Thread: Drowning the old Adam 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=025871
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
I posted several weeks ago about Mrs Thurible "giving thanks for safe delivery after childbirth", as we decided the safest title for churching was.
Yesterday, the Boatgirl was baptised and it was very lovely. I had been very keen that she be baptised by full immersion, given that she's not infirm, and, after convincing Mrs Thurible (and the Vicar's wife!) that Father wouldn't drown her, she agreed.
It was very splendid and I was struck by one of the servers, a German Lutheran by birth and upbringing, saying how powerful it had been and how it was the first time that infant baptism had "worked" for him. Talking to friends and family afterwards, it was clearly the first time they'd witnessed an infant baptism by immersion. I was explaining that, really, this is the standard and sprinkling is really a concession.
How widespread is infant immersion, though? I think the Orthodox do it as a matter of course. What about Catholics - extraordinary form or otherwise? What about Protestant paedobaptists? Anglicans?
Thurible
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
In the CofE it's really rare, which is a pity. Most of the old fonts are designed for it though, and, especially in warm weather, the chief reasons why it's not more practised probably are 1) Custom--a couple of centuries of splashing have made it an obscure practice; 2) The Family Christening Gown, which cannot be got wet. Theoretically the baby could (and should) be dressed in this after the baptism, but in practice it's worn throughout the service. Once or twice I've had parents reluctant to take the Family Christening Gown's Matching Bonnet off for the baptism! 3)Clerical fear of slippery wet babies. Parental wariness. 4) Postponement of baptism until the baby is too large for immersion even in a large, mediaeval font.
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on
:
Wow - never seen it!
We do adults by immersion, and reaffirm baptism vows "with as much water as possible" (to quote our bishop). Agreed that sprinkling is the concession and immersion the theological norm in the C of E.
[cross-posted from other thread]
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
Apologies for the double thread - the joys of intermittent WiFi.
Our font is, indeed, nice and large, albeit C19th.
The Boatgirl arrived in a nappy (handy that it was so hot), sat in that for the first bit of the Mass, and that was removed during the Apostles' Creed. She was then handed over to be dunked. Towel at the ready, we then dried, put a new nappy on, and her christening gown on, whilst the choir sang Vidi Aquam. All worked very smoothly.
Thurible
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
My three sons were baptised as infants by full immersion, one in a full size baptistry! I can still argue from the bible for selective covenantal paedo-baptism, but I'm no longer personally convinced by the arguments.
In recent years I've moved away theologically from paedo-baptism, a move which makes Anglican parochial baptismal ministry a tad difficult for me.
It also creates an inner tension in me because I'm still emotionally attached to the baptism of my children, despite the fact that I can find no real theological justification for it. I'm waiting for the day when one of them expresses a desire for believer's baptism to see how I will react. I hope it will be with joy.
[copied from the other thread]
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
My three sons were baptised as infants by full immersion, one in a full size baptistry! I can still argue from the bible for selective covenantal paedo-baptism, but I'm no longer personally convinced by the arguments.
In recent years I've moved away theologically from paedo-baptism, a move which makes Anglican parochial baptismal ministry a tad difficult for me.
It also creates an inner tension in me because I'm still emotionally attached to the baptism of my children, despite the fact that I can find no real theological justification for it. I'm waiting for the day when one of them expresses a desire for believer's baptism to see how I will react. I hope it will be with joy.
[copied from the other thread]
And if they do, will you have them "re-baptised" like a schismatical anabaptist? I'm sure your bishop will love that...
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
What about Catholics - extraordinary form or otherwise?
I've seen it, probably a minority of times but not a vanishingly small minority. It seems to vary by parish around here. Unfortunately, our font is too small for it.
For our initiation class in seminary, the professor opened by reading two accounts of baptism. One was an imaginative reconstruction of baptism in Ambrose's Milan: fasting neophytes dunked nude in large pools in one building while the church prayed litanies for them in another, followed by a lavish procession to unite them to their new fellow Christians and receive their first communion. The second, a neatly dressed infant being sprinkled (so as not to get his garment wet) in something smaller than most birdbaths after most of the community had gone out for Sunday brunch.
It was pretty clear he thought our initiatory practices needed some ressourcement!
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Common Worship provides for an 'Affirmation of Baptismal Faith'. It has to be linked back to the original baptism, but seems from the commentary to be designed to meet those dilemmas. Has anyone ever seen it used?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
I've only once seen total immersion in an Anglican font, never in Presbyterian, RCC, or UCC baptisms. Otherwise I have only seen it in Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox baptisms (I recommend Ethiopian and Coptic baptisms for the après-dunk parties). I would remark that at the last Ethiopian baptism I attended in Ottawa, the priest afterward told me that he threw in an extra psalm to help the baby fall asleep. "Like the rest of the congregation?" I enquired, and he replied, "That's why we have you standing." He did tell me that it was important to make sure that the water had been brought to lukewarm temperature and he always tested it himself to make certain that he was neither scalding the child, nor killing it with hypothermia.
[ 15. July 2013, 14:24: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Our Church is a Baptist & United Reformed congregation, so we have both a (tiny!) font and a baptistery. In the past there have been difficulties over baptism, in particular if young people, christened as infants, which to be baptised later on by immersion.
