Ship of Fools: Sudden CofE Baptism?

Thread: Sudden CofE 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=030376

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I've just read a short story set in the 1970s, in which a young schoolgirl, perhaps not quite a teenager, spends the weekend with a friend.

On hearing that she hasn't been baptised, her friend's parents arrange for her to be baptised (or 'christened') that very Sunday at the CofE church they attend in London. She obliges but not very enthusiastically, gets water up her nose and embarrasses herself in front of a rather unfriendly congregation. She decides not to tell her parents about the episode, so clearly there was no attempt to inform them in advance.

The parents take the girls off to the pub for crisps and sweets afterwards, which suggests to me 'working class' and 'non-evangelical', but maybe I'm wrong.

What I'd like to know is whether this scenario reflects the reality of any part of the CofE in the '70s.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

I´m willing to be proved wrong, but this seems a very unrealistic scenario. Even if a vicar was prepared to baptise "on demand" with no preparation, I can't imagine one being willing to do this for a child without the express consent of the parents. And certainly not if the baptismal candidate didn't live in the parish.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I was baptised at age 13 AGAINST my parents' wishes. That was in the 1960s. Don't think it would happen today.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Do you not? Even with the changes that have developed in understanding of, for example children's capacity to consent to medical treatment? If you are correct, it would surely be rather ironic that it might be much more likely that a 13 year ild girl would be given contraceptives, but less likely that she would be baptised, against her parent's wishes than it was 50 years ago.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

So evangelicals don't go to pubs and don't eat crisps?

[Confused]

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

There was a case in the church times last year, where the high court said that a girl wasn’t allowed to be baptised without her father’s permission, until she was 16.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

I was baptism as a baby and much later I got myself babtised as 19 when I was at university ! And my children are baptist when they were teenagers at out baptist church.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So evangelicals don't go to pubs and don't eat crisps?

Another of those times when one wishes ken were still around... [Smile]

[ 01. June 2015, 13:25: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So evangelicals don't go to pubs and don't eat crisps?

Not in the 70s they didn't - crisp-eating was strictly a domestic activity.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Would evangelical English Anglicans have gone to the pub on a Sunday in the 70s? Almost everyone does now, of course, but I assumed that evangelicals would have been stricter about such things then.

Am I right to suppose that the sudden baptism of older children without preparation and without the permission of parents is allowed in the CofE in extremis? If so, then perhaps various social and cultural factors would influence what counts as urgent circumstances in any given time and place. In the story I read a certain colonialistic paternalism might be part of the equation.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Firstly, it's a story ...

Secondly, you're probably right that pub attendance wasn't that common across the evangelical spectrum in the 1970s - but it wouldn't have been unknown.

I suspect the parish in the novel isn't an evangelical one - because their knee-jerk reaction would have been to get the girl to 'prayer the sinner's prayer' or acknowledge the Lordship of Christ in some verbal way ... rather than immediately setting out to baptise her.

But I'd have to read the book ...

Spontaneous, off-the-cuff baptism certainly doesn't strike me as standard evangelical behaviour - whether in a CofE or non-CofE evangelical setting.

One might encounter such a thing in some of the more 'out there' groups but I wouldn't have expected such a thing in any kind of evangelical Anglican parish - of whatever 'tribe' or 'stripe' of evangelical back in the 1970s.

For me, the pub and crisps wouldn't be the give-away but the soteriology and approach to the sacraments/ordinances ...

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Would evangelical English Anglicans have gone to the pub on a Sunday in the 70s? Almost everyone does now, of course, but I assumed that evangelicals would have been stricter about such things then.

Yes, I think you're right. Not just C of E Evangelicals, but pretty much ALL Evangelicals would have been fairly reluctant to go to the pub on a Sunday. Of course, it depends when in the 70's we're talking about. My memory is that things were beginning to loosen up a bit by the late 70's.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Am I right to suppose that the sudden baptism of older children without preparation and without the permission of parents is allowed in the CofE in extremis? If so, then perhaps various social and cultural factors would influence what counts as urgent circumstances in any given time and place. In the story I read a certain colonialistic paternalism might be part of the equation.

As far as I know, the only justification for sudden baptism in these kinds of circumstances would be when life of the person being baptised is in grave danger.

I'm not confident enough to say it couldn't happen. But my feeling is that it would have been highly irregular.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yes. I think the author didn't actually know what s/he was writing about. But then lots of authors get details wrong: e.g. IIRC Bram Stoker, in Dracula, thought that garlic was grown in hothouses, whereas actually it really needs a period of growing in rather low temperatures.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Firstly, it's a story ...

I read a lot of fiction. My personal and academic interests lean towards exploring writers' engagement with lived experience, even in non-realistic texts. FWIW, this writer claims that these particular stories, some more realistic than others, reveal something of her life as a young person in the 70s, as well as her experiences of being middle aged.

