Ship of Fools: Infant baptism at home?

Thread: Infant baptism at home? 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=026530

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I recently read a novel in which a black working class family in south London in the 80s wanted to baptise a baby. Because they were busy they wanted it to be done at short notice. This meant that the child was baptised by a minister and then a naming ceremony was conducted at church at a later date.

I'm presuming that the minister in question was Anglican. Can anyone confirm for me that a home baptism followed by a naming ceremony would have been conducted by the CofE at that time and place? Or did the author make a mistake?

Many thanks!

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

Could have been Methodist or URC. They do infant baptism as well.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Would they have conducted a home baptism followed by a church naming ceremony? I've never heard of this in the Methodist Church, which the tradition that I know.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I believe there have often been baptisms in hospitals for patients (of whatever age) who were not likely to live.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Sounds like Brethren to me.

In the CofE anyone can baptise anyone else if they haven't been baptised and if their life is in danger. If they recover then the expectation is that they will com to church and be baptised by a priest.

A nice touch but for some of us, baptism isn't essential for infants. We'd make do by praying for the child and family: also naming the child by request. We'd also reassure them about the love of God who will receive the child if they do pass from this life.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Sounds like Brethren to me.

In the CofE anyone can baptise anyone else if they haven't been baptised and if their life is in danger. If they recover then the expectation is that they will com to church and be baptised by a priest.

Not so. Baptism cannot be repeated. There would only ever be a conditional [re]baptism if there were any doubt about the validity of that performed in extremis.

Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :

Begins to sound like the author got it wrong. In Scotland until around the 1940s and 50s home baptism was at least as common and in rural parts more common than a church christening, but there was no naming ceremony to follow. This usage ended as people began to get more theologically clued up about the communal meaning of baptism, or something. It is very rare now

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

Baptism is a communal event involving the whole church. The exception being if there is a danger to the life of the infant.
So by & large it must be done in church .
O.K. confession. While now an Anglican I was baptised Presbyterian in the manse of the church we attended in rural Quebec and it was just immediate family.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Is there a COE naming ceremony separate from Baptism? I seem to remember from liturgics that private baptisms happened at home and then the infant later came to church with the mother for the churching of women. On the other hand, the baby might have been baptized at the church before the mother returned to church. I don't remember. Whatever it is I'm remembering wouldn't have been the normal practice in the 80's (which doesn't mean it didn't happen or that anything is wrong with it).

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

In Scotland, next door to us, the baby was baptised there by the Minister, because they had also the grandparents and they were very handicapped and couldn't have come to the Kirk. I and my family also attended.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Is there a COE naming ceremony separate from Baptism?

Basically, yes. Here is what Common Worship has. There are some within the C of E who prefer to delay baptism until the child can make his/her own commitment. We probably have some with this opinion on the Ship, so I'll let them explain their position.

[ 30. September 2013, 21:51: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

What's the book in question.
In the '80s the CofE was using either the 1660 Book of Common Prayer or the Alternative Service Book (ASB). Common Worship provisions would be neither here nor there. Also, in the '80s I doubt that Believers' Baptism had quite such a foothold in the CofE as it does now. Ken might be able to confirm or refute this. Or Angloid.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

There's no believer's baptism in the novel, as both the baptism and the naming ceremony are for a baby. The baptism occurs first, and the naming ceremony afterwards. The gap between them seems to be no longer than a few weeks or months. (The novel is called 'Railton Blues'. It's not well-known.)

[ 30. September 2013, 22:45: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

I wasn't meaning that Common Worship would be current in the 80s - just that that was what the C of E had now. Pre-common worship, there certainly were non-baptism dedication type services for children - I have been to a couple - but I can't remember the details or the degree to which they were prevalent.

My memory tells me that when I first heard people advocating dedication/believer's baptism within the C of E in the late 80s/early 90s, it was seen as a new thing. My memory is not terribly reliable though.

As regards the book itself, the private baptism / public naming combo strikes me as odd, unless there was a pressing need for the baptism at home because the child was sick, or a family member was housebound or something.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

The 1662 BCP provides instructions and a very short liturgy for a private baptism at home, with a longer liturgy for a public declaration and certification of the baptism and receiving of the child in church when the child is later brought to the church. I don't know how current it was in the 1980s, but it is perfectly possible that it could have happened. A black working class family may have come from a more conservative Prayer Book tradition, in the West Indies perhaps, where this was more normal.