As it happens, I was preaching on this subject yesterday, and said this: "I believe in baptism and think that it is a hugely symbolic act; I also would challenge any of you, at whatever stage in life you may be, to think seriously about it if you have never been baptised.
"Alternatively, if there are any folk who were christened as babies and feel that what took place never meant much to them, we could arrange a service in which people reclaim and repeat the baptismal promises that were made on their behalf. That would be easy to do".
Mind you, they haven't started queueing up yet!
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
My three sons were baptised as infants by full immersion, one in a full size baptistry! I can still argue from the bible for selective covenantal paedo-baptism, but I'm no longer personally convinced by the arguments.
In recent years I've moved away theologically from paedo-baptism, a move which makes Anglican parochial baptismal ministry a tad difficult for me.
It also creates an inner tension in me because I'm still emotionally attached to the baptism of my children, despite the fact that I can find no real theological justification for it. I'm waiting for the day when one of them expresses a desire for believer's baptism to see how I will react. I hope it will be with joy.
[copied from the other thread]
And if they do, will you have them "re-baptised" like a schismatical anabaptist? I'm sure your bishop will love that...
From my perspective, it depends on whether they are actually baptised doesn't it? I can't see any particular reason to believe that the rite they received really is sacramentally valid baptism.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
I've never seen full immersion for infants done, or done it myself. I've often incorporated why it was called 'dipping', into my baptismal talk; and the reason why medieval fonts were so large. But I must admit I never thought about actually done a nudie full immersion (for the child, that is!). Splendid idea. But I doubt if many Anglican parents would go for it.
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
My three sons were baptised as infants by full immersion, one in a full size baptistry! I can still argue from the bible for selective covenantal paedo-baptism, but I'm no longer personally convinced by the arguments.
In recent years I've moved away theologically from paedo-baptism, a move which makes Anglican parochial baptismal ministry a tad difficult for me.
It also creates an inner tension in me because I'm still emotionally attached to the baptism of my children, despite the fact that I can find no real theological justification for it. I'm waiting for the day when one of them expresses a desire for believer's baptism to see how I will react. I hope it will be with joy.
[copied from the other thread]
And if they do, will you have them "re-baptised" like a schismatical anabaptist? I'm sure your bishop will love that...
From my perspective, it depends on whether they are actually baptised doesn't it? I can't see any particular reason to believe that the rite they received really is sacramentally valid baptism.
In which case I would suggest that the Church of England is not the place for you, since it is full of unbaptised heretics...
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
I can't recall accusing anyone of heresy.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Common Worship provides for an 'Affirmation of Baptismal Faith'. It has to be linked back to the original baptism, but seems from the commentary to be designed to meet those dilemmas. Has anyone ever seen it used?
Yes. I use it for Affirmation of Baptismal Vows with immersion. In the parish in which I served my title, the minister/s did not enter the water and candidate immersed themselves after affirming their baptismal vows. In my current parish I do immerse the candidate but there is no baptismal formula prior to immersion.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
the Church of England is not the place for you, since it is full of unbaptised heretics...
I didn't think you could become a heretic UNTIL you'd been baptised.
You can't wander away from something if you've never been on the road in the first place.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I can't recall accusing anyone of heresy.
Heretic = Christian whose beliefs are erroneous.
Non-baptised = not a Christian.
Would you not say the second is worse?
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
Daronmedway, I recall you being hot on the Articles previously. Have you fallen out with Article 27? Do you get a colleague to baptise or do you just upset your parishioners (!)?
More pertinent to the thread, I think clergy should start by saying "now, the norm is by full immersion - I assume you're happy with that!" That way, even if parents say no, it'll get back onto the cultural radar.
Does anyone know when it started to die out in the CofE? The Victorian Revival parishes seem to go in for big fonts but that might just be mediaeval-aping.
Thurible
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I can't recall accusing anyone of heresy.
Heretic = Christian whose beliefs are erroneous.
Non-baptised = not a Christian.
Would you not say the second is worse?
Um, baptism doesn't make a person a Christian. The spiritual grace of regeneration makes a person a Christian. There are plenty of unregenerate people who've been baptised as infants. And there are a plenty regenerate people who've not been baptised at all - a whole denomination of them in fact. Personally, I think that baptism should follow regeneration as an outward and visible sign of that inward and spiritual grace.
[ 15. July 2013, 17:58: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
Eighteenth century fonts tend to be quite small - that is bird baths. However, the 1662 BCP presumes immersion unless the parents certify the child is weak, in which case pouring is allowed.
Given the frequency with which 16th-17th century bishops moan about clergy baptising in pots, pails and basins suggest that immersion was dying out in the immediate post-Reformation era. Of course you can immerse an infant in a large bucket, but pots and basins might well be a bit difficult.
PD
[ 15. July 2013, 18:06: Message edited by: PD ]
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Daronmedway, I recall you being hot on the Articles previously. Have you fallen out with Article 27? Do you get a colleague to baptise or do you just upset your parishioners (!)?
Article 27 can accommodate a credo-baptist position, I think. A more pertinent question would be whether indiscriminate paedo-baptism fits with Article 27. I don't think it does.