If it turns out that the core event of this particular story is highly unlikely to have happened to anyone in 'real life' the story will still be of interest to me, as there's enough meat throughout the text to make the writer's broader point obvious.

Actually, I might try to get in touch with the writer herself to see where this idea came from, but I thought I'd check here first.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I was already an adult in the 70s.

I think the sudden baptism, almost on a whim, of a child 'not quite a teenager' at a church where they were not a regular attender, and without their parents being involved, would have been very unusual.

It would have been less unusual than shipmates think for evangelicals to have gone in a pub then, unless the church was at the forerunner of the Reform end of things. However, they would have been more likely to have gone in one after an evening service than a morning one.

What is actually more doubtfull is the notion that one could take a child of 11-12 in a pub in those days even for a soft drink. That change really happened later than that. Children could be taken into bars and have soft drinks from 14 then, and could sit in pub gardens, but there weren't really children's rooms or anything like that yet.

Licensing hours were also much more limited than they are now. 12-2pm and 7pm-10.30pm on Sundays. Even on weekdays, pubs were shut during the afternoon until well into the 80s.

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

How did she get water up her nose? Was she dunked?

I think baptism by immersion in an Anglican Church would have been very rare in the 1970s, even among evangelicals, who moreover would have worried about her age and doubtless rigorously required a conversion experience on her part.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Doesn't ring true on all sorts of levels.

Mind you back in the 1950's the local Vicar refused to baptise me because my parents didn't go to church. There's nothing new under the sun ....

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
How did she get water up her nose? Was she dunked?

No, it doesn't seem to have involved immersion.

[ 02. June 2015, 11:37: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

I can't imagine, then, how she could get any appreciable amount of water up her nose through pouring or sprinkling.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Firstly, it's a story ...

BUT....

Part of a good work of fiction is the ability to make the readers believe in it. Even if you're writing about alien worlds, there has to be a sense of credibility. Making something happen in your story which makes people who might know about such things say "that couldn't have happened!" simply erodes a story's credibility.

It is the same thing when a film purports to show a steam train and my brother-in-law snorts derisively "That engine would never have pulled those carriages on that line!" Or when Mrs Grouch hears dialogue in a film set in the Victorian era which has words and phrases that weren't used until the mid-20th century. Once credibility has been undermined, a story or a film struggles to be taken seriously.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I think you're right, especially when it concerns something upon which the whole plot turns. In the end, Bram Stoker thinking that you grow garlic in hothouses, or a TV producer putting a GWR pannier tank on a branch line in the Scottish borders, or even the Hollywood film which showed Richard the Lionheart being married according to the 1662 rite, is merely a matter of detail, however niggling to those of us who spot it. But if you're going to use an event as the centre of your story you need to make it credible.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I can't imagine, then, how she could get any appreciable amount of water up her nose through pouring or sprinkling.

Depends on how you hold your head, I suppose. Or how enthusiastic the baptizer is with the face splashing.
[Two face]

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
. . . or a TV producer putting a GWR pannier tank on a branch line in the Scottish borders,

A bit north of the border, but two GWR pannier tanks worked the ex-Highland Railway Dornoch branch from 1956 to 1962.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
. . . or a TV producer putting a GWR pannier tank on a branch line in the Scottish borders,
A bit north of the border, but two GWR pannier tanks worked the ex-Highland Railway Dornoch branch from 1956 to 1962.

Dear God! Why is it no surprise that someone on the Ship would know something like that!?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

But surely it's common knowledge?

Here's a pretty picture to prove it - except it's a model.

Anyway, there isn't a font to be seen!

[ 02. June 2015, 22:25: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

why is there surprise there is a high rate of comorbidity between being an Organist and being a transport enthusiast.

Jengie

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
There was a case in the church times last year, where the high court said that a girl wasn’t allowed to be baptised without her father’s permission, until she was 16.

Do you have a link for that case? I find it surprising if it was decided just on her being under 16. Also, since anyone can perform a valid baptism it would be difficult to prevent if someone was determined to proceed.

This case from 2012 was determined on the basis of a 10 year old's wishes.

I think the scenario in the story could happen although it would be irresponsible for any church not to ensure the girl was genuinely seeking baptism and properly prepared for it.

[ 03. June 2015, 11:50: Message edited by: justlooking ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
why is there surprise there is a high rate of comorbidity between being an Organist and being a transport enthusiast.

I'm not an organist!!!!!

[ 03. June 2015, 12:33: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
There was a case in the church times last year, where the high court said that a girl wasn’t allowed to be baptised without her father’s permission, until she was 16.
Do you have a link for that case? I find it surprising if it was decided just on her being under 16. Also, since anyone can perform a valid baptism it would be difficult to prevent if someone was determined to proceed.

This case from 2012 was determined on the basis of a 10 year old's wishes.

I think the scenario in the story could happen although it would be irresponsible for any church not to ensure the girl was genuinely seeking baptism and properly prepared for it.

