|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Anglicans and Baptism
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
In a thread about church schools, leo said something that struck me as very odd:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
One of our previous clergy did not have his kids baptised - he , and more likely the mother, wanted them to 'wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves.'
They didn't get into a church school.
Mind you, i don't think they approved of church schools either.
I can see that there are Anglican clerics who might not approve of church schools (although I vehemently disagree), but how is that attitude toward Baptism consistent with being a clerk in holy orders in the Church of England as by law established? I was raised to believe that — in the Anglican, as in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Churches — having ones children baptized was considered one of the basic duties of a Christian, yet this is not the first time I've heard an Anglican cleric speak so lightly of it.
Recently, before Evensong in a certain large Collegiate church, I overheard the minister giving (rather too loudly in my opinion) advice to a mother that 'there's really no point in baptizing the child now, why don't we wait a few years and have her baptized and confirmed at the same time'!
I've also had a seminarian friend tell me that some of his fellow theological students (for I do not think they would call themselves 'seminarians') were shocked — shocked! — to discover that the Anglican church teaches baptismal regeneration and always has (as indicated in the rite from the 1662 BCP).
No observant churchgoer can be blind to the fact the Eucharistic life of the Church of England is in a very bad state, but am I alone in thinking that attitudes toward Baptism are very 'low' and perhaps at their lowest point since the Restoration? If this is indeed the case, is there much that can be done about it?
[ 15. June 2016, 18:52: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
We live in an age of sloppy theology, and while it is bad enough to hear of Anglican lay people spouting Anabaptist ideas, it is shocking to hear them from Anglican clergy!
I was horrified to hear the tale of a friend of a friend who was rebaptized to mark the usual born-again experience, and then in the same ceremony baptized her fiancee herself... at a United Methodist church. I bet that pastor's superintendent didn't hear about that one!
[ 07. July 2012, 13:46: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
While my first line of approach has always been to speak (civilly) with the cleric involved, suggesting that we chat about this over coffee-- far better than at the back of the church after a service where there are many distractions -- generally the response is a dismissive smirk for, as a layperson, one cannot know as much or perceive as spiritually as the ordained. Even pointing out particular passages in the prayerbook or other documents tends to get a "Nobody believes that any more" response.
While the civil (and non-threatening!) approach, requesting explanation and a fuller picture, should always be the default, I am starting to think that a concise letter to the diocesan bishop is really best. It is also interesting to see to what extent eccentric views are reflected on parish websites. It is not so much that they are irregular, or at odds with official formularies, or even heretical, but that they are best (and most generously) described as incoherent. I really don't know what there is to be done about it.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
I can't quite see the problem myself. Just think about the range of Eucharistic theologies present within the Church of England. Why cannot a similar range of baptismal theologies also be present? It is not, after all, as if we are talking about a fringe practice here, as far as Christians more generally are concerned.
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Setting the question of baptismal theologies aside,
My understanding is that pastorally, while the Anglican Church recognizes and celebrates infant baptism, we recognize that it is the prerogative of the parents as to when a child gets baptized. We don't subscribe to baptism as "fire insurance" in which an unbaptized person has no hope of salvation if he or she dies.
Some parents wait a year or two before they get their child baptized. I don't see anything wrong with that.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
As I provoked the OP - the priest in question is married so had to take his wife's views. It was she who wanted to postpone. She's an evangelical, he isn't. I would ope that married couples come to a common mind.
(As one who values my baptism, having remembered it since i was aged 13, i have mixed feelings about infant baptism.
I am at a loss as to what the OP means by 'the Eucharistic life of the Church of England is in a very bad state' - communicant numbers are increasing here - or does the OP mean we don't prepare as much as we used to? (I agree)
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I'm not an Anglican, although in my faith tradition babies are baptised.
We all know that the choice to baptise a baby may be no guarantee even of a furtive desire to 'explore' Christianity, let alone a serious desire to attempt to keep the promises they make during the ceremony. Some clergy may feel increasingly uneasy about encouraging parents to make baptismal promises to God that are likely to be forgotten. It may seem inauthentic, a form of play-acting. Christian parents who observe this kind of play-acting among non-religious baptismal parties may feel nervous about getting involved in that kind of circus themselves.