In answer to your question, I obey canon and baptise the infants of those who ask after an appropriate period of instruction which begins when they start attending Sunday worship regularly. I do not baptise the infants of non-attenders during the principle service, opting instead to do it on Sunday afternoons.
[ 15. July 2013, 18:11: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Daronmedway, I think you've not outlived nor outgrown your Numpty moniker ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Which denomination, pray, is made up of regenerate people who have not been baptised?
And how would you know?
I can see the credo-baptism corollary following neatly on from your theology but I don't understand how that in any way gives you the right to determine who is or who isn't regenerate in your terms/point of view.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
If said denomination is the Salvation Army then I think you'll find that some of them have been baptised - certainly those who may have joined from other Christian denominations or confessions.
Although I take your point, it is a tricky one. I certainly wouldn't regard Salvationists as not 'proper' or kosher Christians on account of their approach to the sacrament or ordinance (whichever you prefer) of baptism.
I didn't have my daughters baptised as infants as we were in a very full-on credo-baptist setting at that time. We had them 'dedicated' instead. Now they are in their teens neither are showing any particular interest in church or faith issues - although they do respect Christian belief.
Part of me wishes I'd had them baptised back then. Which may sound odd, but it is the way I feel.
Either way, I believe God is big enough to sort out any anomalies there might be all ways round.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
the Church of England is not the place for you, since it is full of unbaptised heretics...
I didn't think you could become a heretic UNTIL you'd been baptised.
You can't wander away from something if you've never been on the road in the first place.
You're talking about apostasy, surely?
Thurible
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Daronmedway, I think you've not outlived nor outgrown your Numpty moniker ...
Which denomination, pray, is made up of regenerate people who have not been baptised?
And how would you know?
I can see the credo-baptism corollary following neatly on from your theology but I don't understand how that in any way gives you the right to determine who is or who isn't regenerate in your terms/point of view.
Fair call. All I can really say is that 1) I'm convinced that there are regenerate Salvationists who remain unbaptised out of theological-denominational conviction, and that 2) I believe that baptism should ideally follow rather than precede regeneration.
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I've never seen full immersion for infants done, or done it myself ... But I must admit I never thought about actually done a nudie full immersion (for the child, that is!). Splendid idea. But I doubt if many Anglican parents would go for it.
I've seen several naked infants baptized with full immersion, or nearly so, by Episcopalians in the USA. It's usually done with a triple dunk and hold the baby's nose and mouth closed. With that nice warmed water the babies usually pee into the font (hopefully) and not on close bystanders. Most babies enjoy it, some complain. They are quickly dried and bundled up again. In my experience, most people, once having seen it, appreciate that extra expression in the baptismal ritual.
*
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
There is a scene from My Big Fat Greek Wedding which shipmates might find interesting. A not-yet-baptized Baptist friend of mine got similarly done at the Armenian church in Montréal, with a long lecture from her prospective mother-in-law as to how to make sure that the baptismal gown did not get too revealing when wet.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Fair enough Daronmedway, except that baptism and regeneration were clearly very closely linked in the thought of the Early Church and - arguably - is also commensurate with the scriptural record. The Bible comes pretty close to what looks like 'baptismal regeneration' at several points ...
That said, of course, there are other examples that don't seem to fit that neat schema - such as the household of Cornelius in Acts 10 and so on.
In fact, the scriptures don't seem to offer any particularly neat and cut and dried (or wet) schema of regeneration however you cut it. You can find examples and precedents that could support any one of a number of views - from full on sacramentalism to forms of fideism where outward signs are of far less import ... and all manner of things between ...
So, whilst I respect your convictions, I'm equally sure that there are other positions that can be held with equal respect for the scriptures.
One could argue, of course, that this in and of itself calls the whole 'sola scriptura' thing into question ...
I'll leave that to wiser minds than mine.
I certainly accept that Salvationists are regenerate despite their convictions about baptism - ie. they believe in baptism but don't see it as being for them, as it were.
But generally, it seems to me, the scriptures and tradition appear to support a both/and position rather than an either/or one on these and most other matters.
Posted by Below the Lansker (# 17297) on
:
The local CinW building here (mediaeval) has a 19th-century baptismal pool outside, added, according to local lore, because the Baptists were making such headway in the area and had convinced many in the CofE (as it would have been then) that full immersion was the only valid method of baptism.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
I saw an infant baptized by immersion at St Paul and the Redeemed Episcopal Church on Chicago's south side (or, to be more accurate, I didn't exactly see it, because so many children and relatives surrounded the font that I didn't have a good view). I did see the baby being towel-dried and dressed during the offertory. Here's a photo of the font from the church's FB page. It's a big one, about 36" across.
My nephew was baptized by immersion in a Lutheran (ELCA) church in Wisconsin about 19 years ago. The parish furnished little white baby gowns for the immersion, but neph was such a chunky little guy, it didn't fit, so he went in naked.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
the Church of England is not the place for you, since it is full of unbaptised heretics...
I didn't think you could become a heretic UNTIL you'd been baptised.
You can't wander away from something if you've never been on the road in the first place.
You're talking about apostasy, surely?
Thurible
There are no unbaptized heretics, at least according to the Catholic definition:
quote:
Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same (CCC 2089)
Calling someone unbaptized a heretic is like calling a violin a shrunken viola.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
Indeed. But wandering away refers to apostasy rather than heresy (that being choosing the wrong understanding).