I have no access to back Church times I’m afraid, I picked it up when it was talked about in church recently.

it was when we had a kerfuffle in church when our legal bods said we couldn’t baptise a 9 year old, as their dad couldn’t be found to give permission, we were told from the diocesan registrar that he had to wait until they was 16 to do it without..

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
why is there surprise there is a high rate of comorbidity between being an Organist and being a transport enthusiast.
I'm not an organist!!!!!

It was the wife of a minister who told me of this connection and her husband is one of the cases she cites. What was surprising is that the one definite transport enthusiast I knew in the URC was also a church organist.

Jengie

[ 03. June 2015, 20:25: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
There was a case in the church times last year, where the high court said that a girl wasn’t allowed to be baptised without her father’s permission, until she was 16.
Do you have a link for that case? I find it surprising if it was decided just on her being under 16. Also, since anyone can perform a valid baptism it would be difficult to prevent if someone was determined to proceed.

This case from 2012 was determined on the basis of a 10 year old's wishes.

I think the scenario in the story could happen although it would be irresponsible for any church not to ensure the girl was genuinely seeking baptism and properly prepared for it.
I have no access to back Church times I’m afraid, I picked it up when it was talked about in church recently.

it was when we had a kerfuffle in church when our legal bods said we couldn’t baptise a 9 year old, as their dad couldn’t be found to give permission, we were told from the diocesan registrar that he had to wait until they was 16 to do it without..

AFAIK a baptism doesn't need the consent of both parents and if one parent isn't around then the parent who has custody is the one bringing the child for baptism.

This from the Catholic Church covers many of the issues.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
There was a case in the church times last year, where the high court said that a girl wasn’t allowed to be baptised without her father’s permission, until she was 16.
Do you have a link for that case? I find it surprising if it was decided just on her being under 16. Also, since anyone can perform a valid baptism it would be difficult to prevent if someone was determined to proceed.

This case from 2012 was determined on the basis of a 10 year old's wishes.

I think the scenario in the story could happen although it would be irresponsible for any church not to ensure the girl was genuinely seeking baptism and properly prepared for it.
I have no access to back Church times I’m afraid, I picked it up when it was talked about in church recently.

it was when we had a kerfuffle in church when our legal bods said we couldn’t baptise a 9 year old, as their dad couldn’t be found to give permission, we were told from the diocesan registrar that he had to wait until they was 16 to do it without..
AFAIK a baptism doesn't need the consent of both parents and if one parent isn't around then the parent who has custody is the one bringing the child for baptism.

This from the Catholic Church covers many of the issues.

That is not the stance of the legal team in my diocese..

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

What they say is that the permission is needed of anybody with parental responsibility, and the church was not allowed to baptise this child who wanted it themselves.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Some things have changed a bit since I was baptized (1966). I was 'done' on a weekday evening by the local Church of Ireland vicar who had married my mum and dad. Just baptism, not as part of a congregational service. When Mum's friend heard I was to be 'done', she asked if Mum would ask the vicar could she bring her recently produced progeny along, too, for a sprinkling, at the same service. To which he replied 'sure'.

No preparation, not even an attendance requirement. I can't even remember if my mum's friend was an Anglican. And yet that seemed pretty normal in that place, for that time.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The Sudden Baptism I assisted at was in our Anglican church, when the bishop was in town for confirmations. One of the confirmands suddenly said, "I haven't been baptized. You think it'll take?" The rector said that no, baptism was a necessary prerequisite. We ran and fetched the silver bowl and a purificator, and the kid was rapidly baptized between the services. I don't think the bishop ever noticed.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The Sudden Baptism I assisted at was in our Anglican church, when the bishop was in town for confirmations. One of the confirmands suddenly said, "I haven't been baptized. You think it'll take?" The rector said that no, baptism was a necessary prerequisite. We ran and fetched the silver bowl and a purificator, and the kid was rapidly baptized between the services. I don't think the bishop ever noticed.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Some things have changed a bit since I was baptized (1966). I was 'done' on a weekday evening by the local Church of Ireland vicar who had married my mum and dad. Just baptism, not as part of a congregational service. When Mum's friend heard I was to be 'done', she asked if Mum would ask the vicar could she bring her recently produced progeny along, too, for a sprinkling, at the same service. To which he replied 'sure'.

No preparation, not even an attendance requirement. I can't even remember if my mum's friend was an Anglican. And yet that seemed pretty normal in that place, for that time.

I have the imprssion that up until the 60s or 70s it was not uncommon for CofE/(Cof I/CinW?) churches to advertise a regular time slot for baptisms, which people could just book.
Am i right in this?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

Why hadn't your rector checked this before embarking on confirmation training? One of the first things clergy should ask confirmands is whether they have been baptised. Sounds like a serious oversight on his part.

Even so, there's no reason why the bishop couldn't have baptised him at the confirmation service, or was the rector too embarrassed to admit to his boss he'd been so lax?

