|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: Private Christenings / Baptisms
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I seem to remember that when Philip baptised the Ethiopian eunuch it was a 'private baptism'.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
Upon the advice of an Ecclesiantics Host I am recognizing what I should have recognized upon first reading this thread -- this is about a worship practice and thus belongs in Eccles. Fasten your seatbelts and enjoy the ride, and please continue discussion in your new venue.
Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host
--------------------
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
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
In a rural context a given parish church may have 2-3 clergy led services a month.
One of these may be 8.30, which is not great for a baptism, and another worship that is not ideal for Baptisms (BCP, Mattins H/C, Said Service, Evensong, etc).
This leaves one Sunday in the month which is probably a family service with a priest that may or may not be Eucharistic.
Clergy are then faced with the choice of either forcing particular dates or being willing to offer private services.
In my training parish we had a different problem. Up to 7 baptisms a month, with 40+ guests each.
The 'Baptism Sunday in family service" would have been impracticable (an my experience of this is that the regulars soon take that Sunday off) due to time and seating. A Baptism every Sunday would really skew the liturgy and teaching of parish life.
So afternoon baptism (of up to 3 or 4 children) with certificates at the monthly family service made sense.
[ 05. March 2011, 19:18: Message edited by: Edward Green ]
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Gwladys
Shipmate
# 14504
|
Posted
I don't like the idea of baptisms taking place outside of a "normal" service. In the baptism rite, the family and godparents promise to bring the child up in the ways of God and as part of the Christian family. It seems to be thumbing their noses at the "Christian family" to exclude them by having a private baptism. And even for the families that have their children baptised in a service, there are so many times when I've seen the family leave immediately after the child has been baptised, so don't even stay for the Communion, or if they stay, don't bother to take the child to the alter rail,which again goes against the promises they have just made.
I have to admit, I'm not a fan of infant baptisms anyway.
--------------------
"I say - are you a matelot?"
"Careful what you say sir, we're on board ship here"
From "New York Girls", Steeleye Span, Commoners Crown (Voiced by Peter Sellers)
Posts: 3333 | From: Rhymney Valley, South Wales | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lurcher
Apprentice
# 12704
|
Posted
Who is there, at what time of day, the desirablilty or not of full visibility -it is irrelevant
I am not sure that is correct? When I baptise someone I am baptised them into the Christian community. Surely, this means the Christian community should be there.
But I take the point about rural communities, but here in Birmingham, I think excuses like people have to travel for an hour to get there are pretty thin.
Posts: 44 | From: Birmingham | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
What does "private" mean? I can see how calling up a priest to stop by your house and baptize your kid isn't usually a good practice, but as long as it's done in the church where in theory any may attend, I say you are fine. No need to have it on Sunday morning.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
Lurcher
the Christian community (as explained in a previous post) comprises also the church invisible - which maybe IS there.
Even in a 'private' baptism part of the whole church is present 'angels and archangels and all the company of heaven'. Indeed, the church expectant and triumphant beyond the grave.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lurcher
Apprentice
# 12704
|
Posted
Yes, Sebby - I have no problems with that.
I have problems with people choosing a particular time to fit their own convenience because they are not particularly religious.
That seems to me to be beyond the pale. So, therefore I am reluctant ever to baptise outside of a service at which I would expect a good number of regular worshippers to be present
Posts: 44 | From: Birmingham | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gill H
Shipmate
# 68
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
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.
And to prevent people trying to see whether she was getting married in the traditional Betazoid manner ... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.
- Lyda Rose
Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I actually had to google to see who David Cameron is - he doesn't seem to have a very high profile in my neck of the woods.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
This morning we had 5 babies being baptised. There were so many parents and godparents and babies flying around that I wouldn't possibly be able to recognise them again if they came again or if I walked past them in the street. Due to sensory overload. When only one or two children are baptised, the congregation can take in details of who they are, which parents they belong to, what the families look like, and are therefore more easily able to recognise them and chat to them when they see them again.
Baptised children may not obviously join in with the church immediately, but there is often a lasting effect. Many of them come on through the church mums and toddler groups, go to Sunday School, etc. We have had several who later joined the choir after being baptised several years earlier - their parents want them to become part of the wider church, just not necessarily all at once and every week.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Baptised children may not obviously join in with the church immediately, but there is often a lasting effect. Many of them come on through the church mums and toddler groups, go to Sunday School, etc. We have had several who later joined the choir after being baptised several years earlier - their parents want them to become part of the wider church, just not necessarily all at once and every week.
