having priority over more distant ones.

Admissions information:
In 2010 there were 856 applications (319 first preference, 345 second preference and 192 third preference) for 256 places.

The Admissions Committee applied the 2010-11 admissions criteria and the last child to be offered a place on church grounds achieved 22 points under the previous system. This is roughly equivalent to attendance 3 times a month for over 3 years by both parent and child.

(Long and boring I know, but I'm quoting it just to show that it's very unlikely this local school will have any places for children of other faiths - children of RC/Free Church families can barely make the cut. I know of one girl who is Muslim who goes to this school but I think she got in under a previous system that included children who have aptitude for foreign languages.)

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

It depends whether the school in your parish is oversubscribed. There's not much point kids in our church school getting baptised just to get a place as there are plenty of places available. However, in a neighbouring parish, the church school is oversubscribed and so to make sure of a place (particularly if you are non-resident) you not only have to go to church, you have to go to the right church (i.e. the one opposite the school, not the one nearest your house).

Several baptisms take place on the day of Confirmation (which has to be a mass event, due to the diary of the Bishop). I guess this is because people coming forward for Confirmation are less likely to have been baptised as a baby, these days. For people who don't want to be baptised and confirmed on the same day, it is possible to arrange a quiet baptism service a few days before.

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :

We've usually had one or two baptisms out of the confirmation group. Last year and in previous years the confirmation took place on Easter Sunday during the best-attended service but this year we have the Saturday slot which will be more "private" - but I suspect we just drew that slot out of the Bishop's availability.

Posted by lurcher (# 12704) on :

For me the question is why do people want a private baptism, i.e. a baptism outside of the main service?

If the answer is they do not understand the liturgy, then proper preparation can solve that.

If the answer is that they do not want to take the promises publicly, the CofE has a perfectly good service of Thanksgiving.

Indeed most of the folks who come to see me wanting the 'bab' done, vicar' want to say thank you. If it is 'only that' then the Thanksgiving service, when carefully explained, works well.

The real snag of the private (i.e., outside of the normal pattern of services) baptism is that as the priest I am required to ask the congregation if they are prepared to welcome the child (and it is always a child, because I would not dream of baptising an adult privately, unless perhaps they were converting to Christianity, and their life would be endangered), and if the congregation are absent then they cannot be asked.

Lurcher

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lurcher:
For me the question is why do people want a private baptism, i.e. a baptism outside of the main service?* snip*
Lurcher

Perhaps they never attend the main service. In my days (20 years) at S. Vartan's, I think that I only went to the main service once, preferring the 8.00 am Mass or vespers. Assuming that I had a child to be baptized, I think that I would prefer the 8.00 am, as I would find the 10.15 a foreign experience, where I would know almost nobody. A private baptism at the baptistry outside a service would be preferable to the 10.15, if the 8.00 am timetable could not accommodate a baptism.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lurcher:

(and it is always a child, because I would not dream of baptising an adult privately

Why not?

*is curious*

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Many posts have refered to angels and archangels and all the company of heaven surrounding and being present at a "private" baptism.

True. But I think its a cop out.

The liturgy I follow has space for parents and godparents AND THE CONGREGATION to make promises.

The congregation promises to provide the context and support in which the child will grow into a knowledge and love of God and be enabled (in confirmation) to confirm those promises in a personal commitment.

A private baptism in which the congregation is not present and not represented makes a nonsense of all that.

And the angels and archangels will hardly likely to be able to provide the practical fellowship which brings the child to confirmation.

Of course there are exceptions and I allow for that. But all too often the exceptions mentioned in above posts are elevated into a "rule".

It has been quoted many times "where two or three are gathered together". Every time the quote has been advanced the crunch ending to the quote has been conveniently ommitted. The ending is " in my name". And I have necessarily attended, as family member, many "private" baptisms in which all of those present could not be considered as gathering together "in my name".

The ceremony was simply the done thing. A rite of passage. A certificate ensuring future educational prospects. And other reasons bordering on the superstitious.

The affirmations and the promises made in the service were mouthed without meaning or conviction. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote from his concentration camp cell, "we gave away the sacraments wholesale without asking any awkward questions or insisting on any strict conditions". (The Cost of Discipleship).