We've recently had a couple of baptisms immediately prior to confirmation - but planned. The rector does the baptism, then regional bishop the confirmation. I think that what Anselmina describes was probably a fairly common occurrence in rural parishes until very recently. The rector knew the parents and god-parents, and did not need to prepare them in any formal way.

Going back to the OP: this seems an authorial error, much like the one discussed recently where an author wanted a married royal character to have a morganatic marriage in an Orthodox church, as some kind of permissible procedure to allow a second marriage with no divorce or annulment of the first marriage. Obviously the word appealed to the author but with no understanding what it meant.

[ 08. June 2015, 11:12: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I think there was some confusion about 'dedication'. The kid was dedicated as an infant, but this is not actually baptism. And it never occurred to the kid (or the parents, who were standing right there) until the very last moment. Do we argue with the clergy? No we do not. The rector decides to baptize right now, the Altar Guild ladies grab the bowl.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Some things have changed a bit since I was baptized (1966). I was 'done' on a weekday evening by the local Church of Ireland vicar who had married my mum and dad. Just baptism, not as part of a congregational service. When Mum's friend heard I was to be 'done', she asked if Mum would ask the vicar could she bring her recently produced progeny along, too, for a sprinkling, at the same service. To which he replied 'sure'.

No preparation, not even an attendance requirement. I can't even remember if my mum's friend was an Anglican. And yet that seemed pretty normal in that place, for that time.

According to the Prayer Book parents have to give a week's notice that they intend to bring their child for baptism. The priest cannot refuse if this is done (save for the purpose of instruction) and the parents can/should complain to the bishop if he delays.

Of course behind this is the fear of the child dying before baptism and the suspicion that the priest himself might have 'Baptist' sympathies.

[ 08. June 2015, 14:16: Message edited by: Corvo ]

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Current Church of England Canon Law requires:

quote:
1. Due notice, normally of at least a week, shall be given before a child is brought to the church to be baptized.

2. If the minister shall refuse or unduly delay to baptize any such infant, the parents or guardians may apply to the bishop of the diocese, who shall, after consultation with the minister, give such directions as he thinks fit.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
[QUOTE]O The priest cannot refuse if this is done (save for the purpose of instruction) and the parents can/should complain to the bishop if he delays.

And what will the Bishop do?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

When I was confirmed (1963), the priest preparing us checked if we'd been baptised, and baptised anyone who had not been, the evening before the confirmation.

In those days, baptisms were not done during a main service as is normal now, but separately, often on a Sunday afternoon. My recollection is that the change probably took place somewhere around 1970 and was quite sudden. My children were baptised in a Sunday morning service in the late 70s, and by then, this was widespread and normal. I did though go to an old style separate baptism as late as the early 90s. Those of us there were aware that this was a bit old fashioned and were slightly surprised the parents had managed to persuade the vicar to do this.

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

Locally the big confirmation services usually include some baptisms, although that service is so long it's better if the churches get their act together in advance as it does reduce the time taken. (That's the main disadvantage of baptising all those who are not already baptised, the length of time added on to an already long service.)

One year a couple of people in the adult confirmation group were baptised as part of the confirmation classes, so with their peers.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Ref: the baptisms I mentioned. Certainly, the vicar I mention would've known my mum, and while I don't know what the period of notice was at that time for a CofI baptism, I'm sure it was well in advance of a week. Quite possibly for the other lady's baby, too. Though certainly brought in on the coat-tails of my own baptism!

I gather from Mum that this particular vicar was really very strong on saying 'yes' to baptizing any child brought to him, whatever the circumstances, and was perhaps known in the area as being like that.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
My children were baptised in a Sunday morning service in the late 70s, and by then, this was widespread and normal. I did though go to an old style separate baptism as late as the early 90s. Those of us there were aware that this was a bit old fashioned and were slightly surprised the parents had managed to persuade the vicar to do this.

In my fairly recent experience, there has been a slight move back towards 'separate' baptisms; not for reasons of theology but logistics (family members travelling long distances unable to make early service time; small regular congregation likely to be swamped by large additional group, and so on.) I've usually tried to arrange these for shortly after the main service so that at least one or two of the regulars might represent the church community into which the newly baptised are welcomed, and also the visitors will see a few signs of life around rather than an empty building. Compromise as ever is the name of the game.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
[QUOTE]O The priest cannot refuse if this is done (save for the purpose of instruction) and the parents can/should complain to the bishop if he delays.
And what will the Bishop do?

Read the response from BroJames immediately above your post

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
logistics (family members travelling long distances unable to make early service time; small regular congregation likely to be swamped by large additional group, and so on.) I've usually tried to arrange these for shortly after the main service so that at least one or two of the regulars might represent the church community

We've started to do that too.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Current Church of England Canon Law requires:
quote:
1. Due notice, normally of at least a week, shall be given before a child is brought to the church to be baptized.