For practising Christians, whose main concern is for their children to come to faith, a catch-all baby-welcoming ceremony that means different things to different people isn't perhaps very helpful. Also, since 'coming to faith' is such a blurred concept in our (post-)Christian society, adult baptism is helpful in providing a very definate and recognisable point at which you tell the church and the world that you've made your decision. Parents who baptise their babies are preventing their children from having that experience later in life. Confirmation, so I understand, has often not meant making a decision for Christ, but has often been the point at which young people leave the church! (In any case, confirmations have declined....) Believer's baptism seems to more meaningful as an indicator of spiritual commitment.
Yes, I understand that infant baptism is about emphasising what God does for us, not what we do for God. But we can believe and remember all that without having our babies baptised. So why is it essential? There seems to be a loss of clarity about why it's so important.
I'm not a theologian, but I just feel that an authentic theology of infant baptism is missing. I don't mean the stuff in theology textbooks - I mean a theology and a liturgy that respond to the real world and try to get to grips with the ways in which ordinary folk understand infant baptism. The textbook stuff needs to deal with those realities, and offer a clear response. (We should be so lucky!)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
One thing I never understood about anabaptist theology is this: if you have to intellectually assent to Christianity before you can be baptized, what about the mentally disabled? Wouldn't this mean they're unable to be saved?
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
One thing I never understood about anabaptist theology is this: if you have to intellectually assent to Christianity before you can be baptized, what about the mentally disabled? Wouldn't this mean they're unable to be saved?
That is imposing a Catholic soteriology on an Anabaptist framework. Anabaptists divorce baptism completely from salvation. They would reject any notion of baptismal regeneration.
As such, baptism would be an act of obedience by people to demonstrate their faith in God.
In reference to your secondary question, I would surmise that Anabaptists would leave the spiritual state of the disabled to God, as with other people. Whether the disabled can be baptised or not is irrelevant as to the question of salvation.
[ 07. July 2012, 19:05: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
One thing I never understood about anabaptist theology is this: if you have to intellectually assent to Christianity before you can be baptized, what about the mentally disabled? Wouldn't this mean they're unable to be saved?
You'd also have to bring back Limbo with a vengence for the kiddies if that was true.*
Baptism becomes something you do because (and only to do if) you're saved rather than vice versa. (there are many weaknesses with this but also with the other position)
*Also of course just because someone couldn't give a 27 point evaluation of (whatever) doesn't mean they can't know enough to commit.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
In a thread about church schools, leo said something that struck me as very odd:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
One of our previous clergy did not have his kids baptised - he , and more likely the mother, wanted them to 'wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves.'
They didn't get into a church school.
Mind you, i don't think they approved of church schools either.
I can see that there are Anglican clerics who might not approve of church schools (although I vehemently disagree), but how is that attitude toward Baptism consistent with being a clerk in holy orders in the Church of England as by law established? I was raised to believe that — in the Anglican, as in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Churches — having ones children baptized was considered one of the basic duties of a Christian, yet this is not the first time I've heard an Anglican cleric speak so lightly of it.
Recently, before Evensong in a certain large Collegiate church, I overheard the minister giving (rather too loudly in my opinion) advice to a mother that 'there's really no point in baptizing the child now, why don't we wait a few years and have her baptized and confirmed at the same time'!
I've also had a seminarian friend tell me that some of his fellow theological students (for I do not think they would call themselves 'seminarians') were shocked — shocked! — to discover that the Anglican church teaches baptismal regeneration and always has (as indicated in the rite from the 1662 BCP).
No observant churchgoer can be blind to the fact the Eucharistic life of the Church of England is in a very bad state, but am I alone in thinking that attitudes toward Baptism are very 'low' and perhaps at their lowest point since the Restoration? If this is indeed the case, is there much that can be done about it?
I do not think that Anglican theology of Baptism is at its lowest point since the Restoration, though it is probably at its lowest point since the Tractinarian movement. In the 18th century both the Evangelicals and the Lauditarians did not believe in baptismal regeneration, and the pre-tractinarian high churchmen were at a very low ebb in terms of numbers and influence.
Furthermore, given the Gorham Judgement, it seems that a strict belie if in baptismal regeneration is not absolutely necessary in Anglicanism.
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Just to pick up on Unreformed's comment, in my first parish, I had a young man who was mentally disabled. He was baptized but was never allowed to commune because previous pastors had said he would not understand the Eucharist.