[ 08. March 2011, 21:48: Message edited by: shamwari ]

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The congregation promises to provide the context and support in which the child will grow into a knowledge and love of God and be enabled (in confirmation) to confirm those promises in a personal commitment.

Except of course that the congregation probably doesn't really follow through in any kind of personal meaningful way.

quote:
The affirmations and the promises made in the service were mouthed without meaning or conviction. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote from his concentration camp cell, "we gave away the sacraments wholesale without asking any awkward questions or insisting on any strict conditions". (The Cost of Discipleship).

Then God will no doubt send the dirty liars to Hell as a punishment so we don't really need to worry about it. He's got it covered.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
And I have necessarily attended, as family member, many "private" baptisms in which all of those present could not be considered as gathering together "in my name".

Are you including the priest in that count of nonbelievers?

I mean, dude. They're there to baptize the kidlet in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Just because those gathered may or may not* be able to quote the Catechism on who those three dudes are, they are gathered there in God's name. Give the Holy Spirit some credit, willya?

*And who the heck am I to judge? I've not been given the power to look into people's hearts.

[ 08. March 2011, 22:33: Message edited by: Spiffy ]

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:

And the angels and archangels will hardly likely to be able to provide the practical fellowship which brings the child to confirmation.

It has been quoted many times "where two or three are gathered together". Every time the quote has been advanced the crunch ending to the quote has been conveniently ommitted. The ending is " in my name". And I have necessarily attended, as family member, many "private" baptisms in which all of those present could not be considered as gathering together "in my name".

....
The affirmations and the promises made in the service were mouthed without meaning or conviction. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote from his concentration camp cell, "we gave away the sacraments wholesale without asking any awkward questions or insisting on any strict conditions". (The Cost of Discipleship).

I'm sorry, but this seems to be an extraordinary post!

Firstly, where does the idea that the intercession of the saints and angels and all those who have gone before us ('promoted to Glory', as the Salvation Army have it) is of no practical benefit come from?

Secondly, are you really comparing those who request private baptism to the Nazis? A bit of hyperbole, no?

Posted by moveable_type (# 9673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

Secondly, are you really comparing those who request private baptism to the Nazis? A bit of hyperbole, no?

I don't read that, FWIW.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
My teeth-bruxing moment always comes when the pastor intones a list of spiritual formation responsiblities for Christian parents and then asks, "Do you promise to help your children grow in the Christian faith and life?"

Looking over at the blank-faced parents and sponsors (most of whom I've never seen before), I often find myself thinking, "Yeah...that'll happen..."

I call them "Splash-and-Runs". Our baptismal service has the congregation make vows to help raise the child in Christian Way. And we never see the little tyke again. [Disappointed]

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

Surely the efficacy of a sacrament is not enhanced by having a greater number of people present. According the this logic, the mass weddings conducted by the Unification Church would be superior to the more usual wedding involving only one couple.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
Surely the efficacy of a sacrament is not enhanced by having a greater number of people present. According the this logic, the mass weddings conducted by the Unification Church would be superior to the more usual wedding involving only one couple.

And by the same token, the firehose baptisms of the United House of Prayer would be the way to ensure being enrolled in the family of God.

Really, that's what baptism symbolises-- joining the family. Just because I haven't seen my cousin in a couple decades doesn't mean she's out of the family, I just have to trust one day by the working of the Spirit (or the guilt tripping of my grandma) she comes and visits.

quote:
Originally posted by moveable_type:

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

Secondly, are you really comparing those who request private baptism to the Nazis? A bit of hyperbole, no?
I don't read that, FWIW.

Dude quoted "Boenhoffer from his concentration camp cell". It's a glancing blow of a Godwin, but what are you going to do?

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
Surely the efficacy of a sacrament is not enhanced by having a greater number of people present. According the this logic, the mass weddings conducted by the Unification Church would be superior to the more usual wedding involving only one couple.

Not quite, it is more that weddings with more guests would be more likely to last.

And perhaps that's true, but there is not a perfect correlation - people who have more supportive family and friends may be more likely to stay married, but some couples have a small number of very supportive family, and some pay for a lavish wedding for everyone they've ever crossed paths with to attend, but the people who attend are largely neither family nor friends, and are not supportive.