2. If the minister shall refuse or unduly delay to baptize any such infant, the parents or guardians may apply to the bishop of the diocese, who shall, after consultation with the minister, give such directions as he thinks fit.

If one looks at the whole of the Canon on the subject, it isn't quite as black and white as that. For example, a person clearly can't say, 'I demand the right to have my baby to be baptised but I'm not willing to come to any preparation'.

Also, if you don't live in the parish and aren't on the electoral roll, even if the vicar is willing to baptise your baby, he or she needs the agreement of the vicar of the parish where you do live.

I suspect also, that if you say 'I want my baby baptised the way I want it done, rather than the way the parish normally does it', and you complain to the bishop, the bishop will say, politely or less so, 'Get lost'.

[ 09. June 2015, 16:43: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

You're quite right, Enoch. My response was just focussed on the time scale.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
logistics (family members travelling long distances unable to make early service time; small regular congregation likely to be swamped by large additional group, and so on.) I've usually tried to arrange these for shortly after the main service so that at least one or two of the regulars might represent the church community
We've started to do that too.

Hmm. Interesting.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
[QUOTE]O The priest cannot refuse if this is done (save for the purpose of instruction) and the parents can/should complain to the bishop if he delays.
And what will the Bishop do?
Read the response from BroJames immediately above your post

Are there any instances recorded of
- a family taking it forward (how many, when rejected, will think "I'll get a second look at this?")
- a bishop doing anything
- a child, once refused, ending up being baptised

[ 09. June 2015, 21:04: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
In my fairly recent experience, there has been a slight move back towards 'separate' baptisms; not for reasons of theology but logistics (family members travelling long distances unable to make early service time; small regular congregation likely to be swamped by large additional group, and so on.)

In my experience in the South of England, this has been a reality for many years. It didn't matter what the official line was about baptisms happening during the main Sunday morning service; in many cases the families concerned had relatives scattered all over the place and a morning baptism was just unrealistic.

For good or for ill, baptisms in the C of E were hardly ever "just" about the religious thing. There were always elements of family celebrations and so on involved. I thought that it was ill-considered of C of E high-ups to be so dismissive of these aspects of Baptism (as many high-ups were). There was actually something good to be tapped into - something about belonging and about celebrating the good times of life in church.

How on earth do we expect people to consider coming to a C of E church if, when they want their children baptised, they are told "do it OUR way and at a time convenient to US, or we're not interested." Not surprisingly, many people decided that they would go elsewhere.

I'm not advocating a complete free-for-all - simply that the rather simplistic ideals of the Common Worship Baptismal Service need to be tempered with a certain degree of realism and (dare I say it) compassion.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Are there any instances recorded of
- a family taking it forward (how many, when rejected, will think "I'll get a second look at this?")
- a bishop doing anything
- a child, once refused, ending up being baptised

In my experience, I think that this question is difficult to answer. Often there will be a quiet, informal resolution which will probably involve the child being baptised in a neighbouring parish, by someone more accommodating. Unless you are directly involved, you will never know about it.

I think it is true to say that bishops will usually not take direct action against a priest. There's enough wriggle room in the Canons that it is rare for a priest to be directly in contravention of them. In my experience, bishops will know who the "problem priests" are and will negotiate 'get arounds' as indicated above. I'm not sure that I know of a situation where a child has NOT been baptised in the end - unless the parents have given up in disgust and despair. There's always a way....

(Although the priest of the parish has to give his/her goodwill for a baptism to take place elsewhere, even the most recalcitrant of priests is highly unlikely to refuse to give this. Most of them are quite happy for the family to go elsewhere and stop bothering them.)

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I do wish that the Bishops would, and could, come down hard in these cases. There are fundamental questions of ecclesiology and church discipline here. If you accept a cure of souls within the Church of England, you should not be able to pick and choose between your obligations. If you cannot sign up to those obligations you should seek another context for your ministry.

(That said, I do recognise that there may be very rare cases where there is good reason not to baptise. The Vicar at the Church of my Yoof said that he had only refused infant baptism once: that was in a previous parish where he had reason to believe that the parents were Satanists and wanted a baptised child to use in their rituals. He was, BTW, a very level headed man and not one to make such claims lightly.)

[ 10. June 2015, 10:13: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

The point I'm making is this: anything less than a warm welcome and you won't see that family (and almost certainly their extended family and friends, ever again).

Forget about complaint procedures - it isn't worth the bother.

And, yes Albertus I know someone refused baptism in the local Anglican Church (MOTR) back in 1958 because his parents didn't attend. Mind you, the parish concerned had a track record for that sort of thing: in 1838 the Vicar refused to bury a dead child who'd been dedicated at the Congregational Church. The body went back and forwards to the grave 5 times.

The person in question in 1958 was me.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Which is surely not a problem for you, ExclamationMark, as a credo-baptist?