My take on the situation was to ask the question: Do anyone of us fully understand the Eucharist? No, I find the reality of the Eucharist is not in our understanding, but in Jesus' words combined with the elements.
I did sit down with him and told him that the bread was Jesus' body because Jesus said it was so; likewise the wine was Jesus' blood because Jesus said so. He seemed to understand that.
The Sunday I first communed him, as he took the bread, he showed it to his parents and said: "This is Jesus' body." As he received the cup from me, he looked at me at said: "This is Jesus's blood."
Seems to me he had a better understanding than most theologians.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
It seems to me that whether we believe that our relationship with God is by God's initiative or our own -- whether God saves us or whether we believe that we save ourselves via "making a decision for Christ" -- is a crucial theological question. And I'd raise an eyebrow at any clergyperson in the broad catholic tradition who would treat the question with a "Whatever" attitude.
On the other hand...here in the States "believer's baptism" is such an entrenched part of the dominant Protestant culture, and something that also dovetails into the secular emphasis on individualism and consumerism, that clergypeople in catholic churches have a constant uphill battle with new members who struggle with the idea that God chooses us and not the other way around. I think some clergypeople may just give up. I know in our church we have a family who regularly floats between our congregation and a Nazarene one a few miles away, and this is a real conceptual problem for them.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
I'm a Baptist and am dedicating two children tomorrow.
This is instead of Baptism.
Believers Baptism is as mentioned the usual practice within our ecclesiology.
Faith is essential for Baptism but Baptism is not essential for faith.
Tomorrow I am dedicating two children instead of baptising them. This is is simply a way of blessing a child and welcoming him/her into the church family.
Within the dedication I speak about the hope the child will one day make that choice of following Christ themselves.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
As a matter of terminology, the opposite of paedo-baptism is credo-baptism; the designation 'Anabaptist' is a subset of credo-baptists, reflecting the continental expression of credo-baptism, specifically associated with the Mennonites, of whom the Amish are also component. By contrast the other Baptist tradition that is the source of the mainstream Baptists of the USA comes from a Englishman, John Smyth, in Amsterdam in 1609 - see Wikipedia.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am at a loss as to what the OP means by 'the Eucharistic life of the Church of England is in a very bad state' - communicant numbers are increasing here - or does the OP mean we don't prepare as much as we used to? (I agree)
Lack of preparation is one problem, but what I really had in mind is the apparent rolling back of the Parish Communion movement, so that many MotR parishes seem to think it the 'done thing' to have a non-Eucharistic 'all age service' or the like as their primary service once a month or more. That would be fine, if not exactly to my taste, if we assumed that everyone in the congregation had assisted at mass earlier in the day, but I think we all know that isn't happening and isn't likely to happen any time soon.
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
Faith is essential for Baptism but Baptism is not essential for faith.
I understand that this is what Baptists believe, but it is most emphatically not the teaching of the Church of England, nor that of our separated brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Churches (or our not-quite so separated brothers and sisters in the Continental Old Catholic churches for that matter). For us, there is no Church — and, thus, no Christianity as we know it — without Baptism.
As I understand it (and I do not pretend to be theologically literate) Baptism is the one absolutely essential sacrament. Were all priests and bishops suddenly to die the Church militant could struggle on without the Holy Sacrifice and without the sacraments of confirmation, holy unction, ordination, or the reconciliation of a penitent (holy matrimony would presumably continue to exist, albeit in an altered form). The Church would obviously be greatly impoverished in such circumstances, but it could limp on until 'the Judge his seat attaineth'. Without Baptism — a sacrament so vital that Church teaches that it should be performed by a layperson in grave emergency rather than left undone — the Church would cease to exist altogether.
I am a Christian not because of what I believe or do not believe and not because I go to mass on holy days of obligation, for it is perfectly possible for a Christian to lapse into heresy or apostasy (and I have myself lapsed from time to time), but because I was taken as an infant to a priest who baptized me in the name of the Triune God and pronounced that I was thereby 'received into Christ's holy Church, and [...] made a lively member of the same'.
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Without Baptism — a sacrament so vital that Church teaches that it should be performed by a layperson in grave emergency rather than left undone — the Church would cease to exist altogether.
