Ship of Fools: Invitation to Baptism

Thread: Invitation to Baptism Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024808

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

We had the Bishop's visit this Sunday. As part of the whole shindig, we had 5 baptisms (2 infants, 2 children, and one adult who was converting).

After he had completed that, he stopped and asked if anyone else wanted to be baptized, and that he would go through with it then and there. No one took him up on that, and we proceeded to go forward to the confirmations. (Where he didn't ask if anyone else wanted to be confirmed...)

I have to say that this is the first time I've ever been in an Episcopal church and had someone ask if anyone wanted to be baptized at that precise moment. I've been in Baptist churches with altar calls, but they don't say that they will baptize right then.

It was refreshing, but odd. Is it odd to anyone else?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I haven't known many Episcopal priests that think baptism is the sort of thing to do on a lark. Really, this is why we have a script in the Episcopal Church- to limit the participants' opportunities to say or do something stupid.

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

But how do you tell the Bishop to stick to the script??

He did seem to be having a good time though...

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

As a data point, I heard such an open invitation once at a baptism that was at the 8:15 service at Grace Cathedral (not by the bishop).

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Erm, that seems a little off the wall to me. I would have though that it would have been better, and more in accord with the praxis of the Early Church to ask if there were any there who felt called to be Baptized; wanted to be blessed as catechumens, and then receive instruction so that they could be ready for baptism at the Bishop's next visit.

However, that is just me...

PD

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Not just you, PD.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Me too......most irregular and unseemly of the said Bishop (unless he was inspired at that particular moment by the Holy Spirit Herself......but given the lack of response, presumably not).

Ian J.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

It's very odd, to my mind. I'm all for infant baptism and against any receptionist view of the sacraments, but this is just reducing the sacraments to smarties.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

We went through a spell at our church when our pastor would, during a scheduled "baptism Sunday," offer an invitation to anyone else who desired baptism to come forward. This didn't go over well, for a number of reasons (not the least of which was the fact that the spontaneous candidates tended to then disappear into the ether, never to be seen again in church). Now the church m.o. is to schedule baptism Sundays well in advance, remind people about them frequently in morning announcements and newsletters and online, and when doing so invite the unbaptized to meet with the pastor beforehand so they understand our understanding of Holy Baptism and basically know what's going on both theologically and ritually that Sunday.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

That would definitely be regarded as inappropriate here. Except for emergency baptism under fear of imminent death, I think everyone assumes baptism is preceded by some sort of preparation or a session to check people understand what they are doing.

Would your bishop be happy if the rest of the clergy followed his lead? Unless he really would, he shouldn't have done it.

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Would your bishop be happy if the rest of the clergy followed his lead? Unless he really would, he shouldn't have done it.

Considering his commitment to evangelism, he might not have had a problem with it.

Our priest does assume that anyone wanting baptism is going to require instruction. If it is an infant or young child, that the parents and godparents will need instruction.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Would your bishop be happy if the rest of the clergy followed his lead? Unless he really would, he shouldn't have done it.
Considering his commitment to evangelism, he might not have had a problem with it.

That's surprising. Round here, it's the people who are more committed to evangelism who tend to be more insistent on some sort of preparation first, rather than indiscriminate baptism.

quote:
Our priest does assume that anyone wanting baptism is going to require instruction. If it is an infant or young child, that the parents and godparents will need instruction.

That's what seems to be usual round here.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I've been in (a pretty motr Anglican) church once before where a call was made, and one person did respond and was baptised. I'm not sure how I feel about it. I can understand all the argument about preparation and whatever else, but in my experience even when parents and Godparents are prepared they tend not to be seen in church very much. I'm more inclined to trust that if someone responds to the call to baptism then the Holy Spirit is at work, in whatever way, and go from there.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

The words of the eunuch here seem particularly apposite.

I think that I would be somewhat wary of this sort of thing done generally, and would certainly wish to ensure that proper catechesis and formation followed any such baptism. There were reasons that the Church developed the catechumenate after all, and we have seen unfortunate cases of hasty and dramatic receptions of people with little follow-up, resulting in them lapsing very quickly.

Yet I don't think there's anything wrong here provided that any who came forward understood what they were doing and received proper formation afterwards.

[ 05. June 2012, 08:45: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

In my home church, at one Easter vigil, something similar happened - only it wasn't an open invitation; it was someone - actually I think there were 2 or 3, but I don't remember - who presented themselves and asked to be baptized. We baptized them. I think they might have been some regulars at either the service that mostly homeless people came to, or from the breakfast Bible study, but I'm not sure. In any case, I believe the dean knew who they were.

I don't like the idea of an indiscriminate invitation, but it might depend on the context. For example, few people attend an Easter vigil who aren't really interested in the Church.

If it did happen, I would hope that the church would follow up with the person(s) who responded, and make sure they received training and support in their new Christian life.

These days, I'm not sure people would be inclined to receive baptism on the spot like that without a serious interest - unless at the invitation, their mom or someone was really poking and prodding them so that they caved to the pressure.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

An invitation along the lines of "the pool is open, why don't you come forward?" used to be quite common at Baptist baptismal services - remember that they are pretty infrequent and involve much more organisation than Anglican services as the floor panels over the baptistry have to removed and (often) a hose got out to fill it.