It was for a long time common in England too as Parson Woodforde's Diary testifies.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
Baptism is a communal event involving the whole church. The exception being if there is a danger to the life of the infant.
So by & large it must be done in church .
O.K. confession. While now an Anglican I was baptised Presbyterian in the manse of the church we attended in rural Quebec and it was just immediate family.

I don't disagree with you at all, but what you say is dependent upon there being a church within cooee - something which can't be taken for granted even these days in outback Australia or the northern areas of Canada, For an example of a home baptism, read Banjo Patterson's A Bush Christening, the first stanza of which reads:

On the outer Barcoo where the churches are few,
And men of religion are scanty,
On a road never cross'd 'cept by folk that are lost,
One Michael Magee had a shanty.

Sadly, I can't found a link to the full text, a classic recitation. Buy it if you can.

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :

How about this one, Gee D?

A Bush Christening

Several others around.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I don't know about naming services, but home baptisms were actually a thing until pretty recently. Even when they were at church, it was in the afternoon, with family and friends, instead of during Sunday service.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thanks Lothlorien, I was rushed.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
The 1662 BCP provides instructions and a very short liturgy for a private baptism at home, with a longer liturgy for a public declaration and certification of the baptism and receiving of the child in church when the child is later brought to the church.

Thanks, BroJames, although the preamble does warn:

quote:

The Minister of every parish shall warn the people that without great cause and necessity they procure not their children to be baptized at home in their houses. But when need shall compel them so to do, then Baptism shall be administered on this fashion.

which seems squarely aimed at a child who is sick and thought at risk of dying, or similar need. How far this might have been abused is another question.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

In my tradition, if a infant is baptized apart from a worship service, the parents and sponsors are encouraged to come to worship and reaffirm the baptism on behalf of the child. When the child is baptized s/he is formally named, though the name has already been customarily placed on the state birth certificate.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't know about naming services, but home baptisms were actually a thing until pretty recently. Even when they were at church, it was in the afternoon, with family and friends, instead of during Sunday service.

Forty years ago relatives debated whether to have their grandbaby baptized at home or at church, I remember their discussing whether the coffee table would be sturdy enough. They decided to do it at the church. It was in the afternoon, just the family. (Protestant Episcopal Church - when did they change the name?)

These days baptisms are during the Sunday morning regular service. I don't think that happened a few decades ago, baptisms were separate events, family and close friends. I guess theories change, in which case any claim something must be done one specific way is not to be regarded too seriously. [Smile]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Sounds like Brethren to me.

In the CofE anyone can baptise anyone else if they haven't been baptised and if their life is in danger. If they recover then the expectation is that they will com to church and be baptised by a priest.
Not so. Baptism cannot be repeated. There would only ever be a conditional [re]baptism if there were any doubt about the validity of that performed in extremis.

Then why did it happen irl? My wife who was working on a maternity ward baptised a dying baby with a Trinitarian formula at the request of devout parents, as the chaplain looked like he wouldn't get there in time.

In due course the baby recovered and was baptised in church. IIRC there were provisions in the CofE service wording to cover the fact that baptism had happened but by a non priest. It wasn't seen as anything less than valid and in those days many midwives, being Christian, were clued up on how to do it.

Baptism can be repeated in the sense that one can perform the act twice. Whether it's valid or not depends on one's theology of baptism and whether it should be the province of believers only or everyone.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
For some of us, baptism isn't essential for infants. We'd make do by praying for the child and family: also naming the child by request. We'd also reassure them about the love of God who will receive the child if they do pass from this life.

Surely this is the important point. Whether we agree with Infant Baptist or not (and, like EM, I am a Baptist), surely the whole point of baptism is that it be done within the context of the Church community. Doing it anywhere else makes it into a purely private affair. Granted, those who practise it may talk of joining the worldwide Church, but I like it to be done within the setting of an expression of the Church Visible.

And Baptists would say anyway that the theological necessity for "emergency baptism" is pretty ropey - do we really think that a child's eternal destiny will be governed by the fact that someone has said certain words and poured some water over them? Or that these will effect their physical cure any more than just the prayers offered by EM and others?