That's cute theology, but collapses once the complexities of experience are considered: the biblical demonstration of this is the thief on the cross, whilst the persecution scenario of the person who comes to a point of commitment but cannot be baptised because there is no physical contact is also significant (suppose you've only met the person over the internet and they are in a country where there is no indigenous church). The cop out solution in Catholic circles as I understand it is a hand waving argument about 'baptism of intention' and even a 'baptism of blood' for those who are martyred before they can be baptised, but this undermines the whole of your position about baptism as absolutely necessary to the church...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
Baptism of blood and of intent are defined as being essentially forms of baptism and have been since the very early Church (they come up in Ambrose, did he originate them?). Their existence surely underlines, rather than diminishes, the importance of baptism.
This reminds me of yet another bizarre Anglican baptism story I heard: namely a lecturer at an English theological college who told his students that they should consider baptizing stillborn infants out of pastoral concern for the parents. Baptizing the dead, as if we were Mormons! I fail utterly to see how this is more pastoral than the, far more orthodox, option of consoling the parents that children who die in infancy are without sin and thus in no need of regeneration, and furthermore, need not be initiated into the Church Militant as their place is already with the Church Triumphant.
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
busyknitter
Shipmate
# 2501
|
Posted
Not saying this is an example of a coherent theological framework, but this is where we are as a family.
I'm an adult convert, baptised and confirmed into the CofE in my mid twenties. Husband has no faith. We agreed not to have our two boys baptised, because other half wasn't willing to make the necessary parental promises and I arranged a service of thanksgiving for each one when they were a few months old.
Our younger son is now 10 and is autistic with severe learning difficulties. It's pretty clear to everyone who knows him that he is unlikely ever to have the mental capacity to make that kind of faith decision himself (I don't mean he is incapable of knowing God btw).
I've just started to broach the idea of having him baptised, as if it were an infant baptism. Husband is willing (though unlikely to participate). Vicar is also willing. I need to think and pray about it some more, but it does feel like the right thing to do at this stage.
I don't see baptism as "salvation insurance", but I'm not really anabaptist either. If things had been different, I'm sure I would have had my son dunked as a baby.
[ps, ken if you are reading this, you up for being godfather?]
Posts: 903 | From: The Wool Basket | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Baptism of blood and of intent are defined as being essentially forms of baptism and have been since the very early Church (they come up in Ambrose, did he originate them?). Their existence surely underlines, rather than diminishes, the importance of baptism.
Humbug; they're not REAL baptisms. Baptism is an act of the church using water. A 'baptism of blood' involves neither the church, nor, probably, water. It's just nuts to argue that it's a baptism on any sane definition of the term.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
I'm with ES on this. They are only called baptisms because the church decreed that baptism is essential for salvation, and yet we have these people who weren't dunked/dipped/washed/etc but would appear to be saints...well they must have been "baptised" by blood/fire/intent then.
Genuine question - was Mary the mother of Jesus baptised?
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Baptism is an act of the church using water.
Certainly water is the normative outward and visible sign of the sacrament of Baptism, but the Church has taught from very early times that there are certain definite exceptions to this.
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Genuine question - was Mary the mother of Jesus baptised?
As I understand it, from the perspective of the Western Church, the Immaculate Conception covers this one, in as much as Mary, being sinless, did not need regeneration (Eastern Christianity has a different take, about which others here are far more qualified than I am to discuss). Even if this weren't the case (or if you have hangups about the Immaculate Conception), I think the whole 'vessel of salvation' thing might mean she was considered to be sufficiently sanctified.
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I can't quite see the problem myself. Just think about the range of Eucharistic theologies present within the Church of England. Why cannot a similar range of baptismal theologies also be present?
First, are the Eucharistic theologies contradictory? If not, what’s the problem? If they are, of course they cannot all coherently coexist within the same Church. Coherence is important. Truth, it would seem, is in fact ideal coherence. (Also see here.)
Second, if a person is ordained in a given denomination, we should be confident that the ordinand actually believes what that particular denomination holds to be true.* And the Anglican churches has always taught baptismal regeneration.