This seems to be less common nowadays, possibly due to declining knowledge of Christianity in society in general, and the rise of pre-baptism "discipleship classes" in many churches.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
the floor panels over the baptistry have to removed and (often) a hose got out to fill it.

Selective dyslexia: I read that as 'a horse'. And dreaded to think of the poor baptismal candidates.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

True, but you might need a (clothes) horse to dry the towels afterwards ...

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I went to a holiday camp many years ago, organised by an Ecumenical youth group I used to go to. The baptisms were held in the swimming pool and I remember a call for anyone else who wished to be baptised to come forward. I'd like to hope that some sort of follow-up happened afterwards, if they didn't have time to attend classes beforehand.

Are such events accepted by established churches as being kosher baptisms? I've heard, for example, about ordination candidates having to be baptised again because they couldn't produce a certificate or parish records to prove they'd been 'done' already....

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I went to a holiday camp many years ago, organised by an Ecumenical youth group I used to go to. The baptisms were held in the swimming pool and I remember a call for anyone else who wished to be baptised to come forward. I'd like to hope that some sort of follow-up happened afterwards, if they didn't have time to attend classes beforehand.

Are such events accepted by established churches as being kosher baptisms? I've heard, for example, about ordination candidates having to be baptised again because they couldn't produce a certificate or parish records to prove they'd been 'done' already....

I imagine that if they were provided with a baptismal certificate, preferably indicating which form was used, there would be no trouble. It would be irresponsible of the ministers of baptism not to provide certificates, but that doesn't mean that it'll happen.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I went to a holiday camp many years ago, organised by an Ecumenical youth group I used to go to. The baptisms were held in the swimming pool and I remember a call for anyone else who wished to be baptised to come forward. I'd like to hope that some sort of follow-up happened afterwards, if they didn't have time to attend classes beforehand.

Are such events accepted by established churches as being kosher baptisms? I've heard, for example, about ordination candidates having to be baptised again because they couldn't produce a certificate or parish records to prove they'd been 'done' already....

Perhaps those ordination candidates were baptized in a different church that didn't give certificates, or their certificate from when they were a baby had gotten misplaced. They would be given a "provisional" baptism, which is basically, "If you haven't been baptized already, I baptize you..."

I would imagine in the case of someone coming forward on the spot to be baptized, if they weren't well known in the church, someone would get their information down and prepare a certificate ASAP for them to pick up at the church office.

The baptismal candles we use come in individual boxes with a "certificate" printed on them. Perhaps that would do. [Two face]

[ 08. June 2012, 00:30: Message edited by: churchgeek ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I haven't heard an open invitation, but I heard of a quietly offered spontaneous invitation. There was a longtime member of the church whose husband started joining her at church more and more often. After a baptismal service one Sunday, he and the rector were talking about baptism, and he admitted that he wasn't baptized. The priest quietly asked him if he would like to be, even right then if he liked. The gentleman agreed and he was baptized about an hour after church with his wife and the rector's wife attending. His wife shared this with me.

Come to find out later, the gentleman was diagnosed with a terminal disease, which might have had something to do with it. But his new church family was a great comfort to him in the end.

May light perpetual shine upon him. [Votive]

[ 08. June 2012, 01:52: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
I have to say that this is the first time I've ever been in an Episcopal church and had someone ask if anyone wanted to be baptized at that precise moment. I've been in Baptist churches with altar calls, but they don't say that they will baptize right then.

It was refreshing, but odd. Is it odd to anyone else?

I've heard Archbishop Sentamu invite people to come forward for baptism when he does the ecumenical Easter outdoor baptisms in York.

If people do come forward (this year I think about 2 or 3 did) they first have a talk with one of the local church leaders who I presume ask them why they want to get baptised. After the baptism, they are linked up with a local church, who presumably stay in touch and invite them to services etc.

Posted by Cruet (# 14586) on :

Here in Texas, a Baptist friend of mine was
re-baptized because he had sinned since his
first baptism which was three years earlier.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

We'd all be in the pool every week if that was the case!

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

[Killing me]

Would we ever be OUT of it?

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cruet:
Here in Texas, a Baptist friend of mine was
re-baptized because he had sinned since his
first baptism which was three years earlier.

Perhaps they should consider the ancient practice of delaying baptism until one's death is immanent.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The author and advocate of 'organic church', Frank Viola, claims that in the NT (he refers to Acts) converts were baptised immediately upon believing. He quotes scholars who say that 'those who repented and believed the Word were baptized without delay', and that 'converts were baptized with little or no delay'.

It was only in the post-apostolic age that a long period of preparation, fasting, instruction, etc. began to be required before individual converts could be baptised. The idea also arose that you had to be 'worthy' of baptism, which meant living a certain kind of life; church leaders would scrutinise someone's life carefully before baptising them.

It also came to be believed that baptism forgave sins. This is why some people didn't get baptised until they were dying, because this would enable them to gain the maximum benefit, so to speak, from the procedure.

[ 10. June 2012, 12:02: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Chorister:

quote:
We'd all be in the pool every week if that was the case!

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Would we ever be OUT of it?