Packer on paedobaptism.
Thurible
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
Baptismal pool at St. Benedict the African Catholic Church, Chicago
I have been in the building, but never seen a baptism done there. I hear that immersion is common.
Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on
:
I've never seen an infant baptized by immersion in any Lutheran church. Local churches are not equipped for it as they universally have the "birth-bath" type of fonts. A friend of mine recently attended a newly built Lutheran church in LA and it did have a font large enough for immersions but I have no idea if they use it for infants. He was told the font was designed to accommodate adults. I have no idea what they use for infants.
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on
:
I've never seen a baby baptized by immersion. On the assumption that there are no stupid questions: how does one keep the baby from taking in too much water? Is it safe because it's so quick? And is the child immersed once or thrice?
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
Dunked thrice and quickly enough that the infant doesn't take too much in. Indeed, the shock is so great that they hold their breath. And then scream loudly when released from the water.
Thurible
Posted by Anna B (# 1439) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I was struck by one of the servers, a German Lutheran by birth and upbringing, saying how powerful it had been and how it was the first time that infant baptism had "worked" for him.
I think it just clicked for me too, reading this thread.
How I love the Ship.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Dunked thrice and quickly enough that the infant doesn't take too much in. Indeed, the shock is so great that they hold their breath. And then scream loudly when released from the water.
A trick from infant swimming classes - blow in the baby's face. This makes him close his eyes and mouth, ready for a quick dunk.
Also, if you move the baby through the water a little, so he's moving head first, he doesn't get a shot of water up the nose.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Dunked thrice and quickly enough that the infant doesn't take too much in. Indeed, the shock is so great that they hold their breath. And then scream loudly when released from the water.
Thurible
If a baby screams at the baptism, s/he will also scream at Satan.....
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
Quite. I whispered to Mrs Thurible, whilst nappying-up the newly-baptised, "That's Satan on his way!"
Thurible
Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on
:
I was told that if the child screamed/cried at the baptism it was an indication that the child would be a good singer or public speaker.
Posted by AngloCatholicGirl (# 16435) on
:
I had one little chap who screamed all the way through (to the point that I asked the parents if they were ok for me to go ahead) from the minute we came to the front till we had completed the baptismal formula.
After the service, as she was leaving one elderly lady said to me 'well the devil certainly came out of that little boy!' I'd never come across this idea before, I have to say, anyone else come across it before?
Posted by Anna B (# 1439) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AngloCatholicGirl:
After the service, as she was leaving one elderly lady said to me 'well the devil certainly came out of that little boy!' I'd never come across this idea before, I have to say, anyone else come across it before?
Oh yes. My infant son screamed with all his might when the water hit his head. The priest looked up at the (standing-room-only) congregation and said, "That's the devil coming out."
Posted by Anna B (# 1439) on
:
(This was at an Episcopal church in New Haven, Connecticut)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Heh heh ... Terry Waite used to tell a story about a country vicar who was hard of hearing. He was an intimidating character so when he boomed at a farm labourer one day who was presenting his daughter for baptism, asking for the name of the child, the poor man muttered, 'Lucy, sir ...'
So the poor child was baptised 'Lucifer' ...
Posted by AngloCatholicGirl (# 16435) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anna B:
quote:
Originally posted by AngloCatholicGirl:
After the service, as she was leaving one elderly lady said to me 'well the devil certainly came out of that little boy!' I'd never come across this idea before, I have to say, anyone else come across it before?
Oh yes. My infant son screamed with all his might when the water hit his head. The priest looked up at the (standing-room-only) congregation and said, "That's the devil coming out."
Thanks, that's interesting to know it's found on the other side of the pond too. I don't know if I would say to the congregation during the actual baptism that that was the devil coming out. Out of curiosity Anna B were you ok with that?
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Heh heh ... Terry Waite used to tell a story about a country vicar who was hard of hearing. He was an intimidating character so when he boomed at a farm labourer one day who was presenting his daughter for baptism, asking for the name of the child, the poor man muttered, 'Lucy, sir ...'
So the poor child was baptised 'Lucifer' ...
The other version I've heard is that the priest bellowed back "Lucifer? Certainly not! " he then sprinkled water over the baby girl with the words "John, I baptise you in the name of the Father..."
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
My three sons were baptised as infants by full immersion, one in a full size baptistry! [...]
I'm waiting for the day when one of them expresses a desire for believer's baptism to see how I will react. I hope it will be with joy.
[copied from the other thread]
And if they do, will you have them "re-baptised" like a schismatical anabaptist? I'm sure your bishop will love that...
I know of a churchgoing Anglican in my city who went to the Baptist church down the road when she wanted to be baptised by immersion. The local Baptists and Anglicans seemed okay with that, to judge from what she said, although I don't know how it was arranged. She's still an Anglican, but has avoided embarrassing her denomination. I suppose it helps that these two congregations are friendly with each other.
This isn't the first time I've heard of individuals seeking and acquiring re-baptism elsewhere while remaining part of their paedobaptist churches. I think it must be very rare in British churches but possibly more common in some other countries.
[ 18. July 2013, 18:12: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Anna B (# 1439) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AngloCatholicGirl:
Out of curiosity Anna B were you ok with that?