Although, I can well understand the pain and the poor impression it would have given your parents and family back in 1958.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

What you describe, EM, was utterly wrong for a CofE parish church then and it would be utterly wrong for a CofE parish church now. The business about burials of nonconformists in churchyards was I know a longstanding bone of contention in the C19- that's where Lloyd George made his name- but FWIW I would firmly uphold the right of any parishioner to be buried in the churchyard of his or her parish church, if there is a functioning churchyard there.

And you're dead right about the need for a warm welcome, BTW. Do you, as a Baptist minister, ever get requests for infant baptism from families who don't realise that that's not something Baptists do? Rarely if ever, I would imagine, but I bet that if you did, you'd bend over backwards to offer them whatever you could short of baptism and to let them know how pleased you were that they had sought you out.

[ 10. June 2015, 12:53: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
The business about burials of nonconformists in churchyards was I know a longstanding bone of contention in the C19.

Ah, the delights of the Akenham Burial Case - upon which one of my URC colleagues wrote an MA dissertation.

quote:
Do you, as a Baptist minister, ever get requests for infant baptism from families who don't realise that that's not something Baptists do?

Yes ... and we are very happy to give a "thanksgiving" and a "blessing" for every child who comes. FWIW we do offer two different sets of questions depending on whether the parent(s) wish(es) to make explicit affirmations about bringing up the child in the Christian faith, or only to declare their intention of good parenting.

I have to say that my experience over many years is that, despite the most welcoming words and careful explaining, most non-church families don't "get" the idea of no water being used and don't wish to proceed further when they discover that fact.

[ 10. June 2015, 13:29: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
...FWIW we do offer two different sets of questions depending on whether the parent(s) wish(es) to make explicit affirmations about bringing up the child in the Christian faith, or only to declare their intention of good parenting...

I like that.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Thanks. These words are not "authorised" in any way (we don't go in for that). But they do avoid parents having to make promises that they know they won't keep, while welcoming the family into the Church fellowship.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

There's an honesty there, and a sense of meeting people where they are.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
What you describe, EM, was utterly wrong for a CofE parish church then and it would be utterly wrong for a CofE parish church now. The business about burials of nonconformists in churchyards was I know a longstanding bone of contention in the C19- that's where Lloyd George made his name- but FWIW I would firmly uphold the right of any parishioner to be buried in the churchyard of his or her parish church, if there is a functioning churchyard there.

And you're dead right about the need for a warm welcome, BTW. Do you, as a Baptist minister, ever get requests for infant baptism from families who don't realise that that's not something Baptists do? Rarely if ever, I would imagine, but I bet that if you did, you'd bend over backwards to offer them whatever you could short of baptism and to let them know how pleased you were that they had sought you out.

The burial case I refer to was in Cambridgeshire. It was - and is - still known as the case of the unburied child. To this day, the URC and Parish Churches do nothing together. Old wounds run deep and there's never been any apology or expression of regret for this expression of gracelessness and abuse.

Thankfully my parents were able to get me baptised but in another parish. The real irony was that my grandparents were regular attenders (my grandmother was even the church cleaner) and yet my baptism was still refused. It's something my father found so embarrassing and hurtful that he didn't talk about it for many years. He only told me this year - 57 years down the line. A subsequent vicar also refused to come and see my grandmother when she was dying: I suppose he had his hands full in that small parish with visiting rich landowners not dying farm workers' wives. Interestingly enough, the Minister of the Congregational Church was only too happy to turn out on his bike. You do begin to see how, in some ways, the church has been the author of some of its misfortunes.

I do get asked for Christenings and, like BT, offer thanksgiving and dedication services. I like to find ways of welcoming the community not slamming the door in their faces. The number I've done would run into double figures certainly in both churches I've been in.

I tailor the promises to those the parents and sponsors feel happy with: I' glad to say that in several cases reaching out in that way has brought families into the church. In one case it led to 3 adult baptisms and a new deacon a few years down the line.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Ah, the delights of the Akenham Burial Case - upon which one of my URC colleagues wrote an MA dissertation. [QUOTE][qb]

No not Akenham but this one http://www.peterjacksonroyston.co.uk/RoystonFHS/JournalPages/2010Journal/unburiedchild.html

Did you notice that the Bishop declined to enforce compliance with the law? The body went back and forth to the grave 5 times.

I've read the original sources and court records and can vouch for the veracity of the web link.

The Vicar remained in post for another 16 years, dying in post. He had a young family himself at the time of the dispute.

[ 11. June 2015, 12:47: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Which is surely not a problem for you, ExclamationMark, as a credo-baptist?

Although, I can well understand the pain and the poor impression it would have given your parents and family back in 1958.

Anything's a problem for me where the church doesn't extend the kind of welcome that Christ would expect.

My example is simply that: example. What I find it hard is that I do have to cross a few bridges from time to time to undo the hostility I meet which is the result of people's own real life experience. It's nice when someone says "we can talk to you - you're not like other priests" but it shouldn't be like that.