Better safe than sorry. Especially in August. [Biased]

Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cruet:
Here in Texas, a Baptist friend of mine was
re-baptized because he had sinned since his
first baptism which was three years earlier.

A United Methodist pastor can do many things that go against the Book of Discipline, but none are dealt with quite as strongly as when he or she re-baptizes a person.

Also, I was talking to my District Superintendent once about dedicating a baby, and he stopped me. "You dedicate ships and buildings. You baptize babies."

I'll never re-baptize anyone, at least not knowingly. But I can and do reaffirm baptismal vows periodically. It's good to remember what promises I've made.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

As others have pointed out, at least some people were baptised immediately after professing faith in the very early church. The Ethiopian Eunuch and Cornelius and his household seem like obvious examples. Of course both of those involve 'God fearers' who already worshipped the God of Israel, which might explain the apostles' relatively relaxed attitude.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:

quote:
Originally posted by Cruet:
Here in Texas, a Baptist friend of mine was
re-baptized because he had sinned since his
first baptism which was three years earlier.
A United Methodist pastor can do many things that go against the Book of Discipline, but none are dealt with quite as strongly as when he or she re-baptizes a person.

Same here - one of the quickest routes out of the ministry!

Posted by JSwift (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
As others have pointed out, at least some people were baptised immediately after professing faith in the very early church. The Ethiopian Eunuch and Cornelius and his household seem like obvious examples. Of course both of those involve 'God fearers' who already worshipped the God of Israel, which might explain the apostles' relatively relaxed attitude.

The Philippian jailor is another example, although I highly doubt he was a 'God fearer'.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:

quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:

quote:
Originally posted by Cruet:
Here in Texas, a Baptist friend of mine was
re-baptized because he had sinned since his
first baptism which was three years earlier.
A United Methodist pastor can do many things that go against the Book of Discipline, but none are dealt with quite as strongly as when he or she re-baptizes a person.
Same here - one of the quickest routes out of the ministry!

I was once seated in front of a minister at a (British) Methodist cell church conference. A layperson was talking to him about a problem she'd once come across, where someone who was baptised as a baby came to faith as an adult and wanted to be rebaptised by immersion. The minister said there were 'ways around' this problem in the Methodist Church. I was rather curious as to what these ways were, but since they weren't talking to me, and I didn't know them, I didn't want to turn around and ask.

I know that Methodists don't make too much of a fuss about evangelism, but I can't imagine that a Methodist minister would willingly send away a new believer to the Baptist or charismatic church down the road because of Methodist rules against rebaptism.....

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I get the feeling from the context of both the Philippian gaoler and the Ethiopian Eunuch that the conversation preceeding the requst for baptism had been heavy enough to ensure that they had a pretty clear idea of the central truths of the Christianity.

I find myself in the middle of the range of possible views on this one. I am not sure that an immensely long preparation is necessary, but that folks need to be sincere in their commitment to accept Christ as their Saviour and renounce the Devil and all his works, and the vain pomps and glories of the world. A more detailed catechesis - at least in traditional RC, Anglican, Lutheran and Methodist circles - then preceeds confirmation. That approach at least seems reasonable to me, even if it does not suit the liturgical archeologists with their fixation on the 4th century.

PD

Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :

I would tell this person that I was unable to rebaptize, because in doing so I would in effect be saying that his/her baptism as a baby was invalid, and that God's grace is ineffective if the person's intent or physical memory isn't there -- which clearly isn't so.

I would also say that remembrance isn't merely physical memory. When Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me", he wasn't merely speaking about physical memory, but about placing ourselves in the moment. That is how we, removed by an ocean and two thousand years, can still remain faithful to this command. Likewise, when we "remember" our baptism, we may or may not physically remember the service, but we can certainly place ourselves in the moment and repeat and reaffirm the vows as though we were saying them for the first time.

Finally, I would say that I understand the need for ceremony in human life (for that is why we have graduations, funerals, weddings, coronations and Presidential inaugurations, and similar rites and ceremonies), and I would find a way to allow that person to have a physical memory of a special ceremony while remaining true to my theology and the Book of Discipline. This would probably include a reaffirmation of baptismal vows among and in front of the gathered community, and using water in ways that cannot be interpreted as baptism (as per the rubrics).

Having this touchstone of ritual cannot always completely replace the lack of physical memory, but I believe it can be an acceptable and useful substitute. I think the main point is that it is done among and in front of the gathered community, not in isolation or private. In that regard, it is a rite of passage.

I have done this very thing for someone who had been baptized, who had been an active believer, and then for a certain reason had moved away from the Church and from God. At a later point, he found himself again seeking God, and wanted to return to full membership. He wanted to be rebaptized as a sign to himself and to the rest of the church that he was back in the fold, so to speak. I explained the things I outlined above and we had a good conversation about it. In the end I had him come forward on Easter Sunday morning and led him and the whole church in a reaffirmation of baptismal vows. I then got to fling water at everyone. [Biased]

This all meant a lot to him, and gave him a memory which he could then point to as the time when the church received him back joyfully.

I ran into him quite some time later, after I'd left that church, and that experience was one of the first things he mentioned. So I know it can work.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Padre Joshua

There are probably some cultural differences to take into account here.