Since you ask, no, I wasn't particularly. If the compilers of our Prayer Book had wished, in the event of a lusty scream, for priests to remark on the presence of the devil, I am certain they would have provided for such.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
There is a prayer for deliverance in the Common Worship liturgy.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've heard of several instances of that happening, SvitlanaV2. I'm not sure how common or uncommon it is but it does happen.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I also knew a girl whose father was an Anglican vicar. Just before he retired he made a big show of having a baptistery towed into his church so he could be baptised in it by full immersion in front of his congregation.
At the time, as an earnest young evangelical in a charismatic credo-baptist church, I thought that was great ...
Now I think, 'Well, if he was that convinced about it why didn't he do it earlier instead of waiting for his pension?'
I think there are quite a few vicars who would be a lot happier as Baptists or as Vineyard pastors. Not mentioning any names of course ... ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anna B:
quote:
Originally posted by AngloCatholicGirl:
After the service, as she was leaving one elderly lady said to me 'well the devil certainly came out of that little boy!' I'd never come across this idea before, I have to say, anyone else come across it before?
Oh yes. My infant son screamed with all his might when the water hit his head. The priest looked up at the (standing-room-only) congregation and said, "That's the devil coming out."
At his (infant)baptism, Neph reached down mid-sprinkle and started playing with the water. Any mythos surrounding that? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Immersion seems to be going on at this Latin cathedral in Seattle.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
When did full immersion become a usual practice for adults in paedobaptist churches? In the past there would have been very few adult baptisms in England, but there would have been some. I'm thinking of the 18th and 19th centuries, when some Quakers would have chosen to be received into the CofE, and foreigners from, say, the East or West Indies who wanted (or whose white employers or partners wanted them) to become Anglican Christians. Was the CofE conducting full immersion at that time, or is this something that grew out of evangelical sectarian influence later on? Did American Episcopalians baptise adults in rivers, or wasn't that their thing?
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
I don't know about Anglicans, but for Latin Rite Catholics it was part of the ressourcement that accompanied the Second Vatican Council.
Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on
:
At this Catholic cathedral, both adult and infant baptisms are often by immersion.
http://cathedralofsaintandrew.org/sacramental-life/baptism-infant-child
An infant baptism by immersion was described in MW report 2282 (2011).
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
I was baptized as an infant by a Presbyterian minister (it was a university chaplaincy). When I came back to Christianity, having never been baptized besides as an infant, my CofE evangelical parish offered a reaffirmation of baptismal vows with immersion. There were 4 others done the same day as mine and a few were done at Easter as well.
Within evangelical parishes this is becoming increasingly common, especially with many people who were baptized as infants for tradition reasons but weren't raised in Christian homes. Additionally I haven't seen a single infant baptism in the two evangelical parishes that I frequent - everyone does a dedication/thanksgiving with the child to choose later whether or not to be baptized.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Our evangelical parish does do infant baptisms, lots of them. But the very few thanksgivings/dedications I've seen have been for children of church members, who are perhaps unsure about infant baptism. Walk-ins want the real thing (even if they call it "christening" and aren't sure what its for).
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Immersion seems to be going on at this Latin cathedral in Seattle.
Looks more like a sort of total environment infusion to me, kneeling in water for a sprinkling of water.
If being baptised in immersion in a white robe by the way, please wear appropriate underwear. My girlfriend in 1979 didn't, and produced several gasps as she immersed and then emerged in love heart underwear (lower half) and, er, wet tee shirt look (top half). It was the sauciest I ever saw her, alas.
[ 24. July 2013, 12:23: Message edited by: Zappa ]
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Immersion seems to be going on at this Latin cathedral in Seattle.
Looks more like a sort of total environment infusion to me, kneeling in water for a sprinkling of water.
If being baptised in immersion in a white robe by the way, please wear appropriate underwear. My girlfriend in 1979 didn't, and produced several gasps as she immersed and then emerged in love heart underwear (lower half) and, er, wet tee shirt look (top half). It was the sauciest I ever saw her, alas.
I was terrified of that and so wore baggy black clothes from head to toe. There was still quite a bit of cling though!
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Does anyone know when it started to die out in the CofE? The Victorian Revival parishes seem to go in for big fonts but that might just be mediaeval-aping.
Interestingly in St Mary Redcliffe there are 3 fonts. THe Church's oringinal font which is big enough to dunk a baby, a 15th centruy font originally from the mother church of St John Bedminster, which is about a foot across and would be hard for dunking to occur and the Paty font, an 18th (?) Marble font that is smaller still. NOt that any of them are generally used for baptisms, which usually happen with a silver rose bowl and silver 'shell' on the chancel step, though one recent baptism family did ask for the original font to be sued as one parent had been baptised in it. DOn't think dunking was involved though..
CArys
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
one recent baptism family did ask for the original font to be sued as one parent had been baptised in it.
Leading to a dangerous attack of Christianity? Got to be careful with these Health n Safety laws.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Does anyone know when it started to die out in the CofE? The Victorian Revival parishes seem to go in for big fonts but that might just be mediaeval-aping.
