|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: Private Christenings / Baptisms
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
News report just in headlines David Cameron's daughter has been christened in a private ceremony attended by family and friends.
Shipmates may disagree but I regard this as being unacceptable.
I do not believe it was just a naming ceremony. It was in fact a baptism.
And, IMO baptisms shoud take place in the context of the worshipping congregation. Private ceremonies seem to me to negate the meaning of the event.
But who am I to protest?
[ 29. September 2011, 07:36: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I don't know anything about David Cameron's event, but I do think there are times when a private ceremony may be hard to avoid.
Suppose your newborn child is in the ICU, not expected to live. You might like to have the child baptized before dying. Some people regard this as important.
Suppose you suffer from agoraphobia and you would find it intensely painful to be in front of a congregation in a large room. You might nonetheless want to become a Christian and therefore want to be baptized.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
Your friends and family ain't a worshipping community?
I seem to remember some dude saying wherever two or more are gathered in Jesus' name...
[ 04. March 2011, 20:17: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John D. Ward
Shipmate
# 1378
|
Posted
In the case of the Prime Minister's child, the first thing that comes to mind is the security requirements.
The second thing that comes to mind is that the family and friends are a worshipping congregation. "When two or three are gathered together..."
<Edit> Cross-posted with Spiffy
[ 04. March 2011, 20:23: Message edited by: John D. Ward ]
Posts: 208 | From: Swansea, Wales, U.K. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I don't know anything about David Cameron's event, but I do think there are times when a private ceremony may be hard to avoid.
In the Orthodox Church, in theory, you cannot have a private baptism (or a private wedding, for that matter). They are sacramentes of the Church, and are therefore the concern of the whole Church.
In practice, of course, private ceremonies are sometimes held. Most often, they're not truly private; they're just scheduled quietly and without fanfare. No one is forbidden from attending, but by not announcing the service, the number of attendees is limited to invited guests.
And occasionally, they really are private. For example, when Mirina Sirtis married, it was definitely by invitation only. It had to be, to prevent the wedding from being turned into a Star Trek Con.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Roots
Apprentice
# 16193
|
Posted
quote:
Posted by Shamwari.
I do not believe it was just a naming ceremony. It was in fact a baptism.
I dont really go for it being a baptism as I believe that can only come on ones own decision. David Cameron would however had enough witnesses to make it acceptable.
Yet, we all have our own understanding of baptism, and if 1 Cor 10 verse 2 is to be understood correctly, we should have all our cattle and donkeys, chariots and gold and silver baptised too, as they went with the Israelites as they passed through the cloud and sea. It could put a whole new perspective on things.
--------------------
Just waiting for the end of the road....seems so far at times....
Posts: 26 | From: The Centre of the Universe | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Roots: I am willing to bet my last shirt that the Clergyman said " I baptise you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit". So it was a baptism.
Joesphine: Fairly typical of the Church. Espouse one thing in public affirmation but do another in practice.
I allow for exceptions. But as a rule I insist that baptisms be done in the context of normal public worship.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I allow for exceptions. But as a rule I insist that baptisms be done in the context of normal public worship.
Am I to understand that security concerns and that the Camerons' high public profile might encourage lots of oddballs to turn up are not allowable exceptions in your view?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
News report just in headlines David Cameron's daughter has been christened in a private ceremony attended by family and friends.
Shipmates may disagree but I regard this as being unacceptable.
I do not believe it was just a naming ceremony. It was in fact a baptism.
And, IMO baptisms shoud take place in the context of the worshipping congregation. Private ceremonies seem to me to negate the meaning of the event.
But who am I to protest?
It's a very Reformed sentiment. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I ask Spiffy what if the two or three gathered together have no connection with the Christian Church, do not acknowledge the Christian Faith and are gathered together purely for familial reasons?
It happens all too often in my experience.
In which case the whole exercise is a farce.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Joesphine: Fairly typical of the Church. Espouse one thing in public affirmation but do another in practice.
The principal of economia allows us a great deal of flexibility in practice, without having to compromise on principal.
quote:
I allow for exceptions. But as a rule I insist that baptisms be done in the context of normal public worship.
Are you a bishop? How do you get to insist how baptisms are done?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I ask Spiffy what if the two or three gathered together have no connection with the Christian Church, do not acknowledge the Christian Faith and are gathered together purely for familial reasons?
It happens all too often in my experience.
In which case the whole exercise is a farce.