The church used to shaft itself big time (and that includes baptists and their nepotism), now it justs shafts itself enough to keep itself on the margins when it could be at the centre.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The problem seems to be that parents looking for an infant baptism often take the 'welcome' as an inalienable right, even if they don't respect the beliefs or doctrines of the religious institution in question.

I'm not surprised that some CofE vicars get cross about this. But their job seems to require being all things to all men, so they should probably just accept the situation and cheerfully offer what is requested of them. Either that, or switch to a denomination that doesn't work on a 'belonging before believing' basis.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

We went to Dingwall Club (up the north of Scotland) to camp and there we went on Sunday to the baptist Church, which was really excellent and spoke and sing well.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yeah, I get that ExclamationMark ... but I'm not quite sure how the church can ever be 'at the centre' in a post-Christendom environment ... although clergy and ministers and so on not being arsey to people would certainly help ...

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
And, yes Albertus I know someone refused baptism in the local Anglican Church (MOTR) back in 1958 because his parents didn't attend. Mind you, the parish concerned had a track record for that sort of thing: in 1838 the Vicar refused to bury a dead child who'd been dedicated at the Congregational Church. The body went back and forwards to the grave 5 times.

A dreadful track record - in 1838 and again 120 years later.

There may be something arising from the C of E's status as the established church, but why should the church have had an obligation to bury someone not one of its members? Surely in 1838 any obligation was on the local Congregational minister. The same with your baptism: who were the godparents to be and how serious would have been their promise to bring you up in the faith of the church (by which I mean the universal church, not just the C of E branch of it)? On the face of it, both seem examples of someone seeking the advantages of membership without belonging.

[ 13. June 2015, 22:39: Message edited by: Gee D ]

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

The position of the CofE means that the parish priest is required to baptise, marry and bury anyone who lives within the parish, churchgoer or not. Marriage requires some checking to make sure that the couple are legally allowed to marry. Burials and baptism can require checking of parish boundaries. I have dealt with people fancying burial in the only open graveyard of a team of churches and not being eligible as they didn't live in the right parish.

If there is a request to baptise someone who does not live in the parish and is not a regular church member, it is normal to talk to their parish priest. But informal arrangements are not unknown - should a minister only want to credo-baptise, then they may discuss the options with other ministers.

With the cuts in clergy, I am not sure how viable church funerals or minister led funerals at the crematorium are going to continue to be, as if there is no-one available (as they are already doing three funerals that day), it's not that easy to find a substitute in some areas.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

CK, thanks for that advice. It certainly is not the case here that a parish priest is required to baptise/marry/bury anyone who comes along. While we cheerfully baptise children from the local Salvation Army congregation - or indeed from any other Christian group that did not provide a ministry of the sacraments - we would want assurance as to the real willingness of godparents generally to honour their undertaking to see that the child is brought up as a Christian.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

CofE celrgy are only allowed to dealy a bapotism for the purposes of preparation - they cannot refuse a parishioner

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The position of the CofE means that the parish priest is required to baptise, marry and bury anyone who lives within the parish, churchgoer or not.

Which is precisely the argument that Nonconformists (Baptists, at any rate!) have with it. To us, baptism marks "the entry to the Church" - but being "in the Church" is not co-terminous with "being a member of the English State". It requires a personal commitment and belief.

We're usually happy to marry anyone, or take their funeral though.

[ 14. June 2015, 08:14: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
And, yes Albertus I know someone refused baptism in the local Anglican Church (MOTR) back in 1958 because his parents didn't attend. Mind you, the parish concerned had a track record for that sort of thing: in 1838 the Vicar refused to bury a dead child who'd been dedicated at the Congregational Church. The body went back and forwards to the grave 5 times.
A dreadful track record - in 1838 and again 120 years later.

There may be something arising from the C of E's status as the established church, but why should the church have had an obligation to bury someone not one of its members? Surely in 1838 any obligation was on the local Congregational minister. The same with your baptism: who were the godparents to be and how serious would have been their promise to bring you up in the faith of the church (by which I mean the universal church, not just the C of E branch of it)? On the face of it, both seem examples of someone seeking the advantages of membership without belonging.

I suspect Gee D the answer is simple. The Congregational Church was built before it was permitted to bury people and as such did not have a graveyard, it may even be they still were not permitted to. 1838 is about the time of municipal graveyard, this is in part Non-Conformist provision to cope with the fact that they did not usually have graveyards attached to their buildings.

Jengie

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

The delights of being the established church. I assume that Zacchaeus's reference to a parishioner has its own definition as well. Here and most other places it would mean a member of the church, of the congregation.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The delights of being the established church. I assume that Zacchaeus's reference to a parishioner has its own definition as well. Here and most other places it would mean a member of the church, of the congregation.