Strangely enough - and this will horrify everyone! - I have known of Believers' (Re-)Baptism by immersion being done privately. This was not because the candidate was living in a land where it was dangerous to be Christian, but so that a Lutheran missionary working with a Church in which Believers' Baptism was the norm could avoid awkward questions. I wasn't there but it was bizarre!

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
<snip>Whether we agree with Infant Baptist or not (and, like EM, I am a Baptist), surely the whole point of baptism is that it be done within the context of the Church community. Doing it anywhere else makes it into a purely private affair. Granted, those who practise it may talk of joining the worldwide Church, but I like it to be done within the setting of an expression of the Church Visible.<snip>

Yes but… from a more strongly sacramental point of view, the very act of baptism effects a spiritual change - even if the only people present are the baby and the baptiser. There are then all sorts of desirable reasons why it should be done in the presence of the congregation, but it is sacramentally effectual even without that.

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

It's reported that the Archbishop of Canterbury will baptise the new royal infant at a private ceremony on 23 October. This is,I believe, royal tradition but apparently theologically unsound. I wonder why it can't happen in a normal church service. After all, the royals go to church regularly so security can't be the reason.

[ 01. October 2013, 08:32: Message edited by: Francophile ]

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Before this turns into a thread of Infant Baptism vs Believers' Baptism, may I go back to the OP for a minute?

These are the CofE canons relating to baptism: B21 and B22: http://www.baptism.org.uk/canons.htm

Of particular relevance is B22 8:
8. If any infant which is privately baptized do afterwards live, it shall be
brought to the church and there, by the minister, received into the
congregation of Christ’s flock according to the form and manner
prescribed in and by the office for Private Baptism authorized by Canon
B 1.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Sounds like Brethren to me.

In the CofE anyone can baptise anyone else if they haven't been baptised and if their life is in danger. If they recover then the expectation is that they will com to church and be baptised by a priest.
Not so. Baptism cannot be repeated. There would only ever be a conditional [re]baptism if there were any doubt about the validity of that performed in extremis.
Then why did it happen irl? My wife who was working on a maternity ward baptised a dying baby with a Trinitarian formula at the request of devout parents, as the chaplain looked like he wouldn't get there in time.

In due course the baby recovered and was baptised in church. IIRC there were provisions in the CofE service wording to cover the fact that baptism had happened but by a non priest. It wasn't seen as anything less than valid and in those days many midwives, being Christian, were clued up on how to do it.

Baptism can be repeated in the sense that one can perform the act twice. Whether it's valid or not depends on one's theology of baptism and whether it should be the province of believers only or everyone.

That's exactly the point: the first baptism being valid, there is no possibility of a second. One might repeat the act, even with a conditional intent to cover accidental or intentional deficiencies in Matter, Form or Intent in the original baptism, but the 'condition' in such cases is that the original baptism was invalid: the sacrament is not fundamentally repeatable.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

quote:
Baptism is a communal event involving the whole church.

It is now, but hasn't always been - when I was a child it was more usual to have a separate baptism service at a different time from the normal Sunday service, attended only by the child's family, godparents and any friends they wanted to invite.

At my sister's church the vicar still has baptism services on Sunday afternoon, usually for half a dozen families at once.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I was baptised in a maternity hospital (pre-1960) because I wasn't expected to live: the words were spoken and water sprinkled by a nurse - there was no chaplain available.

As I survived the 1662 instruction was followed and I was taken to church for the full service to be read, for Godparents to make promises, and for my names to be confirmed.

The trend for baptism to be a whole-church event is fine and worthy but ignores the possible problem for those of us with more than one to baptise at once and godparents who are involved with services in their own place. The solution we reached with our children was to have them baptised at Evensong.

Otherwise, with families being more geographically spread a 9.30 or 10am service can be a big ask: the solution in my own church is for baptisms to be well-advertised and, if they're of infants not of regulars, some of us attend so that we can truly "welcome you into the Lord's family".

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
Baptism is a communal event involving the whole church. The exception being if there is a danger to the life of the infant.
So by & large it must be done in church .
O.K. confession. While now an Anglican I was baptised Presbyterian in the manse of the church we attended in rural Quebec and it was just immediate family.