* I’m not sure about the liturgy of ordination in anglican churches, but in the Church of Norway (lutheran), the ordinand is swearing to uphold and teach the teachings contained in the Scriptures and (some of) the creeds in the Book of Concord: The Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the Augsburg Confession and Luther’s Small Catechism. I doubt that there aren’t any ‘confessional bounds’ on an Anglican ordinand.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
I’m not sure about the liturgy of ordination in anglican churches, but in the Church of Norway (lutheran), the ordinand is swearing to uphold and teach the teachings contained in the Scriptures and (some of) the creeds in the Book of Concord: The Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the Augsburg Confession and Luther’s Small Catechism. I doubt that there aren’t any ‘confessional bounds’ on an Anglican ordinand.
I know in the Church of England the ordained must agree that the doctrine in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion are "agreeable to the Word of God". In TEC, they have a slightly revised version that the clergy are not required to assent to, and they're relegated to an appendix as of the 1979 BCP. I wouldn't be shocked if TEC soon dumps them altogether in the next few year. I don't know about the other churches in the Anglican Communion.
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PriestWifeMum
Apprentice
# 17200
|
Posted
Our church is very confused. I minister there but don't agree with the unwritten baptism policy, which is pretty tricky.
The vicar doesn't like baptising children from non-church families, in fact he doesn't like baptising young children but knows that he is required to do it. So he prefers to steer parents towards thanksgiving services (which he calls dedication christenings) and much prefers people to get baptised after they have made some kind of choice to believe in Christianity.
My own position is that it is God who saves us. ~If parents want to have their children baptised, then I trust in their promises and in God's saving Grace. Some of those parents don't take their promises seriously and the months and years go on - but that is their choice and they will have to face God about that. I'm not called to judge who is worthy to be baptised and who isn't. In fact, the baptism of an infant points more to God and God's action than adult baptism, often with its emphasis on a personal response, does.
I come to this position from my own story of being aware of God's presence in my life from at least toddlerhood, but not being allowed to be baptised until my late teens. Despite being a priest my own children were not baptised straight away both because of pressures in my own family and from pressures from the vicar.
But last year I managed to convince my husband that we should let them be baptised (whilst still small) and it was wonderful. But I did not have the support of the other clergy in my church (they tried to put obstacles in our path) and it made me feel angry and sick that they have basically succumbed to a Baptist theology but still call themselves Anglicans. Oh and we rebaptise too, officially we call it reaffirmation of baptismal vows by full immersion, but it is rebaptism and it is billed that way. I do not agree with it, but officially it fits within the rules, so what can be done?
--------------------
http://priestwifemum.wordpress.com/
Posts: 13 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am at a loss as to what the OP means by 'the Eucharistic life of the Church of England is in a very bad state' - communicant numbers are increasing here - or does the OP mean we don't prepare as much as we used to? (I agree)
Lack of preparation is one problem, but what I really had in mind is the apparent rolling back of the Parish Communion movement, so that many MotR parishes seem to think it the 'done thing' to have a non-Eucharistic 'all age service' or the like as their primary service once a month or more. That would be fine, if not exactly to my taste, if we assumed that everyone in the congregation had assisted at mass earlier in the day, but I think we all know that isn't happening and isn't likely to happen any time soon.
I completely agree with you here.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
priestwifemum
The answer is for the CofE to split off into two or more different denominations, where everyone will be able to baptise as much or as little as they like!
This will happen once the CofE is disestablished, and it no longer bears the burden of trying to include people of very different theological positions.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
quote:
I’m not sure about the liturgy of ordination in anglican churches, but in the Church of Norway (lutheran), the ordinand is swearing to uphold and teach the teachings contained in the Scriptures and (some of) the creeds in the Book of Concord: The Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the Augsburg Confession and Luther’s Small Catechism. I doubt that there aren’t any ‘confessional bounds’ on an Anglican ordinand.
I know in the Church of England the ordained must agree that the doctrine in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion are "agreeable to the Word of God". In TEC, they have a slightly revised version that the clergy are not required to assent to, and they're relegated to an appendix as of the 1979 BCP. I wouldn't be shocked if TEC soon dumps them altogether in the next few year. I don't know about the other churches in the Anglican Communion.
There is no movement afoot to "dump" the 39 Articles altogether. They are in the Historical Documents section of the BCP. The problem is that the 39 Articles, in essence, are a reactionary document that state more what we don't believe than what we do, and in over-the-top language that makes it difficult to enter into ecumenical discussions - particularly with Catholics. They also often represent a hyper-Protestant position, but many Anglicans have views of the nature of the church and sacraments that are at odds with it. That said, it remains an important historical document.