Likewise with baptisms, if a child has a large set of supportive family members who attend church and are interested in that child's spiritual development, it's more likely to continue - but there are so many other factors. I was baptised in what I think was probably a private ceremony, and none of my godparents ever showed the slightest interest in my spiritual development. I came back to the church around the time I started secondary school, having been sent to Sunday School to get me out of the house.

Other children will be baptised, will have enthusiastic godparents who check on their spiritual development, will attend church and Sunday School with their numerous, faithful, family and will decide aged 10 that they no longer believe, and will stop going to church as soon as they can.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lurcher:
For me the question is why do people want a private baptism, i.e. a baptism outside of the main service?

Just speaking from personal experience, in past English parishes, for those who expressed a preference, it was sometimes

* tied to a reluctance to be part of an unfamiliar ceremony with a group of strangers;
* because several friends or family members couldn't make the journey to the church in early enough time for the morning service;
* because the baptism party consisted of anything between 50-120 people;
* because the priest him/herself wanted a reasonable opportunity to focus on the baptism itself, especially to a group quite likely largely constituted of non-churchgoers. Decent opportunities for teaching on important sacraments to church-strangers are fairly rare.

Ironically, for those who asked for morning service baptism the reason was usually along the lines of getting it over and done with so the party could start! This was apparently in the knowledge - having been to other baptisms - that the splashy bit and vows etc, were just a part of the hour's worship, so basically a fairly easy and undemanding way to get through the event, with the minimum of personal participation. Not a widely held view by any means, but a genuine one!

In current circs, the mixed marriage thing seems to have had a knock-on effect on some people. So some mixed couples are still in the culture that anything churchy has to be done discreetly, so that Catholic/Protestant differences are not pointed up. It's only recently in Ireland, I believe, that Catholics and Protestants now feel more relaxed (and in some cases are even permitted) to attend each other's churches.

Also, in this part of the communion, baptisms on other days outside of a Sunday, are not unheard of. (Much to my surprize!)

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The congregation promises to provide the context and support in which the child will grow into a knowledge and love of God and be enabled (in confirmation) to confirm those promises in a personal commitment.
Except of course that the congregation probably doesn't really follow through in any kind of personal meaningful way.

Of course? Speak for your own congregation. In our congregation, we certainly try to. We regularly are reminded of the promise we have made, and that promise is seen as the basis for teaching Sunday School, confirmation classes, leading music with children (something I volunteer to do every week), working with youth groups and participation a variety of other ministries with children and youth where relationships with them are formed. It's a promise that led to a bit of bewilderment in our son once, when he asked "Why does everybody at church know who I am?"

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I call them "Splash-and-Runs". Our baptismal service has the congregation make vows to help raise the child in Christian Way. And we never see the little tyke again.

This is exactly why, in my experience at least, Sessions are very reluctant to authorize the baptism of a child unless at least one parent (or maybe an involved grandparent) is a member of the congregation.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

The church I am in at the moment has a most unusual campaign of follow up for splash and runs. For I suspect about ten years (i.e. until the child enters secondary school), kid gets a card on its birthday plus notice that the child has been prayed for at communion. Then once they get to three and four, invites to junior church each year at the start of session plus also invites to special services, once seven or so invites to Children's club and holiday bible club (two held annually).

You get the picture. The church takes very seriously its side of the bargain.

Jengie

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
that promise is seen as the basis for teaching Sunday School, confirmation classes, leading music with children (something I volunteer to do every week), working with youth groups and participation a variety of other ministries with children and youth where relationships with them are formed.

We certainly have people like that too. That's what keeps the place running after all. Not sure they are the majority of the pew-warmers who shout out 'WE WILL!' during the baptism service though.

(Personally I'm actually in favor of baptisms as part of the Eucharistic service rather than 'privately' - both because it's what our rubrics say is appropriate and because it feels appropriate – to me anyway. But if it doesn't happen that way it's not something I get het up about. But then what difference would it make if I did? None.)

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The church I am in at the moment has a most unusual campaign of follow up for splash and runs. For I suspect about ten years (i.e. until the child enters secondary school), kid gets a card on its birthday plus notice that the child has been prayed for at communion. Then once they get to three and four, invites to junior church each year at the start of session plus also invites to special services, once seven or so invites to Children's club and holiday bible club (two held annually).

You get the picture. The church takes very seriously its side of the bargain.