I answer shamwari that I'd call it a teaching moment, myself, proclaiming the Gospel to people who otherwise wouldn't dare darken the door of a church.
But I suspect we've got different concepts of family and faith.
[ 04. March 2011, 20:46: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I ask Spiffy what if the two or three gathered together have no connection with the Christian Church, do not acknowledge the Christian Faith and are gathered together purely for familial reasons?
In which case the whole exercise is a farce.
In this case, there were 90 of 'em, so you'd hope some of them believed in God.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Anglicant: If David Cameron went to church as a matter of custom then the necessary security would be in place anyway. If, during the service, he had his daughter baptised and the additions tothe congregation were by personal invite the so-called odd balls would never know.
Strikes me we are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
If you attend a popular church, most baptisms are family-only anyway. That's because there are far too many baptisms to have them in the main Sunday service, so they mostly take place on Sunday afternoons.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
If you attend a popular church, most baptisms are family-only anyway. That's because there are far too many baptisms to have them in the main Sunday service, so they mostly take place on Sunday afternoons.
I attend a popular church but we herd 'em in and herd 'em out at the 8:30 and 11:00 Eucharists on dunking Sundays. That really is the norm in TEC.
--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I have been to a mass baptism and thought how awful it was - rather like a mass moonie wedding I'd expect. There was no sense that each family was special to God, more like a wet bank holiday session at the local swimming pool 'river rapid ride' - lots of water and chaos. Much better that the priest can spend time with the individual child and family concerned.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
my childrens baptisms were "private", meaning they were a separate ceremony, rather than done as part of the regular Sunday liturgy.
I invited many friends who were not regular members of the congregation, alhtough many members of the congregation were also specifically invited, and all were welcome. as someone pointed out any event in held in a church is, by default, open.
I think I understand the point of the OP, though. I know of some "baptisms" where the family of the child, the "godparents" not to mention the guests are not regular members of any congregation (or even more than nominally christian), who have a ceremony because it's just the thing to do, rather than because they belive in the sacramental nature of a baptism. I wonder why they even bother. I have the same reaction to weddings that are held in a chruch not becuause it's the chruch attended by one or the other prinicpal, or their parents, but because it's pictuesque (no regard for denomination). I mean, there are certain unique situations where choosing a church out of a phone book may be appropriate, but I think they are few and far between. so I know what you mean..
but I don't think every weding must be done with the entire congregation there, and same for baptisms. for one thing, that would usually limit the space available for other guests. and baptisms, weddings, and funerals are all events to which one reasonably may want to invite friends from other spheres of one's life! at my daughter's baptism, well over half the guests were membrers of the congregation, but the rest were from work, college fiends, neighbors... friends from other cities/parishes.
it was a huge event, but it was "private" in that it was scheduled separately from the regular chruch services.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
Perhaps because it is our norm and also because we rehearse it on the Saturday before there is no chaos. And the rubrics of our BCP specifically say "Holy Baptism is appropriately administered within the Eucharist as the chief service on a Sunday or other feast." so that's what we try to do.
Besides, I'm not sure it's about how special the family is.
--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Anglicant: If David Cameron went to church as a matter of custom then the necessary security would be in place anyway. If, during the service, he had his daughter baptised and the additions tothe congregation were by personal invite the so-called odd balls would never know.
Once again illustrating our different views of faith and family, more than likely from vastly different experiences of the same.
If I was a public figure and invited a 'small' number of family (taking numbers from Christmas shindig at the ancestral Ranch in 2010, it'd be about 75 people), about half the invites would be on eBay and a quarter of them would be negotiating with paparazzi for film rights to their cell video.
Thank God I'm not a public figure. Or a parent.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
It was held at the normal parish church of the family in London. I don't know how often they go there or whether they are on the roll there, but they are certainly known there. I don't think it was private in the sense of 'private' just not public in the sense of the world's press being invited. It's a church that is used to minor royals, politicians, etc.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angel Wrestler
Ship's Hipster
# 13673
|
Posted
Not sure about the specifics of the Cameron christening, because I don't know the reasons given for holding a christening apart from the main service.
Baptisms are to be done in the community of believers with which one is affiliating. However, there are extraneous circumstances that might prohibit this. I did one at someone's home because there was an illness that prevented church attendance. They invited family and friends from the church, but due to the logistics, could not host everybody. As mentioned up-thread, a baby in the ICU - that was the circumstance of the very first baptism I did (and happily enough, the baby had heart surgery and came through wonderfully).