In the UK, the situation is less likely to include a 'backslider', as you might say. It's more likely to be a question of someone who was never really 'in' the church, apart from their infant baptism, (and perhaps a few years in Sunday school, although even that is quite rare now) but who comes to faith in later life. In other words, the individual may never have paid much attention to living up to the promises made during their infant baptism, and their parents were not likely to have been very active Christians themselves.

I don't know what would happen in an evangelical CofE congregation, which is the kind of congregation where this is most likely to be an issue. Baptists and other evangelicals mostly just re-baptise. And non-evangelical British churches probably don't often attract the kind of converts who would present this problem.

BTW, I've never come across the practice of throwing water around in church! It sounds like fun!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[I can't imagine that a Methodist minister would willingly send away a new believer to the Baptist or charismatic church down the road because of Methodist rules against rebaptism.....

I can - at least, if they are adamant they wish to be (re)baptised. I would have thought that most Methodists (and URCs) would be very sensitive to the ecumenical implications - as, to be fair, would be many Baptists (BU rather than Strict).

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[I can't imagine that a Methodist minister would willingly send away a new believer to the Baptist or charismatic church down the road because of Methodist rules against rebaptism.....
I can - at least, if they are adamant they wish to be (re)baptised. I would have thought that most Methodists (and URCs) would be very sensitive to the ecumenical implications - as, to be fair, would be many Baptists (BU rather than Strict).

What I meant was, they would probably be loathe to lose this person to another church, particularly if they've come to faith among the Methodists. To put it bluntly, the Methodist Church can't really afford to turn good, impassioned people away! But I suppose that this has to occur if all else fails.

As I say, according to the minster I mentioned in my post above, the Methodist Church has ways around the problem. I wonder - maybe the individual concerned could be rebaptised by an independent, non-Methodist evangelist, outside the walls of a Methodist church. This might absolve the Methodist minister of guilt in the eyes of his own employers, and the individual concerned could still become a member of the Methodist Church. Some might see this as underhand behaviour, but the Methodist Church does tolerate certain things offsite that it wouldn't accept within the walls of a Methodist church, e.g. drinking alcohol, and the blessing of same-sex unions. Also, I doubt that the Methodist Church refuses membership to those who actually believe in rebaptism, or who have already been rebaptised.

I've heard of a curious case in the West Indies, where apparently a whole Methodist congregation decided to get baptised in Jesus' name, according to the formula used by the Oneness Pentecostals. Yet they apparently remained 'Methodists'. The congregation wasn't ejected as heretical. I'd be fascinated to know the facts of this case, such as when this actually happened and what became of this congregation in the long term, but my sources probably don't know the details.

Posted by Cruet (# 14586) on :

Svitlana V2, Roman Catholics and Anglicans reaffirm there baptismal vows every year at
the Easter Vigil. Many churches use the Asperges
every Sunday to remind us of our Baptismal vows.

Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Padre Joshua

There are probably some cultural differences to take into account here.

In the UK, the situation is less likely to include a 'backslider', as you might say. It's more likely to be a question of someone who was never really 'in' the church, apart from their infant baptism, (and perhaps a few years in Sunday school, although even that is quite rare now) but who comes to faith in later life. In other words, the individual may never have paid much attention to living up to the promises made during their infant baptism, and their parents were not likely to have been very active Christians themselves.

This does happen in the US, although it seems to be getting rarer as time passes. People may have gone to Vacation Bible School (the eighth Sacrament in the southern US) as children and were baptized, but their parents never really got them into church. Or maybe they were baptized in the RC or TEC or even UMC as infants, but their parents didn't follow through with making sure they were raised in church. There are several other possibilities, which I won't get into.

I do understand your point, and I can see where it would be a larger issue in the UK than here, partly because we don't have an "official" Church and partly because people don't think to have their babies baptized.

Still, just because someone cannot remember their baptism isn't grounds for me or any other UMC pastor to rebaptize. We have to fall back on what I outlined above, or some variation, and hope that God's grace will continue to work in that person's life so that they can find peace about not having a physical memory of their baptism.

We also respond with grace, and occasionally rules are bent somewhat to accommodate God's children, because no one is perfect and no rule covers every situation. But those are almost always discussed with the district superintendent and/or bishop beforehand.

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
BTW, I've never come across the practice of throwing water around in church! It sounds like fun!

I first got introduced to this (formal term "Asperges") at Easter Vigil at our Episcopalian cathedral. Most of the clergy I've seen doing it appear to be having a blast. It's definitely one of my favorite parts of the Vigil. One time at my present church when I was "on duty" and had been asked to go back to the sacristry before it happened (to hand out items to the acolytes), I flagged down one of the priests after the service and requested it.

I was baptized as a baby. One of the few things I retained from my Methodist Sunday School days was that re-baptism was Just Wrong, no matter how much I'd *like* to do it. I never ended up in the type of church that insisted on believer-only baptism, so going through the vows again - and getting sprinkled - has helped square the circle for me. (I did get a Ritual Fix eventually through confirmation, but there is something about getting wet.)