This is a good point and one I hadn't thought of before.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
However, iyt may not always be convenient or possible to baptise during the main service.
People are so used to being told 'no, office hours are on Mondays' or 'there's the end of the queue' at the DSS office, it would be delightful to think that the church was the one organisation that always said 'yes, of course. How can we help? What is convenient for YOU.'
A digression I know, sorry!
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
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 term principal service or Mass comes from the old Roman liturgical books, and was used to refer to the High Mass or, if there were more than one, the most solemn and/or well-attended. Most parishes had but one High Mass and it was usually around 11AM or so, so it was relatively easy to identify.
For example, the rubrics directed that the Asperges Me (or in Eastertide, the Vidi Aquam) be celebrated before the principal High Mass every Sunday.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
Sacraments don't have to be given in public. They tend to be, yes, but the important thing is the sacrament rather than the public!
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Sacraments don't have to be given in public. They tend to be, yes, but the important thing is the sacrament rather than the public!
Surely baptism isn't about anything happening to the child, but is all about the promises the parents are making?
If so, then I'd imagine those promises would be better made alongside the Church family rather than in private - if at all possible?
<typo>
[ 06. March 2011, 14:39: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Sacraments don't have to be given in public. They tend to be, yes, but the important thing is the sacrament rather than the public!
Surely baptism isn't about anything happening to the child, but is all about the promises the parents are making?
If so, then I'd imagine those promises would be better made alongside the Church family rather than in private - if at all possible?
<typo>
I'd have said that baptism binds the child into the Church and conveys grace on him/her, and that the promises of the parents are simply solemn assurances that that grace will not go wasted, but will be the followed by a dedicated Christian upbringing and education, so that the flame of holiness might be fruitfully fanned in him/her.
The promises of the parents would in that sense be an assurance necessary to make the sacrament more fully meaningful in the longer term.
And a promise being a promise, it only needs to be made, and conveniently the priest is there to hear it. It's more normal and more verifiable to have the baptism in public with many to hear the promises, but I can't understand why it would be at all necessary.
A personal example. My great grandmother had all her children baptised in secret, because her atheist husband had gone back on his marital assurances and was opposed to bringing up children in the Church. The mother was there, a godparent was there, and the priest was there. I very much doubt that the absence of miscellaneous other parishioners invalidated the sacrament.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
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.
Surely you're not doing 24 every month in Cream Tea Land are you? Why not spread them out at one or two a week - solves the problem.
I just can't understand how anyone can justify theologically or whatever the idea that a correct baptism: thanksgiving: dedication: immersioncan be performed or undertaken in private - it's meant to be a public declaration. On the two occasions I've been asked to do it outside a "normal" service, I have refused.
The only circumstances I would consider is one of in extremis - e.g someone who is possibly going to die. The prayer book and the rites of the Anglican Church allow for any believer to do just that - not just a "priest."
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I seem to remember that when Philip baptised the Ethiopian eunuch it was a 'private baptism'.
How private is a water hole in the desert? It was public enough for anyone who passed by to see it.
The idea of "private" is surely an issue of intent: fif the baptism is advertised and known it isn't private even if no-one turns up. What I find it impossible to acept is that priests choose to conduct baptisms outside normal service times thus depriving the church of the oportunity to offer support and also reinforcing the modren trend of the vast % of baptisms to be simply social events.
Baptising within the context of a broader form or worship allows families to access the worshipping community where they may well be challenged by the gospel. (Of course, the gospel does have to be preached but that's another thread and another story.....)
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Isn't holding baptisms during the primary Sunday service a pretty recent preoccupation in the Church of England?
Zach
Yes. The strength with which some adhere to this relatively new tradition is therefore surprizing. It's rather a neat and tidy little theology that justifies it - nothing wrong with that. But similarly there is good theology and pastoral practice behind baptizing outside of main Sunday service, from time to time, too.
The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. To slavishly tie oneself to one inflexible context of performing a vital gospel sacrament, when in the case of each family the needs and situations are unique, seems not very sensible, to my mind.