Interestingly in St Mary Redcliffe there are 3 fonts. THe Church's oringinal font which is big enough to dunk a baby, a 15th centruy font originally from the mother church of St John Bedminster, which is about a foot across and would be hard for dunking to occur and the Paty font, an 18th (?) Marble font that is smaller still. NOt that any of them are generally used for baptisms, which usually happen with a silver rose bowl and silver 'shell' on the chancel step, though one recent baptism family did ask for the original font to be sued as one parent had been baptised in it. DOn't think dunking was involved though..
CArys
My grandfather was reportedly baptised in St Mary Redcliffe - I've no idea which font though!
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Our evangelical parish does do infant baptisms, lots of them. But the very few thanksgivings/dedications I've seen have been for children of church members, who are perhaps unsure about infant baptism. Walk-ins want the real thing (even if they call it "christening" and aren't sure what its for).
Christening is just the Anglo-Saxon version of baptism - both mean the same thing and both are perfectly appropriate.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Yes, but in reality Christening is the folk-religion term for Baptism which generally means "the religious precursor to a party in which a bumbling Vicar does some magic and makes us say stuff we don't believe".
[ 25. July 2013, 08:16: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Yes, but in reality Christening is the folk-religion term for Baptism which generally means "the religious precursor to a party in which a bumbling Vicar does some magic and makes us say stuff we don't believe".
By the same token, 'Believer's Baptism' is the folk-religion term which generally means 'the religious ceremony in which we demonstrate our profound desire to take credit for the ineffable God-given saving grace that is faith.' And then have a party, with Shloer.
[ 25. July 2013, 08:59: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
And then have a party, with Shloer.
And quiche! Don't forget the quiche!
x
AV
[ 25. July 2013, 10:05: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Yes, but in reality Christening is the folk-religion term for Baptism which generally means "the religious precursor to a party in which a bumbling Vicar does some magic and makes us say stuff we don't believe".
By the same token, 'Believer's Baptism' is the folk-religion term which generally means 'the religious ceremony in which we demonstrate our profound desire to take credit for the ineffable God-given saving grace that is faith.' And then have a party, with Shloer.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
one recent baptism family did ask for the original font to be sued as one parent had been baptised in it.
Leading to a dangerous attack of Christianity? Got to be careful with these Health n Safety laws.
Oops, I can't type!, used not sued.
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
My grandfather was reportedly baptised in St Mary Redcliffe - I've no idea which font though!
Probably the original one, that's what the 80 year olds in our congregation who've been here all their life claim, not sure about the 95yr old. Rose bowl at the front is about people being able to see, though apparently gathered round the font at the back worked well.
Carys
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ho ho ... It's interesting that many Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed and other full-on Reformed groups wouldn't necessarily see credo-baptists as fully Reformed, nor would they necessarily regard Baptist or baptistic churches as 'visible churches' either ...
I like to wind my Reformed Baptist friends up with that observation ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
As for myself, I'm, as usual, in a quandary with this one as I can see some mileage in daronmedway's objection to the practice of paedo-baptism for what Ken calls' 'walk-ins'.
Fr Gregory of blessed, or not so blessed Shipside memory, used to feel the same when he was an Anglican cleric. For what it's worth, he feels that his current setting allows him to baptise infants in all good conscience as he will only do so if one or t'other of the parents are Orthodox.
How that would apply in an ethnically Orthodox country where infant baptism would be fairly indiscriminate irrespective of whether the parents were 'faithful' or not, I don't know.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Perhaps the whole point of non-church families having their babies christened/baptised is that it means they've 'done' religion, and needn't give it much further thought. If they only have a thanksgiving service then it still leaves the religious matter unresolved, which isn't what they want.
But I still don't know when the CofE started offering baptism by immersion for adults. Do the older ones among you remember this happening in the 40s or 50s? Do your parents or grandparents remember this happening? And when did 'reaffirmation of baptismal vows by immersion' begin to happen?
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
Remind me, Svitlana2, which denomination are you actually a member of?
This seems a bit of an off-kilter academic speculation. As a practising member of the Church of England and a priest, I can tell you that in my experience of ministry--and in my experience as a parent and a Christian--you are, to a very great degree, mistaken.
[ 26. July 2013, 08:56: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Yes, but in reality Christening is the folk-religion term for Baptism which generally means "the religious precursor to a party in which a bumbling Vicar does some magic and makes us say stuff we don't believe".
By the same token, 'Believer's Baptism' is the folk-religion term which generally means 'the religious ceremony in which we demonstrate our profound desire to take credit for the ineffable God-given saving grace that is faith.' And then have a party, with Shloer.
That's certainly true of Arminian credo-baptists. Not so much the Reformed Credo-baptists who are generally careful to ensure that testimonies given at baptism services are about Jesus for about 5 minutes, not about your life-story and your "decision for Christ". As for Shloer, I like Shloer. But it's even better with a shot of vodka.
Posted by AngloCatholicGirl (# 16435) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As for myself, I'm, as usual, in a quandary with this one as I can see some mileage in daronmedway's objection to the practice of paedo-baptism for what Ken calls 'walk ins'.
I confess that this was a big issue for me prior to my ordination and something that I still struggle with, but I have found some positives with 'walk ins', namely that it gets people over the psychological barrier of walking through the church door into a service and I find it encourages a sense of belonging. It's not ideal, but I get the opportunity to sit down with the parents and Godparents and talk about the Gospels and why we baptize, an opportunity I wouldn't otherwise have had.