Far from the TEC dumping confessional statements, when we entered into full communion with the ELCA we officially recognized "the essentials of the one catholic and apostolic faith as it is witnessed in the unaltered Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism" as well as making several other confessional statements in the Called to Common Mission. The baptism statement reads:
quote:
We believe that baptism with water in the name of the Triune God unites the one baptized with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, initiates into the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, and confers the gracious gift of new life.
[ 08. July 2012, 14:00: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Priestwifemum posts: quote:
Oh and we rebaptise too, officially we call it reaffirmation of baptismal vows by full immersion, but it is rebaptism and it is billed that way. I do not agree with it, but officially it fits within the rules, so what can be done?
I may be naive and inexperienced, but I have never before heard of this, and I would doubt that it officially fits within the rules. As far as what is to be done, I think a letter to the archdeacon or diocesan bishop to inform them of this and to ask for their opinion would be in order.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Priestwifemum posts: quote:
Oh and we rebaptise too, officially we call it reaffirmation of baptismal vows by full immersion, but it is rebaptism and it is billed that way. I do not agree with it, but officially it fits within the rules, so what can be done?
I may be naive and inexperienced, but I have never before heard of this, and I would doubt that it officially fits within the rules. As far as what is to be done, I think a letter to the archdeacon or diocesan bishop to inform them of this and to ask for their opinion would be in order.
There's a recent thread in Ecclesiantics that touches on this. Apparently it's acceptable so long as the re-affirmation liturgy is used. I don't know how it can be billed as a 'baptism' if the official liturgy calls it a 're-affirmation', though. Maybe it's the accompanying sermon that creates the confusion.
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=007496
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I had followed the other thread, but feel that this is a case of a lack of honesty-- it's really a baptism but it isn't. Of course, renewal of baptismal vows is one thing, is known at Holy Saturday services and at baptisms where the congregation re-affirms its own baptismal promises, but the ritual act of total immersion doesn't feature there. I would still hold that a letter to the bishop would be in order and, if that makes the bishop uncomfortable, I would not lose much sleep over it. That there are likely other cases of lack of discipline or theological and liturgical integrity is quite possible, and would be politically relevant to the bishop, but I'm not sure that this takes away from my point.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I make no comment on the following story which I heard from the former Bishop of Sheffield.
A 16-year old mother with child in arms summons up her courage to knock on the door of the imposing and off-putting vicarage. The vicar opens the door, beams when he sees the visitors and invites them in. 'What can I do for you?' The girl timidly stutters, 'I'd like him done.' 'Wonderful,' the priest says. 'what makes you come here to ask that?' 'Me mum says if I don't get him done we're never going to win at bingo.' 'Right - we can't have that! Let's see when we can arrange the christening then.' So the young woman went off basking in the warmth of her welcome and from then on always thinking of the church, and God, as being on her side and somewhere to turn in times of need.
The bishop said it's all about our 'yes' to God. Sometimes that is a big 'yes', like Mary's 'yes'. But often it starts off very small, like the young girl's, but with encouragement and nurture it can grow.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
I don't see a problem with re-affirming vows by immersion other than it being a bit naff (full confession: I did that along with about 100 other confirmation candidates when I was a young evangelical, which admittedly was a very long time ago). Although, conversely, there is no real need for such a service either, as baptism is indelible and need not be 'topped up'. At best, a reaffirmation is just a more explicit version of what we do every time we enter a church (or at least a 'sound' church) and cross ourselves with holy water.
The real question is one of intent. As any Catholic thinker will tell you, the intent to baptize is required for a valid baptism. If there is no intent to 're-baptize', then nothing amiss has taken place; if, however, there is such an intent, then officiating minister is promoting a doctrine that is gravely heretical. Certainly, anything to contains the phrase 'I baptize thee' or anything that even suggests equivalency to that formula, should be avoided.
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Originally posted by Angloid:
In reference to your story about the 16 year old mother, the problem is perhaps that the CofE leaves these things to individual judgement. One vicar might have some reasonable arguments for baptising the baby, while another might have other arguments for not doing so. Your story has a happy ending, but but noone knows what the future holds, and a vicar might have grounds to fear that such a baptism might have a negative rather than a positive outcome.