Interestingly, because of 'mixed marriages' where I am at the moment, I seem to spend a good part of my time trying to talk families into the Sunday morning service option; who would much rather go 'private'! But my experience in other churches where baptisms were numerous and crowded, the negative effects on everyone concerned of the 'main service only' option would've been considerable. Just because something is pragmatic, doesn't mean it's not theologically justifiable - or right!
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Surely you're not doing 24 every month in Cream Tea Land are you? Why not spread them out at one or two a week - solves the problem.
That means that we would have to have every morning service as a baptism service - which means no adult sermon, no psalm, no old testament reading, and several other important parts of the normal Eucharist missed out. The baptism takes up a large part of the service, and the rest of the service is simplified ('this is our story, this is our song'). Every week that would get very tedious - adults' needs are not the same as children's needs. Also there would be no Sunday school, as the children always stay in for baptisms as they like to watch what goes on. Far better to have in-service baptisms once a month and other baptisms on Sunday afternoons in special services.
(In a typical month, we have about 10 baptisms.)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Sunday Morning: Holy Communion, which includes, once a month, a welcome, prayers, and blessing for baptismal families (part of their preparation).
Sunday afternoon: baptisms, not more than two families at a time, with members of the regular congregation in attendance. Congregations of up to 150, mostly unchurched family and friends. Opportunity to preach the Gospel and to teach.
This was the pattern in my old parish. It worked. In other parishes when the baptisms HAD to be in the regular Sunday service, the congregation was swamped, the sermon was drowned out, chaos reigned, and everyone went away fed up.
A third option, which I saw used in All Saints Fulham, involved baptising immediately after the principal morning service (which, IIRC, was an Family Service), which would have been attended by the family and friends of the child to be baptised. That seemed to work pretty well too.
In none of these examples could the baptism be called 'private' however. They were held in the church. The doors were open: anyone could attend.
What I think of as a private baptism is one done at someone's house or in the hospital: these, IMO, require special pastoral circumstances.
[ 06. March 2011, 21:47: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
In none of these examples could the baptism be called 'private' however. They were held in the church. The doors were open: anyone could attend.
What I think of as a private baptism is one done at someone's house or in the hospital: these, IMO, require special pastoral circumstances.
I guess this is the norm in most CofE churches. However, there is rather a difference between leaving the doors open for anyone who chooses to come in, and specifically expecting many members of the church to be in attendance to welcome the child. I can't see how it's feasible to expect large numbers of the congregation to turn up to the baptism of a child they don't know and have never heard of, if they have already been to church once that day and may well be coming again to evensong.
Strangely, we did have a large number (5) of baptisms this morning. And the children were really quiet.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
The thing to do is to have a group of volunteers within the congregation whose particular ministry is to welcome baptismal families. Two or three of them can attend each baptism. Simple.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
A bit of recent history which probably fits with what Anselmina has just said.
The Camerons, as far as I know, are CofE, not Methodists, Romans or Baptists. They certainly aren't any variety of US Episcopalian. So it is CofE practice that is relevant, not anyone else's. It sounds though as if CofI practice is similar.
As far as the CofE is concerned, back in the days when all services were 1662, baptisms were normally done as a separate service, often held on Sunday afternoons. This applied when I was baptised (1940s).
Something that has been encouraged under the liturgical changes over the last fifty years or so, has been to have baptisms in main Sunday services. This was the practice by the time my children were baptised (1970s). It has been the usual 'norm' in the churches I have belonged to since. It is widespread. I also get the impression it is generally assumed now to be what usually happens by most those who seek baptism for their children.
It is, however, neither universal not compulsory. I went to a relative's separate Sunday afternoon baptism about 1990.
My own preference is for baptism as part of a main service, but it's not overwhelming. Separate services are a bit old fashioned. I have never heard anyone suggest that either practice is more or less valid than the other, nor that following either practice made it 'just a naming ceremony' despite the presence of water and the three persons of the Trinity.
Nor has there ever been a requirement that a valid baptism must be administered on a Sunday rather than a weekday.
There's a serious issue that divides the CofE (and for that matter the Methodists, URC, Romans and Orthodox) from the Baptists and the Brethren, but for those of us that belong to communions that baptise babies, I would have expected that we welcome Florence Rose Endellion into the household of faith, irrespective of when the baptism took place or who was invited to attend.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Sacraments don't have to be given in public. They tend to be, yes, but the important thing is the sacrament rather than the public!