As a note, in TEC there are four Sundays (or Sunday-equivalents) regularly appointed for baptisms, or in lieu of baptisms, the renewal of baptismal vows by the assembled congregation: the feasts of the Baptism of Our Lord (Sunday after Epiphany), Easter/Easter Vigil, Pentecost, All Saints Sunday (first Sunday in November). Baptisms may happen at other times, but those are the four regular times.

Our interims (one paid, one NSM) love doing the Asperges and we have a beautiful new font so we do get it with "renewal of vows", not just at the Great Vigil of Easter. Some places do it a lot more often. I can't recall at the moment whether we got sprinkled after the two recent baptisms (both of which were off the "regular" schedule).

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
I don't know what would happen in an evangelical CofE congregation, which is the kind of congregation where this is most likely to be an issue.

I attended an interesting baptism service a while back in a big youth-orientated charismatic evangelical C of E church, where three of those involved underwent full immersion believers' baptism under the VERY transparent figleaf of a re-affirmation of baptismal vows, having already been baptised as babies. According to a friend of mine who used to attend there they are basically Baptist in practise.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:

quote:
I don't know what would happen in an evangelical CofE congregation, which is the kind of congregation where this is most likely to be an issue.
I attended an interesting baptism service a while back in a big youth-orientated charismatic evangelical C of E church, where three of those involved underwent full immersion believers' baptism under the VERY transparent figleaf of a re-affirmation of baptismal vows, having already been baptised as babies. According to a friend of mine who used to attend there they are basically Baptist in practise.

Ah. So this is the answer!

I suppose the question is whether you see the water or the liturgy as the most important aspect of baptism. These 're-affirmations' will surely not be using a baptismal liturgy, since they don't claim to be baptisms. But they will, of course, be using water. Can you accuse them of re-baptising if they follow orders and stay away from the official CofE baptismal liturgy? I imagine that they've devised their own, somewhat different liturgy.

The CofE leadership has presumably decided that this congregation and its priests should be left alone rather than punished. This suggests either that a flourishing congregation can get away with anything, or more subtly, that the CofE is willing to consider the spirit rather than the letter of the law in evangelistic and pastoral contexts.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Or, more cynically, that the bishop doesn't want to alienate churches who put bums on pews and money in the plates.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Or, more cynically, that the bishop doesn't want to alienate churches who put bums on pews and money in the plates.

Certainly. I did consider giving this as a possible motive, but didn't want to come across as too cynical myself! But I think all churches, once they become institutionalised, have to steer a path between doctrinal purity (as they see it), strictness, and pragmatism. Growing movements and those seeking higher social acceptability are more willing to eject people who don't conform. But stagnating or declining movements that already have a settled social status are less willing to drive committed participants away.

These institutions have to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of various courses of action, and at the moment I can't see how it would be wise for the bishops to make a big issue out of these 're-affirmations' that look like baptisms.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:

quote:
I don't know what would happen in an evangelical CofE congregation, which is the kind of congregation where this is most likely to be an issue.
I attended an interesting baptism service a while back in a big youth-orientated charismatic evangelical C of E church, where three of those involved underwent full immersion believers' baptism under the VERY transparent figleaf of a re-affirmation of baptismal vows, having already been baptised as babies. According to a friend of mine who used to attend there they are basically Baptist in practise.

The reference to 'very transparent fig leaf' conjured up the thought that they might be reviving a very different Early Church practice. I know this sounds unlikely but I have heard it alleged that in the first centuries, baptismal candidates were baptised naked.

CW does actually include a service called "Affirmation of Baptismal Faith" (p 200 in the Christian Initiation book). I think it has to be made clear that it is not a baptism.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I know this sounds unlikely but I have heard it alleged that in the first centuries, baptismal candidates were baptised naked.

It's the unquestioned norm for many centuries. In his Mystagogical Catecheses, Cyril, 4th Century bishop of Jerusalem, has this to say to the newly baptized:

quote:

Upon entering [the inner room of the baptistery] you took off your clothing, and this symbolized your stripping off of "the old nature with its practices." Stripped naked, in this too you were imitating Christ naked on the cross, who in his darkness "disarmed the principalities and powers" and on the wood of the cross publicly "triumphed over them." (2.2)

As one of my liturgy profs said, "You want early church liturgy? You can't handle early church liturgy!"

[ 25. June 2012, 22:23: Message edited by: Hart ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

No need to get overly excited. I gather that women were attended by deaconesses precisely because of the nakedness thang.

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The CofE leadership has presumably decided that this congregation and its priests should be left alone rather than punished. This suggests either that a flourishing congregation can get away with anything, or more subtly, that the CofE is willing to consider the spirit rather than the letter of the law in evangelistic and pastoral contexts.

A certain amount of slack is cut: open table for the Liberal Catholics, Roman Missal for the Anglo-Papists, lack of vestments for the Evos. The line has been drawn in the past for Lay Presidency; doubtless it would for blessings of homosexual partnerships. This sounds like following the letter of the law, rather than the spirit, so it is unlikely anything would be done, I think. And it is a large and successful (or should I say popular) church.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The CofE leadership has presumably decided that this congregation and its priests should be left alone rather than punished. This suggests either that a flourishing congregation can get away with anything, or more subtly, that the CofE is willing to consider the spirit rather than the letter of the law in evangelistic and pastoral contexts.
A certain amount of slack is cut: open table for the Liberal Catholics, Roman Missal for the Anglo-Papists, lack of vestments for the Evos. The line has been drawn in the past for Lay Presidency; doubtless it would for blessings of homosexual partnerships. This sounds like following the letter of the law, rather than the spirit, so it is unlikely anything would be done, I think. And it is a large and successful (or should I say popular) church.