It's also a good lesson for me in trusting in God, that no matter how much the parents see baptism as just 'getting the baby done' He is there, meeting the family round the font.
Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on
:
Well said, Amos.
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
Originally posted by AngloCatholicGirl
quote:
It's also a good lesson for me in trusting in God, that no matter how much the parents see baptism as just 'getting the baby done' He is there, meeting the family round the font.
My son-in-law is an Anglican priest and during his curacy he also worked as a prison chaplain. He was amazed at how many of the prisoners who expressed an interest in matters spiritual and especially those who went on to make some kind of Christian commitment had been baptised as a baby in a family of non-churchgoers. His conclusion was that as you say, God was indeed meeting the child and the family and continued to do so throughout those men's lives all the way into their prison sentences!
He too will happily baptise any child brought to him and perhaps true to his Greek orthodox roots recommends full immersion. My little grandson was duly immersed earlier this year.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
My opinion is that if it can be discerned that there is no intention of bringing the child up in the faith then it is better not to baptise. If any intention cannot be discerned either way then the benefit of the doubt should be given. At least that's the practice here in Finland in the Orthodox Church, but then one of the parents must already be Orthodox and solemnly pledge to bring the child up in the Orthodox faith.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
That cuts both ways, of course, Mrs Beaky. I'm sure if you took a cross-section of the population - not just people in prison - then you'd find a substantial proportion of them had been baptised as infants in non-church going families, particularly the older they are.
I'm not sure it either strengthens nor weakens the case. After all, Hitler was baptised as an infant, so was Stalin.
@daronmedway, as you are no doubt readily aware, some paedobaptist Reformed types wouldn't recognise credo-baptist Reformed types as even being Reformed in the first place ...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Remind me, Svitlana2, which denomination are you actually a member of?
This seems a bit of an off-kilter academic speculation. As a practising member of the Church of England and a priest, I can tell you that in my experience of ministry--and in my experience as a parent and a Christian--you are, to a very great degree, mistaken.
I presume you're referring to what I said about infant baptism.
I'm a Methodist. My comment wasn't about what clergymen believe, but about what non-church families presenting children for baptism might believe. (I probably did read something along these lines in an academic book somewhere.)
The point of baptism for most people clearly isn't that their child will eventually 'enter into the full membership of the church' as the Methodist liturgy says. If that's what parents hoped for then they'd bring their families to church more often. But they may well feel that the act of baptism brings the child into a spiritual orbit of some kind. I know that some people see it as way of bringing God's protective blessing upon the child.
What's your experience? What do you think is really going on?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The point of baptism for most people clearly isn't that their child will eventually 'enter into the full membership of the church' as the Methodist liturgy says. If that's what parents hoped for then they'd bring their families to church more often.
Maybe. Or maybe they have in their wisdom concluded that the best way to ensure their child doesn't enter into full membership of the church would be to drag them there every Sunday.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
By the same token, 'Believer's Baptism' is the folk-religion term which generally means 'the religious ceremony in which we demonstrate our profound desire to take credit for the ineffable God-given saving grace that is faith.' And then have a party.
That's certainly true of Arminian credo-baptists. Not so much the Reformed Credo-baptists who are generally careful to ensure that testimonies given at baptism services are about Jesus for about 5 minutes, not about your life-story and your "decision for Christ".
Ah, but the bit before they became a Christian is much more interesting than what happened afterwards ...!
Actually I haven't heard any of these testimonies recently - are they a dying breed?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The point of baptism for most people clearly isn't that their child will eventually 'enter into the full membership of the church' as the Methodist liturgy says. If that's what parents hoped for then they'd bring their families to church more often.
Maybe. Or maybe they have in their wisdom concluded that the best way to ensure their child doesn't enter into full membership of the church would be to drag them there every Sunday.
Well, in your case you may have definite proof of that, but most parents don't stick around long enough to find that this is a problem!
Statistically, the children of non-churchgoing parents are less likely to get involved in the life of the church than the children of churchgoing parents. This isn't always so, I'm an example of that. There are people who are converted later in life. But I don't think many parents in British society are likely to be committed to pursuing a systematic, home-based spiritual life that's likely to influence their children to join the church later. This might have happened in the past, when non-churchgoers might have read their Bibles and said their prayers before the fire. But what sign is there that this culture has any resonance today? Not much.
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
quote:
I'm not sure it either strengthens nor weakens the case. After all, Hitler was baptised as an infant, so was Stalin.
Blimey, now that's some advertisement for infant baptism!
I'm fairly sure my son-in-law maintains that large numbers of people (not just those in the prison) he has met since being a priest were baptised as infants,left church and then returned to faith/ church as adults. He is quite Orthodox in his theology and he sees a correlation between their baptism and their adult faith.
Who knows? I certainly don't!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Neither do I, Mrs Beaky. He may well be right, I don't know.
We didn't have our two christened/baptised as infants as we were firmly in a credo-baptist setting at that time. But we did have them 'dedicated' but as to whether or not that 'does' anything, I have no idea. Neither has any particular interest in attending church or engaging with the faith in any meaningful way - although they do have a residual respect for Christian beliefs.