Jengie

At the church where I grew up this used to happen. Until we realised that, with such a mobile population, we were sending cards to children who now lived in Doncaster, or some such.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
We certainly have people like that too. That's what keeps the place running after all. Not sure they are the majority of the pew-warmers who shout out 'WE WILL!' during the baptism service though.

I guess I'd say two things: first, our promises as a congregation are clearly promises of the congregation (or the parish, if you will), not of individuals. Where individuals come into it, of course, is in the means by which the congregation fulfills its promise. I recognize that for some, that means may be by their money that enables other things to happen.

And the second thing I'd say is this is perhaps one reason I've always tended to be drawn to medium-sized congregations rather than larger ones: the ratio of mere pew-warmers to others is maybe not as high. Others' MMV.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by SPK:

quote:
I call them "Splash-and-Runs". Our baptismal service has the congregation make vows to help raise the child in Christian Way. And we never see the little tyke again.

Until lo! they reappear two years later to have little sister splashed. Sometimes they then reappear again if a third child happens along.

And we all have to suspend disbelief while the parents are taking their vows; well, sure it turns out that they didn't mean it the last time they took those vows, but, hey, we're all sure they mean them this time. [Disappointed]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The church I am in at the moment has a most unusual campaign of follow up for splash and runs. For I suspect about ten years (i.e. until the child enters secondary school), kid gets a card on its birthday plus notice that the child has been prayed for at communion. Then once they get to three and four, invites to junior church each year at the start of session plus also invites to special services, once seven or so invites to Children's club and holiday bible club (two held annually).

You get the picture. The church takes very seriously its side of the bargain.

Jengie
At the church where I grew up this used to happen. Until we realised that, with such a mobile population, we were sending cards to children who now lived in Doncaster, or some such.

Easy solution. Just include the location of the nearest congregation/parish in the card. With the Internet this service is now free and can be done in 30 seconds.

This is the glory of being part of a connection. In the UCCan's case, it's also a nice segue into discussing Transfer of Membership from one Congregational Roll to the other.

My Session has made a concerted effort to keep abreast of who is actually in our congregation so that our roll is accurate. UCCan congregations pay a Presbytery and Conference Assessment based on a 3-year average of our roll numbers, so an accurate roll is an asset. If you have moved several hundred kilometres away it is to everyone's advantage to move your membership.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Church of England, it's only the very keen people who are on the Electoral Roll. And actually it pays to keep the Electoral Roll down. However, we have a duty to baptise anyone who lives in the geographical parish, hence the problem

We, well the Mothers' Union, send cards to children for five years after their baptisms.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

quote:
guess I'd say two things: first, our promises as a congregation are clearly promises of the congregation (or the parish, if you will), not of individuals. Where individuals come into it, of course, is in the means by which the congregation fulfills its promise. I recognize that for some, that means may be by their money that enables other things to happen.

While this is de facto reality...maybe it would be helpful to unpack this a bit (maybe in the sermon that day) for both the baptismal parties and the other folks in the pew. I know my pastor will sometimes allude to the specific ways in which we as a congregation can and do support parents in their children's spiritual formation.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Church of England, it's only the very keen people who are on the Electoral Roll. .

I don't think thats true. Most parishes seem to have electoral rolls about the same size as their regular attendance. I have heard of a few where it is much, much larger than attendance.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

<continuing tangent> OK, - only stupid churches have electoral rolls that are much bigger than their regular attendances, certainly in this Diocese and several others I can think of, because the number on the electoral roll is part of the calculation for the Parish Share. It costs to have people on the electoral roll. It will vary by parish and diocese but it's a significant figure per person.

I've heard stories of treasurers going to non-attending people on the electoral roll to tell them how much they are costing the church and suggesting they either come off or cough up. </tangent>

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Easy solution. Just include the location of the nearest congregation/parish in the card. With the Internet this service is now free and can be done in 30 seconds.

All this assumes the baptism family have let the church know their change of address - not flippin' likely. The card gets delivered to the old house and the new people in the house scratch their heads and say, 'Who on earth is Jane Smith?' before binning it.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Or maybe only stupid dioceses use electoral roll rather than. attendance for the quota?

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Could we please curtail the tangent of electoral rolls (at least in their uses for bean-counting) and return to the discussion about baptism? Thank you.