Pretty well the whole CofE has a de facto open table and has at least for the nearly 40 yuears I've been going to its services. Lay Preseidency is a different matter as its not really a divisive issue in the CofE, all the main parties are agreed on it., if only because everyine who didn't has already left. (There is a word for Anglicans who thought Lay Preseidency was worth leaving the CofE for: "Methodists")

But, more importantly, how exactly is the Church of England meant to "punish" a congregation and its priests? What powers do they (whoever "they" are) have to do any punishing?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

But, more importantly, how exactly is the Church of England meant to "punish" a congregation and its priests? What powers do they (whoever "they" are) have to do any punishing?

I have no idea! But the impression given by this thread is that re-baptism is against CofE (or Methodist, etc.) 'rules'. The question is, what happens when the rules are broken? Nothing? Fair enough; in that case there's no punishment to speak of.

The implication is that any church with cause to hold re-affirmations that look suspiciously like re-baptisms is probably a growing church, and a growing church is a church that puts money in the pot. Such a church is likely to be left in peace by the church authorities. This is the impression I get, so now it's clear to me that punishment, censure, or whatever, don't really come into play.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

But, more importantly, how exactly is the Church of England meant to "punish" a congregation and its priests? What powers do they (whoever "they" are) have to do any punishing?

One very obvious way would be to withdraw clergy licences. Not that it would stop some people, but it would mean they couldn't claim to be Church of England.

Though I'm not suggesting this solution for this particular problem, if problem it is.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
One very obvious way would be to withdraw clergy licences.

Yes but it has to be done by due process. And if the clergy have the support of their congregation that's almost impossible to do over doctrinal issues.

Yes, it happens now and again that an incumbent is removed for a doctrinal reason. Maybe twice in my adult lifetime. And even then usually after some years of legal process, and only if at least a significant minority of congregation and PCC want the incumbent to go.

If the wayward priests are good enough to stick their hands in the collection plate or spend a dirty weekend in Brighton with the churchwarden's wife, then that is "conduct unbecoming" and the Clergy Discipline Measure can be unambiguously used. But if they restrict their misdeeds to liturgy there is not much in practice a bishoips can do. They tried over 130 years ago with Arthur Tooth, and it did them (or him) no good.

Since then, let a hundred flowers bloom!

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

One thing that is different in the USA is that a priest can be prosecuted for not using the BCP - provided someone in the parish makes a written complaint. However, it is far more usual for clergy to "terminate their ministry" through having sticky fingers or a fling with a parishioner.

PD

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But if they restrict their misdeeds to liturgy there is not much in practice a bishoips can do. They tried over 130 years ago with Arthur Tooth, and it did them (or him) no good.

Since then, let a hundred flowers bloom!

I agree entirely. Except that attempting (or pretending) to 'rebaptise' is very much a doctrinal and disciplinary matter, not just liturgical.

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

I did exactly what you are describing in a CoE evangelical church 12 years ago. Baptized as a baby but coming to faith later as a teenager without having been to church much in between I wrestled with feeling like I had missed out on something for years before I finally took the plunge! (So to speak [Biased]

) It was clearly stated in the service that you can only be baptized once and that some of us were reaffirming our baptizimal vows and re-enacting our baptism by undergoing immersion. Different words were used at the moment of immersion "I affirm your baptism in the name of Jesus" rather than the Trinitarian formula. I guess to an outward observer they may well shake their head and call this a fig leaf for rebaptism but in the preparation beforehand we had been told that it wasn't. I cannot speak for anyone else but for me I was only happy to do this once I had resolved in my own mind that I considered my original baptism as a baby to be valid. Otherwise a reaffirmation would not have satisfied me, I would have wanted 'the real thing'. So why did I do it? It was an emotional need rather than a theological need and I am glad that my church was happy to meet me in that. For me it resolved something which had been a long term issue and gave me peace about it.

You may disagree with their practice but I just wanted to tell you my experience from the point of view of a participant.

Going back to the original OP I was reminded of the trip I went on to Israel with a group from that church. When we visited the traditional place on the Jordan river for baptisms our vicar offered to baptise or reaffirm the baptism of anyone in the group who wished. This was before my reaffirmation and I was tempted to do it but hadn't at that point resolved my questions about my infant baptism so I didn't do it. IIRC no-one did.

[ 27. June 2012, 17:22: Message edited by: Lucia ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I agree entirely. Except that attempting (or pretending) to 'rebaptise' is very much a doctrinal and disciplinary matter, not just liturgical.

Which is no doubt why the baptizers in question seem to have announced their liturgy as a renewal of baptismal vows, with actions. Like this:

quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
It was clearly stated in the service that you can only be baptized once and that some of us were reaffirming our baptizimal vows and re-enacting our baptism by undergoing immersion. Different words were used at the moment of immersion "I affirm your baptism in the name of Jesus" rather than the Trinitarian formula.