Nope, sacraments are public. It is an act of worship of the Body of Christ. The more, the better.
It also depends on how many sacraments your eccelesial community believes there are. The most popular numbers are two and seven. I believe there are two.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
moveable_type
Shipmate
# 9673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Isn't holding baptisms during the primary Sunday service a pretty recent preoccupation in the Church of England?
Zach
Yes. The strength with which some adhere to this relatively new tradition is therefore surprizing. It's rather a neat and tidy little theology that justifies it - nothing wrong with that. But similarly there is good theology and pastoral practice behind baptizing outside of main Sunday service, from time to time, too.
The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. To slavishly tie oneself to one inflexible context of performing a vital gospel sacrament, when in the case of each family the needs and situations are unique, seems not very sensible, to my mind.
Interestingly, because of 'mixed marriages' where I am at the moment, I seem to spend a good part of my time trying to talk families into the Sunday morning service option; who would much rather go 'private'! But my experience in other churches where baptisms were numerous and crowded, the negative effects on everyone concerned of the 'main service only' option would've been considerable. Just because something is pragmatic, doesn't mean it's not theologically justifiable - or right!
This thread is thankfully much more good-natured than the previous one on this subject, but it's worth a look, since many of the same issues came up.
Baptism at the main service is strongly encouraged/required in the 1552 and 1662 BCPs, in Canada in the 1962 and also the BAS. (though not, interestingly, in the US 1928) which raises issues that people arguing for private baptism as traditionalists have to answer.
On the other hand, having navigated through two baptisms held at complicated A/C services that conflicted with both babies' nap cycles, I see the practical case for the quiet Sunday afternoon baptisms of the 1950s.
Posts: 1062 | From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I cannot understand why having a baptism in the context of worship should require that the sermon and/or readings and anything else should be truncated as has been claimed.
My practice is to do the baptism early on in the service with the Junior Church children present. Having welcomed the newest member they leave for Junior Church (together with any children of invitees present) and we go through the service as normal. OT and Gospel readings; full blown sermon; hymns ( and offertory!!)
It also happens to expose all the guests at the baptism to the normal worship of the Church.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
One reason I think baptisms should be part of the main Sunday service is so that those bringing children to baptism can see that the Church is a living and breathing worshipping community. If baptisms are done at a separate service, the church can become to be seen merely as a building that can be hired for weddings and christenings.
[ 07. March 2011, 08:53: Message edited by: Spike ]
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Nope, sacraments are public. It is an act of worship of the Body of Christ. The more, the better.
It also depends on how many sacraments your eccelesial community believes there are. The most popular numbers are two and seven. I believe there are two.
I think you're right that what other sacraments you believe is going to influence your views on this. I totally agree that a sacrament is an "act of worship of the Body of Christ." That doesn't mean it has to be "public" in the sense people here mean it, though. The sacrament of reconciliation, for instance, is very definitely private and I'd very much like to keep it like that!
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I think I might prefer private baptisms. The whole section of the service feels like a private moment, with all the critter's relatives and friends of the family and photographer present. This "renewal of baptismal vows" business sure seems like a new thing they invented to justify the presence of the congregation.
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
One reason I think baptisms should be part of the main Sunday service is so that those bringing children to baptism can see that the Church is a living and breathing worshipping community. If baptisms are done at a separate service, the church can become to be seen merely as a building that can be hired for weddings and christenings.
Yes - and their reasons for baptism could well be that they see it as somehow changing the child.
It doesn't imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Surely you're not doing 24 every month in Cream Tea Land are you? Why not spread them out at one or two a week - solves the problem.
That means that we would have to have every morning service as a baptism service - which means no adult sermon, no psalm, no old testament reading, and several other important parts of the normal Eucharist missed out. The baptism takes up a large part of the service, and the rest of the service is simplified ('this is our story, this is our song'). Every week that would get very tedious - adults' needs are not the same as children's needs. Also there would be no Sunday school, as the children always stay in for baptisms as they like to watch what goes on. Far better to have in-service baptisms once a month and other baptisms on Sunday afternoons in special services.
(In a typical month, we have about 10 baptisms.)
Thanks Chorister! A lopt of baptisms in a month - good news! Much the same for the local Anglican church here not many miles up or down the 386.
Just a few thoughts.