Mamacita, Eccles Host

[ 10. March 2011, 20:55: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The church I am in at the moment has a most unusual campaign of follow up for splash and runs. For I suspect about ten years (i.e. until the child enters secondary school), kid gets a card on its birthday plus notice that the child has been prayed for at communion. Then once they get to three and four, invites to junior church each year at the start of session plus also invites to special services, once seven or so invites to Children's club and holiday bible club (two held annually).

You get the picture. The church takes very seriously its side of the bargain.

Jengie

I suggested that to the Minister today when we were going over the agenda for the next Session meeting and he loved the idea. We already have a card ministry and this sounded like a great idea to him.

He wants to tighten up on pre-baptismal counselling anyway.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
He wants to tighten up on pre-baptismal counselling anyway.

This is something I've been wondering about while reading the thread. Is pre-baptismal counselling commonplace in the C of E? Given that the church must baptize residents within the parish who request it (AIUI), can the church require any form of pre-baptismal instruction for the parents/sponsors?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Mamacita, it varies.

Some churches insist all families attend a baptism course before they will baptise children and that course varies somewhat (it can be seen as their opportunity to do some heavy evangelism),
others insist on booking a baptism via a meeting with a member of the ministry team and discussion there.
Locally another church will not baptise babies, only believers,
another guy locally will not baptise children of unmarried parents, or parents who weren't married when the child was born.

We insist on families discussing the baptism with a member of the ministry team and also invite the families to the weekly pram service. From there we invite them into services on Sunday.

Baptism isn't something people do automatically around here. It's a positive opting in to a something only a few people do, so making the hoops too difficult to jump through isn't helpful to encourage people to think that the church is welcoming place that is open to them when they need it.

Also the insistence on a course for every baptism can backfire. Another story that's still rankling was the minister (now long gone) who insisted on the course for every child. The church secretary left church - still is left - when he refused to baptise her second child (almost certainly grown up with their own children now) without attending his course, again.

Adults or older children who choose to get baptised, we give them a book on the CofE - This is Our Faith to read. And about half of all those we baptise are older children or adults.

Posted by +Chad (# 5645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
He wants to tighten up on pre-baptismal counselling anyway.
This is something I've been wondering about while reading the thread. Is pre-baptismal counselling commonplace in the C of E? Given that the church must baptize residents within the parish who request it (AIUI), can the church require any form of pre-baptismal instruction for the parents/sponsors?

Yes. The Canons require it.

quote:
Canon B 22
3. The minister shall instruct the parents or guardians of an infant to be admitted to Holy Baptism that the same responsibilities rest on them as are in the service of Holy Baptisn required of the godparents.

4.No minister shall refuse or, save for the purpose of preparing or instructing the parents or guardians or godparents, delay to baptize any infant within his cure that is brought to the church to be baptized...

We're required to baptize all-comers, but are also required to ensure that they know what is going on.

That's why I don't understand the references to blank looks in baptism services made in some posts here. It seems to me that if a minister in the CofE, (I wouldn't presume to speak for any other church), is doing as he/she is required, then parents and godparents should understand what it is that is happening in baptism, and what it is they are undertaking for the child.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

We also do that bit - the instruction of parents and godparents, as well as privately, publicly at the beginning of the baptism service, so the welcoming words includes an explanation to the whole congregation of what is happening and why.

When other members of the baptism party then ask to be baptised too, we do know they know what they are asking to do, because they've seen it and had it explained to them.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

sorry to double post - when, in the informal bit after the baptism, members of the baptism party come forward and ask if they can be baptised too, we know they know what they are asking.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by +Chad:

That's why I don't understand the references to blank looks in baptism services made in some posts here. It seems to me that if a minister in the CofE, (I wouldn't presume to speak for any other church), is doing as he/she is required, then parents and godparents should understand what it is that is happening in baptism, and what it is they are undertaking for the child.

They should, but...

Anyway, a typical infant baptism attracts maybe between 5 and 20 guests as well as parents and godparents - and occasionally up to about 50.

Posted by lurcher (# 12704) on :

There will always be occasional blank looks, for as Ken says there are usually around 25+ guests at most infant baptisms.

There is little the priest/minister can do about this apart from make the event as accessible as possible.

lurcher

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0