The story contains various 'what ifs'. Would the 16 year old have been bitter against the church forever if she'd gently been offered to participate in a service of blessing rather than a baptism? Are you admitting that a good vicar would have let this young woman go on supposing that success at the bingo was guaranteed, which is not what the CofE teaches? What if she'd never won at the bingo again - would that have created resentment against the church?
It seems that the CofE needs some sort of ceremony that brings non-churchgoers into the vague outer orbit of the church, and baptism is the default ceremony for that purpose. But it clearly wasn't designed for that, because why would it include all those strange promises that are often irrelevant to the lives of ordinary, non-religious people?
Perhaps I'm looking at it too literally. Still, if it's all about what God does for us, it makes little sense to include promises about what we're going to do for God. Perhaps the liturgy just needs to be tweaked so that people don't have to promise anything. That might make the ceremony seem a bit more authentic, and more suited to general, catch-all use.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
I wasn't aware that baptism was any less salvific for infants with confused mothers, but then one learns something every day. A lot of this thread seems to be filled with what looks frankly like intellectual snobbery (and probably also social snobbery) on the part of Evangelicals, who seem to regard baptism as something intended for 'People Like Us' — good little Evangelicals with a well articulated understanding of Christian doctrine — rather than a Sacrament instituted by Our Lord and efficacious, ex opere operato, for the salvation of the human race. I'm reminded of the wise words of Fr Faber on the subject of magnifying God's strictness.
As we are reminded in that passage of S. Mark's Gospel appointed by the Prayer Book to be read at the Publick Baptism of Infants, Our Lord instructed his disciples 'Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not'. Nowhere is it recorded that he turned away those children whose parents he regarded as insufficiently religious.
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I think the problem is not so much that mothers are confused, but that the rest of us are! There'd be less confusion if the promises were removed from the liturgy. That's all. The promises give the impression that something is to be expected from the parents, whereas you and others insist that this is not the case. Confusion naturally ensues.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by busyknitter:
[ps, ken if you are reading this, you up for being godfather?]
Yes, I guess!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It seems that the CofE needs some sort of ceremony that brings non-churchgoers into the vague outer orbit of the church, and baptism is the default ceremony for that purpose. But it clearly wasn't designed for that, because why would it include all those strange promises that are often irrelevant to the lives of ordinary, non-religious people?
We have such a ceremony, a dedication of children that is not baptism and need not involve the same promises. The people who wrote the liturgy seemed to have intended it to be mainly used by the "walk ins". In fact, in my very limited experience of it, it seems almost entirely to be used by churchgoing believers who have reasons (family reasons or doctrinal ones) for not asking for infant baptism for their children. The non-churchgoing parents seem to want "the real thing".
As someone else said there seems to be a bit of confusion about the word "Anabaptist" here. I've not, as far as I remember, met any Anglican clergy who were anabaptist in the sense that they thought that someone baptised as a child was not really baptised and ought to be done again if they became a believer later. (Though I have met Anglican lay people who think that)
There are, I think, at least some evangelical Anglican clergy who think that infant baptism is valid undesirable and that its better to wait and allow the child to choose later. And there are certainly some who think that infant baptism ought mainly to be a sign of membership of the church for those whose parents are in fact consciously members of the church - a sort of Christian covenant symbolism - and so a dedication service would be more appropriate if parents who are either not believers at all or not members of a church want to "get their children done".
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
From a position of genuine ignorance:
(S)pike couchant said: quote:
a Sacrament instituted by Our Lord
I'm aware that he was baptised, but where did he institute it?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Perhaps I'm looking at it too literally.
Yup.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
From a position of genuine ignorance:
(S)pike couchant said: quote:
a Sacrament instituted by Our Lord
I'm aware that he was baptised, but where did he institute it?
If you take Matthew 28.19 as the actual words of our Lord (which IMHO is extremely unlikely), well, then, there.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I wasn't aware that baptism was any less salvific for infants with confused mothers, but then one learns something every day. A lot of this thread seems to be filled with what looks frankly like intellectual snobbery (and probably also social snobbery) on the part of Evangelicals, who seem to regard baptism as something intended for 'People Like Us' — good little Evangelicals with a well articulated understanding of Christian doctrine — rather than a Sacrament instituted by Our Lord and efficacious, ex opere operato, for the salvation of the human race.