Parishioner means someone who lives in the geographical parish. So in several English parishes most parishioners are Muslim or Jewish.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thank you all for this tangent - some more trivia to store away even if I cannot contemplate the day when it may become relevant. I still have difficulty in seeing how 2 incidents 120 years apart constitute a track record, though perhaps Johnny Moyes could think of some parallel.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The delights of being the established church. I assume that Zacchaeus's reference to a parishioner has its own definition as well. Here and most other places it would mean a member of the church, of the congregation.
Parishioner means someone who lives in the geographical parish. So in several English parishes most parishioners are Muslim or Jewish.

This is the official understanding of all Roman Catholic geographic parishes too (we do have some personal parishes, which you only become a member of by some definite act).

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The position of the CofE means that the parish priest is required to baptise, marry and bury anyone who lives within the parish, churchgoer or not.

Just curious: Is the expectation/requirement similar in the Church of Scotland? As I recall it is also organized along the traditional parish model (parish as a geographical area rather than simply as a synonym for "congregation").

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Parishioner means someone who lives in the geographical parish. So in several English parishes most parishioners are Muslim or Jewish.

So baptise the lot of 'em!

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

As far as I know the Church of Scotland offers its services to all who live within the different parishes.
With the many schisms in the 1700s and particularly 1843 plus the return in 1920s of some but not all it is difficult to know exactly how the earlier system of parish churches fit in to the kaleidoscope of Presbyterian churches over Scottish territory.

Usually there is one in a town which will be called the (Old)Parish church.

Some parishes are roughly the same as the old pre Reformation parishes,others are called parishes 'quoad sacra' .

The Scottish Episcopal church does not have religious parishes as such.

The Catholic church organisation is divided into territorial parishes (purely within the framework of the Catholic dioceses).

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
With the cuts in clergy, I am not sure how viable church funerals or minister led funerals at the crematorium are going to continue to be, as if there is no-one available (as they are already doing three funerals that day), it's not that easy to find a substitute in some areas.

In this area more than 70% of funerals are humanist or secular. There may not be the Priests but there's also much less of a demand.

I tend to get most of the non conformist ones (as well as those who have no ones) as the undertakers all know that we don't charge. The humanists won't do that.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Un the US there is something called celebrants, which are essentially people who can run a funeral/wedding/whatever for you without any religious component.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

'Celebrant' is,of course, a word taken from the Catholic liturgical language, for the priest who presides at a religious office,such as Mass or Evening Prayer.

It is a word which, at least in Protestant circles here in Scotland, would have rarely been heard of,until it was taken over by secular'celebrants',failing another suitable word to describe their 'ministry'.

We have,here in Scotland, also 'independent celebrants' who will do whatever the client wishes,with or without a religious component.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The delights of being the established church. I assume that Zacchaeus's reference to a parishioner has its own definition as well. Here and most other places it would mean a member of the church, of the congregation.

It sure does have a definition.

Basically the parish has defined geographical boundaries. The whole of Endland is supposed to be covered by a system of parishes and so everybody belongs to a geographical parish. The vicar/rector/whatever their title, is responsible for anybody in their parish unless of course they choose to go to another church.

So if a person has no active church membership and needs to be hatched matched or dispatched it falls to the priest in whose parish they reside.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
In this area more than 70% of funerals are humanist or secular. There may not be the Priests but there's also much less of a demand.

Wow, that's interesting. I didn't realise the demand for humanist/secular funerals was so large already. I wonder how that compares with the rest of the country.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
A dreadful track record - in 1838 and again 120 years later.

There may be something arising from the C of E's status as the established church, but why should the church have had an obligation to bury someone not one of its members? Surely in 1838 any obligation was on the local Congregational minister. The same with your baptism: who were the godparents to be and how serious would have been their promise to bring you up in the faith of the church (by which I mean the universal church, not just the C of E branch of it)? On the face of it, both seem examples of someone seeking the advantages of membership without belonging.

In 1838 there was only one burial ground. Nowhere else to go. In 1958 the Godparents were all regular communicants.

What particular advantage would membership bring?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Thanks Forthview.

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Un the US there is something called celebrants, which are essentially people who can run a funeral/wedding/whatever for you without any religious component.

Since marriage generally falls within the purview of states rather than the federal government, and since laws vary from state, such people may be available in some states but not in all. In my state, the only people who can preside over weddings are those authorized by their religious community to do so or magistrates. Provision is also made for the Quaker tradition, where there isn't any presiding official.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Parishioner means someone who lives in the geographical parish. So in several English parishes most parishioners are Muslim or Jewish.
So baptise the lot of 'em!

If that were their wish, it would be the incumbent's duty to do so.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Parishioner means someone who lives in the geographical parish. So in several English parishes most parishioners are Muslim or Jewish.
So baptise the lot of 'em!
If that were their wish, it would be the incumbent's duty to do so.

That would be fine. Moslem and Jewish parents know perfectly well that by asking for their children to be baptised, they are choosing to make them Christians. [Yipee]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0