Mind you, we've all heard, I'm sure, the old joke about the Churches Together meeting where the clergy discover that they all have a problem with bats in their buildings.
The Anglican vicar says, 'Well we decided to ring the bells very loudly and incessantly one weekend and that seems to have driven them away.'
The Methodist minister says, 'We're trying to trap them humanely and release them elsewhere but it's taking a long time ...'
The Catholic priest says, 'Well, I baptised ours and I've not seen any of them since ...'
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
I work on the assumption that generally speaking, people bring their children to be baptised because God is at work in their lives. We've found, in every church at which I have served since my ordination, that, as we take people seriously and treat them with dignity, they tend to respond in faith. Our churches prepare families to support the Christian life of the child who's being baptised. We teach parents to pray with their children and how to teach their children to pray, and we give them the resources to do it: books, grace-cubes, and a book of well-illustrated stories from the Bible. We emphasise the importance of Christian observance in the home as well as attendance at church. This places demands on the church as well as the baptismal family, and, frankly, that's good. The congregation comes to know the non-churchgoing families who bring their children for baptism. This breaks down the sense in the church that people who don't come aren't Christian, and the sense in the parish that church attendance is reserved for the unco guid. Over a period of more than ten years, I have found that this works.
Only God can see the heart and the motivations of the heart. None of us fully understands what we're doing when we baptise or are baptised. I was baptised as an adult, after an adult conversion to Christ. My baptism wasn't in any way superior to that of the hundreds of babies and small children I've baptised in my churches.
I'm highly skeptical about a religious understanding like Svitlana2's, which seems to be entirely based upon statistics (generally dubious) and the footnotes of uncited academic papers, without any admixture of theology or experience. However if she were come, with or without an infant, to be prepared for baptism, I'd take her entirely seriously.
[ 27. July 2013, 07:05: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AngloCatholicGirl:
quote:
Originally posted by Anna B:
quote:
Originally posted by AngloCatholicGirl:
After the service, as she was leaving one elderly lady said to me 'well the devil certainly came out of that little boy!' I'd never come across this idea before, I have to say, anyone else come across it before?
Oh yes. My infant son screamed with all his might when the water hit his head. The priest looked up at the (standing-room-only) congregation and said, "That's the devil coming out."
Thanks, that's interesting to know it's found on the other side of the pond too. I don't know if I would say to the congregation during the actual baptism that that was the devil coming out. Out of curiosity Anna B were you ok with that?
Just to add to the topic of the devil being expelled at Baptism -
It was custom to call the north door of the Church where I was years back the devil's door, and that during Baptism it should be open so that the devil could leave the sacred ground, just wondering if others had come across this strange tale, or whether it was a completely crazy local thing...
quote:
Calling someone unbaptized a heretic is like calling a violin a shrunken viola.
Sorry I feel your analogy fails, violins are just shrunken Violas!
quote:
Originally posted by Below the Lansker The local CinW building here (mediaeval) has a 19th-century baptismal pool
One of the Churches in the my Parish has a pool. The Church building is Victorian rather than actually old, but I can't tell you when the pool was installed or last used, just that we have one in our CinW parish.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
The association of the north door, and even the north side, of the church with the devil is an early mediaeval superstition--I don't think it's older than that. I'd guess that it's related to the custom of calling the candle on the north side of the altar the Gospel candle, and all the customs related to its lighting and extinguishing.
I was told that these customs/superstitions were all related to the fear of the Vikings in the early middle ages.
[ 27. July 2013, 08:29: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
...And I see that my view as to the connection of the North with the Heathens is confirmed by this link on teh internet:
http://liturgy.co.nz/anglican-communion-crisis/4761
Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Common Worship provides for an 'Affirmation of Baptismal Faith'. It has to be linked back to the original baptism, but seems from the commentary to be designed to meet those dilemmas. Has anyone ever seen it used?
I saw a renewal of vows in a charismatic church where it looked almost exactly like a baptism, we discussed it here:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=70;t=021098
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Below the Lansker The local CinW building here (mediaeval) has a 19th-century baptismal pool
One of the Churches in the my Parish has a pool. The Church building is Victorian rather than actually old, but I can't tell you when the pool was installed or last used, just that we have one in our CinW parish.
Installed sometimes, I believe, to try to prevent parishioners from having recourse to the Baptists; although I don't know what the Church would have been done with would-be Baptists baptised in infancy, at that date.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
Canon Gerald Luckett of Canterbury Diocese had, I am told a habit of installing baptismal pools in his churches, probably for this reason--this would have been in the first half of the twentieth century. I heard this from his son some years ago, who reported that one or two of them were still in existence. The Canon was, AFAICT, a Dearmerite.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The association of the north door, and even the north side, of the church with the devil is an early mediaeval superstition--I don't think it's older than that. I'd guess that it's related to the custom of calling the candle on the north side of the altar the Gospel candle, and all the customs related to its lighting and extinguishing.
I was told that these customs/superstitions were all related to the fear of the Vikings in the early middle ages.
IIRC, Milton has Lucifer drawing the fallen angels to the North to prepare for battle. The north is (in the northern hemisphere) Satan's own land, the land of deep darkness in winter and from which the severe cold comes. It is the land of the great unknown.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0