I'd guess that if there is ever any legal trouble about baptisms it would be at the other end, over parish priests refusing to baptise babies, and a non-churchgoer complaining officially.

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
One thing that is different in the USA is that a priest can be prosecuted for not using the BCP - provided someone in the parish makes a written complaint.

Supposedly the same here but in effect a dead letter. Effectively impossible to take any action unless the PCC or the churchwardens the majority of the congregation oppose the priest, and even then its hard. A few isolated complaints won't do it.

Also Common Worship is so full of optional material that its hard to imagine an act of public Christian worship that didn't conform to it!

Up to the 1960s priests colul be legally prosecuted in the crown courts for using unauthorised liturgy and even sent to prison - but that hadn't happened sicne the 1880s, and even then it was too late. The Arthur Tooth I mentioned before was jailed along with a couple of others (I remember Father Tooth's name because I'd been at the church that he used to be at on Sunday and had briefly talked about him wiht the current vicar!) but public opinion was so outraged that it was an embarrasment to the Chruch of England heirarchy who were made to look as if they had reverted to the Middle Ages, and in practice the Bishops have never been aqble to enforce liturgy on an unwilling congregation since then.

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I agree entirely. Except that attempting (or pretending) to 'rebaptise' is very much a doctrinal and disciplinary matter, not just liturgical.
Which is no doubt why the baptizers in question seem to have announced their liturgy as a renewal of baptismal vows, with actions. Like this:

quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
It was clearly stated in the service that you can only be baptized once and that some of us were reaffirming our baptizimal vows and re-enacting our baptism by undergoing immersion. Different words were used at the moment of immersion "I affirm your baptism in the name of Jesus" rather than the Trinitarian formula.

I'm genuinely interested to understand what is the problem with doing this. As far as I can see this is not an attempt to rebaptise or pretending to if everyone concerned has been clearly told that it is only a reaffirmation. I agree that it is important that people who chose to do this understand that this is the case. But why is this different from any other renewal of baptismal vows? Or are you convinced that those administering and taking part in this are just using a smokescreen of lies to protect themselves from being disciplined and actually at heart they all believe that it is a baptism? I can only tell you that it wasn't like that for me.

It is being done to meet a pastoral need in those who have come to faith and to help them to feel connected with the baptism which they have no concious recollection of. You can tell people that they have been baptised and that is all there is to it but there needs to be a pastoral response as well as a theological one. I certainly don't think that reaffirmation of vows by re-enacting baptism is the only solution though and it may well not be the right path for lots of people. But I don't see a problem with it being one of the options.

For the record the church I was referring to also baptised infants, including occasionally ones of non church going families but due to the nature of the parish there were not very many of these as there were not many people resident in the city centre area where the church was located.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
I'm genuinely interested to understand what is the problem with doing this. As far as I can see this is not an attempt to rebaptise or pretending to if everyone concerned has been clearly told that it is only a reaffirmation.

Can I clarify my comments above? I wasn't implying that the service referred to in the OP was described, or understood, as baptism. Ken suggested that no sensible bishop would forbid any liturgical practice unless it was contrary to doctrine; I agree.

Maybe it's not for me to comment as I have never encountered such services, but many strange things happen in the C of E and I would not be surprised if such a 'reaffirmation' service were presented in such a way as to fudge the issue and pretend that it was an actual baptism. While instructed churchpeople will understand terms like 'renewal of vows' and 'reaffirmation', many others are likely to get the impression from candidates being immersed, that they are being baptised. It might not be made as clear as it could. I can imagine some zealots for 'believers baptism' leading their candidates to understand this ceremony as their 'real' baptism, despite them having been baptised as infants.

It seems very misleading to adopt the same ceremonies and symbolism for a reaffirmation as for an actual baptism. More traditional services of renewal of vows use sprinkling, or invite individuals to sign themselves with baptismal water. This is a powerful symbol but not one that is likely to be confused with baptism itself. Maybe bishops should issue clear directions as to what is, and what is not, acceptable. If a service steps over the line it is, in this case, a doctrinal matter not a liturgical one.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Double clarification. I've just realised that the service concerned was not referred to in the OP but by Yerevan in this post:

quote:

I attended an interesting baptism service a while back in a big youth-orientated charismatic evangelical C of E church, where three of those involved underwent full immersion believers' baptism under the VERY transparent figleaf of a re-affirmation of baptismal vows, having already been baptised as babies. According to a friend of mine who used to attend there they are basically Baptist in practise.

This does rather suggest some sort of fudge.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Angloid

You talk about a fudge with regards to re-baptism and re-affirmation, but it seems to me, going from what I've read on these boards and elsewhere, that many parents who present their babies for baptism are themselves somewhat unclear as to the meaning of the ceremony, and of what their spiritual responsibilities are. There's a sense that for many parents, the meaning they invest in the ceremony of infant baptism isn't necessarily the same as the meaning invested by priests and theologians. And yet most mainstream priests and theologians are quite happy for those ceremonies to take place.

So it's apparent that the CofE is routinely willing to look beyond the theological unorthodoxy in the minds of parents and godparents who present children for baptism. Why, then, is it more worrisome to do so if older baptismal candidates (and their families and friends) are also seen to be unorthodox?