Christ did not institute baptism for the salvation of the human race. He reserved that exclusively to himself: crucified, risen, ascended and glorified. Salvation is found in Christ alone. That's not snobbery, it's the gospel.
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I make no comment on the following story which I heard from the former Bishop of Sheffield.
A 16-year old mother with child in arms summons up her courage to knock on the door of the imposing and off-putting vicarage. The vicar opens the door, beams when he sees the visitors and invites them in. 'What can I do for you?' The girl timidly stutters, 'I'd like him done.' 'Wonderful,' the priest says. 'what makes you come here to ask that?' 'Me mum says if I don't get him done we're never going to win at bingo.' 'Right - we can't have that! Let's see when we can arrange the christening then.'
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The promises give the impression that something is to be expected from the parents, whereas you and others insist that this is not the case. Confusion naturally ensues.
Parents and godparents do, of course, have certain duties with respect to raising their children in the faith. From an Anglican perspective, these are: 'to see that [the] Infant be taught, so soon as he shall be able to learn, what a solemn vow, promise, and profession, he hath here made by [them] ... [to] call upon him to hear Sermons ... [and] chiefly [to] hat he may learn the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, in the vulgar tongue, and all other things which a Christian ought to know and believe to his soul's health'.
My point, simply, is that the Church should not cease to do the duty entrusted to her simply because she fears that others will not do theirs.
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
As we are reminded in that passage of S. Mark's Gospel appointed by the Prayer Book to be read at the Publick Baptism of Infants, Our Lord instructed his disciples 'Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not'. Nowhere is it recorded that he turned away those children whose parents he regarded as insufficiently religious.
Yeah, it comes just before the passage where Jesus tells the parable of the fig tree to prove the existence of unicorns.
[ 08. July 2012, 19:21: Message edited by: Daron ]
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
[QUOTE]O Salvation is found in Christ alone. That's not snobbery, it's the gospel.
Quite so, Christ became incarnate 'for us men and for our salvation', and to that end he did 'did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue' the holy sacraments 'as a means whereby we receive [his grace]'. Of these sacraments, only two are held to be 'necessary for salvation' — namely Baptism and the Eucharist.
I was tempted to point out that the Mass is the continuation of the sacrifice of Calvary, but I think I prefer to refute you with some of the very few undisputed doctrines of the confession in which you are allegedly ordained as a clerk in holy orders. That way, I can conclude on this note:
That's nitpicking, it's Christianity.
[ 08. July 2012, 19:32: Message edited by: (S)pike couchant ]
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
[QUOTE]O Salvation is found in Christ alone. That's not snobbery, it's the gospel.
Quite so, Christ became incarnate 'for us men and for our salvation', and to that end he did 'did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue' the holy sacraments 'as a means whereby we receive [his grace]'. Of these sacraments, only two are held to be 'necessary for salvation' — namely Baptism and the Eucharist.
Is that the bible, the eucharistic liturgy or the 39 Articles that you're grossly misquoting?
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
[QUOTE]O Salvation is found in Christ alone. That's not snobbery, it's the gospel.
Quite so, Christ became incarnate 'for us men and for our salvation', and to that end he did 'did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue' the holy sacraments 'as a means whereby we receive [his grace]'. Of these sacraments, only two are held to be 'necessary for salvation' — namely Baptism and the Eucharist.
Is that the bible, the eucharistic liturgy or the 39 Articles that you're grossly misquoting?
The Nicene Creed, the 1662 Communion Office and the 1662 Catechism. None of them are misquoted, and all them should surely be familiar to a minister of the Established Church.
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
[QUOTE]O Salvation is found in Christ alone. That's not snobbery, it's the gospel.
Quite so, Christ became incarnate 'for us men and for our salvation', and to that end he did 'did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue' the holy sacraments 'as a means whereby we receive [his grace]'. Of these sacraments, only two are held to be 'necessary for salvation' — namely Baptism and the Eucharist.
Is that the bible, the eucharistic liturgy or the 39 Articles that you're grossly misquoting?
The Nicene Creed, the 1662 Communion Office and the 1662 Catechism. None of them are misquoted, and all them should surely be familiar to a minister of the Established Church.
Have you ever sent a letter to someone by cutting up newspapers?
[ 08. July 2012, 19:52: Message edited by: Daron ]
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