Another time, the youth of a confirmation class decided they wanted to be baptized by immersion. Not only was that mode fairly common in the area, but the class and I had explored the symbolism behind the different rituals of the Sacrament. Since there was no baptismal pool in the church, we used one of the girls' backyard pool. To make it a congregational event, the family hosted a party for the church. Fortunately, it was a small church and that was possible. It was very nice.
There are reasons to hold christening outside the normal main worship service, but I agree that a good representation of the congregation must be there; a key part of the sacrament is the congregation's promise to the one being baptized.
Ultimately, we're not asking people to claim someone's life; we're asking God.
--------------------
The fact that no one understands you does not make you an artist.
(unknown)
Posts: 2767 | From: half-way up the ladder | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I'm still not at all sure it is right to baptise 5 or 6 babies all at once every week, though. Sine Nomine seems to think that is fine, I don't. To me it smacks of a conveyor belt system.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Shipmates may disagree but I regard this as being unacceptable.
I guess you learn something new every day. I've never heard of anyone having this attitude. I thought that private baptisms were far more common than public ones.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
There is no such thing as a private service. As shipmates have pointed out, 'where two or three are gathered together'.
But even if only one were present, s/he stands with angels and archangels and all the company of heaven. Quite a crowd, I'd have thought.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I'm still not at all sure it is right to baptise 5 or 6 babies all at once every week, though. Sine Nomine seems to think that is fine, I don't. To me it smacks of a conveyor belt system.
This is how adult baptisms seem to work, in my experience. Several people get baptised in one service. I've never seen it as a conveyor belt system - more a fellowship thing (and with adult baptisms, there is the practicality aspect of getting the pool out).
Of the infant baptisms I've been to, most were private (as in a separate service, where family and friends were invited and attended - I'm not sure if the services were open to others if they wanted to come). I went to one where several babies were baptised together, and I liked that one more - there was more of a sense of church community (but then that happened in the context of regular church attenders having their babies baptised as part of their church experience, whereas the others were people who didn't normally attend church doing it because it's the thing to do).
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
Of the infant baptisms I've been to, most were private (as in a separate service, where family and friends were invited and attended - I'm not sure if the services were open to others if they wanted to come). I went to one where several babies were baptised together, and I liked that one more - there was more of a sense of church community
That's my experience too. My church is quite large and only occasionally do people choose to have baptisms as part of the regular Sunday service. Usually they happen immediately afterwards with a smaller group of friends and family, not that they are not open to anyone who would like to come.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lola
Ship's kink
# 627
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I'm still not at all sure it is right to baptise 5 or 6 babies all at once every week, though. Sine Nomine seems to think that is fine, I don't. To me it smacks of a conveyor belt system.
We used to have 5 or 6 babies baptised at the same time in the morning Eucharist but only once a month. The new rector changed this and now baptisms happen in a separate ceremony and the families are invited to come to the regular service on the following Sunday to be welcomed by the congregation.
Actually I miss the mass baptisms. But I'm not in charge.
Posts: 951 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Are you a bishop? How do you get to insist how baptisms are done?
Shamwari is a Methodist minister. The practice as to how baptisms are done in the church(es) where (s)he has pastoral charge is indeed up to him/her. I'm also a Methodist minister: my own practice (which is fairly typical) is that baptisms are normally administered during the principal act of public worship on a Sunday. I would derogate from that in cases of emergency or other serious pastoral necessity. I doubt, however, that baptising the Prime Minister's child is a situation with which I am going to have to contend!
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Usually they happen immediately afterwards with a smaller group of friends and family, not that they are not open to anyone who would like to come.
This is what I was thinking (although, as I've tended to go to churches which do adult baptism, I wasn't sure) - that these services are not private in terms of exclusive. Anyone can attend, but in all likelihood, it will just be friends and family who attend, because most people aren't likely to turn up to random baptisms just because they can. Particularly if the family who are having their baby baptised are not actually regular church attenders, and they are just doing the baptism out of tradition. People who don't know them would likely feel like they were intruding, or it might be awkward.
But with the Prime Minister, everyone knows who he is, so there wouldn't be the same sense of appropriateness and respect. There's the whole fame aspect, so people would want to take photos. There's the fact that lots of people hate him, and might want to heckle. Potentially thousands of people would want to turn up for all kinds of reasons, and very few would be about the actual meaning of baptism. So to me it makes perfect sense for him to make it a private ceremony - for the safety of him and his family, for the sanctity of the occasion.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
+Chad
Staffordshire Lad
# 5645
|
Posted
Unless I'm misreading certain posts, there seems to be some confusion about the term private service.