That's OK. I was raised in the Assemblies of God, where I got a "believer's baptism" around age 7 by being dunked in a tank. There was no chrism involved. I've never been chrismated. Yet I find the symbolism of all that, especially in infant baptism, where the communal aspect is particularly evident (since others must take the vows for the infant), to be very important and meaningful.

We didn't all get the baptism we would have preferred. Oh well. It still stuck, right? [Angel]

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

Private baptisms at home used to be quite common in Protestant USA in several denominations, usually followed by a booze fueled party.

I think the theology changed when society changed and baptisms became somewhat rarer than before.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Private baptisms at home used to be quite common in Protestant USA in several denominations, usually followed by a booze fueled party.

I think the theology changed when society changed and baptisms became somewhat rarer than before.

Theologies change, that's normal. Bugs me when the new theology starts being talked about as if an eternal rule instead of the way we adapt eternal principles to today's needs.

Baptism used to commonly be done at home, or in a private ceremony in the church building, now they are commonly done as part of the Sunday morning general service. Practice changes generate theology changes.

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

I remember that it was very common, as were baptisms with just the family and a couple of friends (godparents).

Surprising that so many clergy nowadays seem think that such "private" baptisms are now somehow heretical practices that have never had a place in Christendom. As also were baptisms in Lent, or regularly scheduled for every "Friday, 6:30 pm in the little chapel."

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

In the C of E, at least, although baptisms were commonly done at home, it was against both the letter and the spirit of the 1662 Prayer Book which states

quote:
The Minister of every parish shall warn the people that without great cause and necessity they procure not their children to be baptized at home in their houses.

and

quote:
The people are to be admonished, that it is most convenient, that Baptism should not be administered but upon Sundays, and other Holy-days, when the most number of people come together

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

When would you say the practice died out?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Apart from the Royal Family and emergency baptisms, I've never heard of it ever having been common or normal in the CofE to baptise anywhere other than in the font in the parish church.

What was common/normal until about 1970 was for baptism to be separate service just for the babies, their parents and godparents, very often at 3pm on a Sunday afternoon, rather than as part of the morning service as is more usual but not universal, now. But the baptism was in church, in the font, not somewhere else, with what? - a baby bath? a kitchen bowl?

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
When would you say the practice died out?

I can't say as I haven't made a study of it. I have read the Oxford World Classics edition of Parson Woodforde's diary in which it appears as a not uncommon occurrence. He does sometimes refer to "the child being sickly' or "not like to live", but not always. He died at the beginning of the nineteenth century. This paper (PDF) suggests that it continued well into the nineteenth century, although the extent to which it happened seems to have varied from place to place. At Minterne Magna in Dorset, at a later date, there were only 14 private baptisms recorded over a 30 year period which suggest that in that place at that time the practice was much less common.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Apart from the Royal Family and emergency baptisms, I've never heard of it ever having been common or normal in the CofE to baptise anywhere other than in the font in the parish church.

I've just read that the new royal arrival is to be baptised in the Chapel Royal, St James's Palace. Better than a drawing room in Buckingham Palace which AFAIK is where they have all been held before. Though I suppose it should have been at St Martin in the Fields or perhaps Westminster Abbey.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
... somewhere else, with what? - a baby bath? a kitchen bowl?

The best salad bowl, as I remember it.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

50 years ago, here in Kenya as it happens (life has come full circle for me!)my youngest brother was baptised in our beautiful garden with just the priest, our family and godparents present......45 years later that same brother finally had his own child (a story in itself) and he and his wife had real trouble finding a church who would baptise their son in a similar small separate service (ie not a full parish but a "private" affair.)
In the end they found somewhere (they live in London) but the impression they received was that such things are frowned upon nowadays.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Apart from the Royal Family and emergency baptisms, I've never heard of it ever having been common or normal in the CofE to baptise anywhere other than in the font in the parish church.

I've just read that the new royal arrival is to be baptised in the Chapel Royal, St James's Palace. Better than a drawing room in Buckingham Palace which AFAIK is where they have all been held before. Though I suppose it should have been at St Martin in the Fields or perhaps Westminster Abbey.

I was just about to post the same thing after leafing through today's Church Times.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Bro James

Hmmmm. It sounds as though it might have been just about feasible for a family in south London to have had an infant baptism at home in the 1980s.