I've been told that common liturgies serve to hold together groups of people whose theologies are diverse. It would surely be a shame if the church decided that on this topic the diverse assumptions and beliefs of individuals were somehow so troubling that even liturgy were unable to hold them together.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I don't understand your post I'm afraid.

It's one thing for a church (the C of E is a good, but not the only, example) to use a common liturgy, despite the many different understandings of the participants. That is to accept that we all have limited perspectives on a common, richer, truth. There is no 'fudge' involved unless we are asked to say or do things which contradict our understanding.

The 'baptismal renewal' service under discussion is not like that. It is not a 'common' liturgy since it only has the authority of the congregation concerned. If everyone attending accepts that it is not a service of Baptism, but a dramatic form of renewal of vows, that's fine. If however the impression is given, deliberately or unintentionally, that it is 'really' baptism, or even that it is more important or significant than the actual baptism, that is fudge. I don't know if this particular service did give that impression, so I'm not condemning that per se. All I'm saying is that I would not be surprised to learn that such services, and fudged explanations, do take place.

There are Christian bodies which deny that infant baptism is effective, and that believers' baptism is the real thing. It's fine for them to 're-baptise' those who were baptised as infants. That is not acceptable doctrine in the Church of England, however, and if an Anglican minister acts as if it were, and actually claims to re-baptise adults, then they should be strongly censured. If they simply give the impression, by fudging the explanation of what they are doing, that is less serious. But it's still more serious than just being flexible with the liturgy.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

The 'baptismal renewal' service under discussion is not [...] a 'common' liturgy since it only has the authority of the congregation concerned.

Sorry for my ignorance, but are you saying this 'baptismal renewal service' doesn't exist in any formal Anglican service book? Is it something that individual churches devise for themselves, if they want to?

If this is the case, perhaps it's a sign that the CofE as an institution needs to come up with an approved liturgy for 'baptismal renewal' that will meet the requirements both of growing churches, and also of more traditionally-minded Anglicans who are worried about irregularities taking place.

quote:

If everyone attending accepts that it is not a service of Baptism, but a dramatic form of renewal of vows, that's fine. If however the impression is given, deliberately or unintentionally, that it is 'really' baptism, or even that it is more important or significant than the actual baptism, that is fudge.

An approved liturgy would go some way to clarifying this. However, my earlier point was that when it's a question of infant baptism, where many family and friends may not be committed Christians, are you so sure that the invitees are really given clear guidance as to what's going on, or do they go home with their own improvised interpretation of infant baptism still lodged in their minds?

In other words, are you okay with laypeople's possible misunderstandings in the context of infant baptism, yet strongly disapprove of misunderstandings in the context of adult baptism/re-affirmation? If so, that's a bit unfair, it seems to me.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Sorry for my ignorance, but are you saying this 'baptismal renewal service' doesn't exist in any formal Anglican service book? Is it something that individual churches devise for themselves, if they want to?

There is an official rite for the renewal of baptismal vows. But it doesn't include, suggest or recommend immersion or any ceremony that would be confused with baptism. The service referred to appears to be an idiosyncratic production of the local church.

quote:

my earlier point was that when it's a question of infant baptism, where many family and friends may not be committed Christians, are you so sure that the invitees are really given clear guidance as to what's going on, or do they go home with their own improvised interpretation of infant baptism still lodged in their minds?

In other words, are you okay with laypeople's possible misunderstandings in the context of infant baptism, yet strongly disapprove of misunderstandings in the context of adult baptism/re-affirmation? If so, that's a bit unfair, it seems to me.

I'm not 'OK' with any misunderstandings. But as long as we are clear about what we are doing, we can't do much about people who get the wrong end of the stick. I have never seen or conducted an Anglican baptism service where it isn't crystal clear that what is going on is Christian baptism. What people understand by that will of course differ. I'm just concerned about an (admittedly hypothetical) service of re-affirmation which doesn't make it clear that it isn't baptism.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Our present vicar has introduced rather a grand outdoor service with baptism (in the river), confirmation and renewal of baptism vows all in one service (it happens once a year). I've never seen a separate service just for those who wish to renew and reaffirm their baptism.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I'm not 'OK' with any misunderstandings. But as long as we are clear about what we are doing, we can't do much about people who get the wrong end of the stick. I have never seen or conducted an Anglican baptism service where it isn't crystal clear that what is going on is Christian baptism. What people understand by that will of course differ. I'm just concerned about an (admittedly hypothetical) service of re-affirmation which doesn't make it clear that it isn't baptism.

If the printed and spoken liturgy clearly refers to it as a re-affirmation, then I can't see why there would be any confusion. The only attendees with a different view would be those who already have their own firm personal belief system that mostly disregards what an Anglican service book (or indeed, what an Anglican priest) might say.

Also, I imagine that those Protestants who put great store in the power of the written or spoken word would be obliged to accept that, despite the large quantities of water involved, such a ceremony couldn't be taken as a baptism because the correct baptismal formula hadn't been used.

But Protestants are a varied bunch, and there are probably some who take the symbolism of immersion as far more important than the words that accompany it.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0