A celebration of Holy Baptism outside of the principal service on a Sunday does not constitute a private service. It may be that the only people present are the family and friends of the baptismal candidate, but that does not make it private. The doors are open, and anyone may enter. The law prescribes unhindered access to services.
I don't know if the doors were locked for the baptismal service in S Mary Abbots yesterday. I would be surprised if they were. Only family and friends attended, that doesn't mean others were physically prevented.
I don't doubt that security was tight, and that there were heavies near the door, inside and out.
My guess is that it was a situation similar to this from Josephine's post:
quote:
In practice, of course, private ceremonies are sometimes held. Most often, they're not truly private; they're just scheduled quietly and without fanfare. No one is forbidden from attending, but by not announcing the service, the number of attendees is limited to invited guests.
--------------------
Chad (The + is silent)
Where there is tea there is hope.
Posts: 2698 | From: The Backbone of England | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lily pad
Shipmate
# 11456
|
Posted
My brother's children were baptized in a Roman Catholic church with just the family present. It was just the way it was done. Although that is not my tradition, it didn't feel like anyone was shortchanged.
In Presbyterian congregations,for those of my parents' generation, baptisms were done at home with just the family present and not in the church building. It has been quite a shift and is much lamented by some who prefer that way.
--------------------
Sloppiness is not caring. Fussiness is caring about the wrong things. With thanks to Adeodatus!
Posts: 2468 | From: Truly Canadian | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
My littlest great-niece was baptised in a public service with some 10-12 other babies/toddlers immediately after the last Mass of the Sunday, but it was certainly well publicised. In practice though, only family and interested friends were there to observe, although had others wished to join the cheerful chaos I am sure they would have been welcome.
Recently I have only seen one infant baptism which was held as part of a regular service. The parents requested that. I have also observed baptisms taking place before Mass.
The norm when I was younger was that a child was bought within a day or two of its birth to be baptised. This was done either in the Church or the home, as circumstances dictated. In either case there was a gathering of at least 4 or 5 Faithful to participate - priest, infant, parents and god-parent(s). In practice, I would say siblings, grandparents, and other close relatives were there as well.
Different strokes for different folk, I'd say.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Isn't holding baptisms during the primary Sunday service a pretty recent preoccupation in the Church of England?
Here in the US, it's getting pretty common to hold four baptism services a year during the primary Sunday service. Honestly, at most Episcopal parishes there isn't anyone to baptize half the time.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
All of this seems to assume there is a "principal Sunday service." I'm familiar with many Anglican churches were this is true (maybe it's universal), but it's not the norm in RC Churches. Thinking of just one former parish of mine, there were six Sunday services (one Saturday night, four Sunday morning, one Sunday evening). Some were better attended than others, but there wasn't a sense that any was 'principle' and the others were in some way derivative or lesser.
The practice at that parish was an interesting test case for this question. We had a baptism service almost every Saturday afternoon (taking a few off around Christmas and Easter I think). Each of these would typically have two or three infants. It was public in the sense of open to anyone, but normally only family and guests attended. On a few Sundays throughout the year, there would be baptisms as part of one of the Sunday Masses. To 'get in' at one of these was seen as some kind of prize, reserved for people who were involved with some kind of ministry at the parish.
Part of me completely understands that we couldn't do all the baptisms that (thanks be to God!) were requested at Sunday Masses, but it's good for the faithful for there to be some, so you've got to select somehow. Part of me was slightly uncomfortable with the 'reward' element of the whole thing.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I suppose the main reason why some say that baptisms should be done within the context of the worshipping community is theological.
Is it incorporation into the Body of Christ, the worshipping community? Or is it regeneration?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Yes, to both of those.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
If you attend a popular church, most baptisms are family-only anyway.
OH NOES!!!!!
We aren't popular enough!!!!!
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I thought that private baptisms were far more common than public ones.
I'm pretty sure our parish hasn't done one for twenty years - and I wouldn't know about before then.
Baptisms maybe about six or ten times a year, in the ordinary mornign service, with anything from one to five babies being done.
If even half of them stayed to become regular attending members of the church we'd have outgrown our building long ago.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And occasionally, they really are private. For example, when Mirina Sirtis married, it was definitely by invitation only. It had to be, to prevent the wedding from being turned into a Star Trek Con.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
This is now an exception in the Anglican Church of Canada , Having said that Mr Cameron being in the position he is maybe didn't want to make a spectacle of it. And for the record the Royal family baptisms are always private, defined as family only. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lurcher
Apprentice
# 12704
|
Posted
I am afraid as a priest, I don't offer private baptisms. I am though willing to offer a service of thanksgiving at any time. I regard baptism as a sacrament, and have baptised parents and godparents before the baby is done.