Maybe home baptisms were more acceptable in the days when all infant life was precarious. But I suspect that secularisation has influenced its decline as well; faith has increasingly retreated from the public to the private realm, and home baptisms today would smack of the individualistic faith from which the church is now largely excluded. The clergy have no interest in allowing baptism, a rite which they still control, to reflect this pattern.

(As it happens, I read about half of the paperback edition of Parson Woodforde's Diary a year or so ago, but for different reasons. At the moment I'm particularly interested in more recent literary representations of religious rituals.)

[ 04. October 2013, 17:07: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Brian Spinks in Reformation and Modern Rituals and Theologies of Baptism (2006) notes that

quote:
a number of concerns [about baptism] surfaced in the twentieth century, particularly about private baptism…

which further confirms that it might have been possible

[fixed broken link]

[ 06. October 2013, 06:35: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

BroJames---your link did not work. I would like to read the article you referred to. I would appreciate your reposting the link, thanks.

Posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis (# 3886) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
BroJames---your link did not work. I would like to read the article you referred to. I would appreciate your reposting the link, thanks.

It works if you delete the http// before the word tiny in the url.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Thanks for this link.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

Three 'oddities' in my own life regarding Baptism.

I was born of Methodist parents (in Kentucky) and was scheduled to be 'christened' as they said in church, but the date (in March) turned bitter cold and so the minister and his wife came to our house after the morning service to 'do the deed.' (I have the certificate which shows date and place.)

I do not know whether there was a subsequent formal 'naming, presentation' in the church--nobody ever mentioned it.

Now here's the odd bit. When I was sixth grade (?) I was in the church membership class, all preparing to 'join the church' on Palm Sunday. The custom of that congregation was to 're-baptize' the new members, I guess as a sort of 'believers baptism.' I refused to take part, saying that I had been baptized once and that was enough! (I was SO precocious!)

Third oddity: my partner, raised Episcopalian, became a Southern Baptist at some point on his journey, so had to be re-baptized by immersion. He was very tall, and the young minister officiating failed to get his head completely under water. He (the minister) insisted on a private repetition of the rite, so he could be completely dunked! My partner found it amusing; I found it hilarious!

Posted by Happy Pebble (# 2731) on :

The 1941 Lutheran Hymnal (Missouri Synod, where I was raised) has a form for lay baptism in case of necessity--my reading of it is that such a baptism is completely orthodox.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

Most Catholic diocesan directories/yearbooks and the Catholic Truth Society "Simple Prayer Book" have the rite for baptism in case of emergency.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

A tangent, yes, but Lutherans and a lot more of the Christian church consider that it makes no difference where the baptism takes place, it's still valid. We look on it more as what God does for us, rather than as some sort of thing (confession? commitment?) that we do for God. And God can give his gifts anywhere. So ...

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

I was certainly taught this in confirmation class, and I was also taught how to perform an emergency baptism if necessary. Seven years later, I was taught the same thing in a theology course at my [Catholic] university. Even in Catholicism, it doesn't matter if the person administering the baptism is Catholic, provided that the intent is to do that which the church does when it baptizes. By that last bit, I think the act of simply doing the baptism would indicate a presence of positive intent.

The whole during-mass-or-not thing always comes up as an issue in modern liturgics. Proponents will say that baptism is a communal event, incorporating one into the church. One cannot really argue with that, but it does help to remember that the church into which one is being incorporated is so much bigger than First [Presbylutheran] Church of Springfield, a congregation of the Western Reform Branch of American Presbylutheranism.

A baptism done anywhere is a baptism of the whole Church. It comes as close as it can to transcending denominationalism. Sometimes the emphasis on it taking place during the Sunday liturgy is a bit more parochial then it should be. Nothing against it, just keep in mind that it's more than just your little building at work, here.

[ 31. December 2013, 22:17: Message edited by: Olaf ]

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Even in Catholicism, it doesn't matter if the person administering the baptism is Catholic, provided that the intent is to do that which the church does when it baptizes

What do you mean by "Even in Catholicism"?

In any event, it doesn't matter if the person is a Christian, let alone a Catholic.

quote:
A baptism done anywhere is a baptism of the whole Church.

Indeed, a baptism in and into Christ.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

You know exactly what I mean. It's the same thing every time you ask anybody here. You're never going to get around this, Trisagion.

Lutheranism certainly has its own history of this, so I certainly can't claim innocence.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0