Posts: 44 | From: Birmingham | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Yes, St Chad is correct when I refer to private baptisms I mean ones that are conducted in an afternoon service to which families and friends are invited. But the baptisms are announced in the pew sheet and the doors are open, so anyone can come in, specifically invited or not. The same happens at weddings. We don't get it so much now, but we used to get people just turning up because they liked to see a wedding, even if they didn't know the couple.
I should imagine that, even if St. Mary Abbots adopted this policy, they would have had security staff on the door for the baptism of the Prime Minister's daughter, just as they would for any event involving senior government staff. That said, when Charles Kennedy turned up to a wedding in our church a while ago, I don't remember seeing any security staff anywhere. He was just treated like any other guest. Perhaps you actually have to be Prime Minister for anyone to take any notice.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Isn't holding baptisms during the primary Sunday service a pretty recent preoccupation in the Church of England?
Here in the US, it's getting pretty common to hold four baptism services a year during the primary Sunday service. Honestly, at most Episcopal parishes there isn't anyone to baptize half the time.
And when there is, in my experience, it's almost evenly split between itty bitty babies and adults.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I am aware of two baptisms in recent years which were held privately (as in, doors-closed, by invitation, outside main services) on account of security and media-avoidance reasons. In the circumstances, this was entirely sensible and I could not think of calling them unacceptable.
As well, in Ontario (and likely other places) some smaller diasporic churches do not have enough members in some places for regular services, and travelling clergy only come around for baptisms and weddings--Armenians and Antiochians in Cornwall, Copts in Perth, Assyrians in Picton.
I also don't see why a baptism must be held at the main (hour-long, hymns and sermon, etc) service. If the parent(s) are habitual frequenters of vespers or an early morning Mass and are members of those worshipping communities, then why force them to go to another service where they know few people (if anyone) -- if we're going to do that sort of thing, surely it would be better to get back to our roots and return to the patristic and late apostolic practice of the bishop performing all baptisms at Easter. The symbolism of incorporation into the Church would work far better and, should other churches join in at the event-- especially those which are engaged in covenant relationshsips, we would have powerful symbolism of Christian unity and overcoming division.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hare today
Shipmate
# 12974
|
Posted
"Private" Baptisms are not and have not been unusual. I was baptised by my Grandfather at a private CofE ceremony nearly 72 years ago. My two sons were baptised in the Methodist church at baptismal services where only the families of the two children being baptised were present as congregation. For the 10 years when my wife ran the village church choir there was a monthly baptism service for (usually) about six children. The families filled the church. The parents were invited to attend morning service the following week so that the child could be welcomed into the congregation. On a few occasions they came.
Baptisms in the cathedral are usually shortly after the Sunday morning service and the congregation are invited to join the family if they wish.
--------------------
Ht
Come let us sing of a wonderful love (1933 MHB No 314)
Posts: 401 | From: Middle England | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hare today:
The parents were invited to attend morning service the following week so that the child could be welcomed into the congregation. On a few occasions they came.
That's the sad thing, isn't it?
What is the point in having your child baptised if you don't intend being part of the Church?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
What is the point in having your child baptised if you don't intend being part of the Church?
Because you don't have to attend church to be a child of God.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
What is the point in having your child baptised if you don't intend being part of the Church?
Because you don't have to attend church to be a child of God.
Nor do you have to be baptised to be a child of God.
Baptism is about joining the Church family, not God's family.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
Being 'part of the church' doesn't just mean being part of the church visible. It means being part of the whole church catholic, visible and invisible, militant, expectant, and triumphant, on earth and beyond the grave.
By baptism a person joins that vast community. It does not need a set amount of people to be present for that to happen. All it needs is for someone to administer the sacrament. All Christian traditions hold that this can be done by any other Christian, male or female, ordained or lay.
Not only is it something we do, but more importantly one might argue, something that God does for/to us. Family only, in a packed church at morning service in front of the whole congregation, by the shores of Galilee, at a hospital bedside, in an ancient font or in a swimming pool, in a puddle by the side of the road, it is all the same.
Who is there, at what time of day, the desirablilty or not of full visibility -it is irrelevant.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