Can't see the tiem problem myself. Don't do infant baptisms (different denom these days) but do offer child thanksgiving/dedications - I can usaully manage these in a morning service without undue problems in just over the hour and this is a church that looks for pretty extensive teaching ministry.
If it can be made to work it will.
As a matter of interest/info, saw an adult baptism last night with 120+ people and all done (sermon, testimony, full explanation) in 70 minutes. It can be done!
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
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.
Cabinet ministers and senior opposition politicians do get offered bodyguards (and those who have been Prime Minister or involved with Northern Ireland sometimes keep them after they resign) Some choose not to be guarded, others are only protected this way when at public events.
But the bodyguards do not, by and large, wear dark glasses and black suits with bulging pockets, or have wires coming out of their ears. Nor do they always crowd round their protectee. They are quite good at blending in to crowds. If there was one in the church the chances are you would not have noticed unless you were looking for them, and maybe not even then. For example, a police bodyguard who is protecting someone in a bar or restaurant might buy themselves a drink, or some food, and sit by themselves at another table atr the side of the room with a view of their principal and of the doors or windows. So maybe if they were guarding someone at a baptism one of them might be part of the baptism party and sit near but not next to the parents - how are you to tell that the young man isn't a cousin or brother-in law? - and another might sit in the pew at the back near the door - might look like just another woman come in to church to pray - and they would probably take part in the service as well.
The Americans, I am reliably informed, do not do things this way.
[ 07. March 2011, 15:01: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I cannot understand why having a baptism in the context of worship should require that the sermon and/or readings and anything else should be truncated as has been claimed.
Because middle-class English people are brought up to believe that it is rude to tell anyone anything about religion that they might not agree with. And it is bad to be rude to guests and visitors. So it is terminally embarrassing to preach Christian doctrine to baptism parties which are full of unbelievers.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
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.
I attend a church that is popular by CofE standards, but we have room in the pews for at least two or three additional gatherings of baptism relatives at every Sunday eucharist, even so. When we first started attending the church, there were no baptisms as part of the main service, but now in addition to the 12 noon baptism service every couple of months, there are probably 5 or 6 a year done in the main service too.
About half of these are of babies of regular congregation members but the other half seem to be random members of the public who don't know that you are supposed to turn off your mobile phone in church, that clubwear is not usual in our congregation, that it is best not to let your toddler wander behind the altar rail (owing to the rather hot thuribles and candles), and that the service ends at the same time for everyone. Though it is of course possible that the parents are regulars (and I don't recognise them) and it's the rest of the extended family that haven't been to church before.
This is not particularly by way of a moan at the behaviour of newcomers to the church, but more making the point that it seems to have previously been the practice for all babies to be baptised out of the main service (in a special occasional baptismal service, with several babies "done" at a time, I gather), even if the parents were members of the regular congregation. These were not just "another service" of the congregation, they were clearly advertised as a baptismal service. Because they were advertised, they could not be termed "private" but they were clearly separate. This is the same as Chorister describes.
Now, some baptisms have shifted to the main service, and it's not all regular members who have shifted - some are clearly new or unfamiliar with our church.
I am fairly sure I have not seen any baptisms within the main service of more than one baby (maybe siblings). It may be that there are very large numbers of additional babies being "dunked" at the separate baptismal services, and it is of course possible that some families are advised not to have their baptism in the main service as their guests would overwhelm the congregation - but we could always seat them all in the side chapel or something.
But it seems to me that the separate services grew up somehow but recently the church has realised this is not the best way to welcome a child and family into the Church. The fact that the separate services persist suggests to me that either some families are far huger than I can imagine, or that some families want their child baptised but don't want to have to come to a regular Sunday service to do it.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The thing to do is to have a group of volunteers within the congregation whose particular ministry is to welcome baptismal families. Two or three of them can attend each baptism. Simple.
I like that idea.
As Chukovsky says, it seems to work well in GB to have a mixture of baptisms-within-main-services and also baptisms in a separate Sunday service. (And if the separate Services have members of the congregation there as well, all the better. Perhaps they could introduce the family to other church groups suitable for parents and young children, too.)
I'm not too sure how it gets decided which services which families are encouraged to attend, but suspect that the parents are offered the choice of both. Some parents are more confident than others; some babies cry more than others - maybe some families feel more confident if they are able to have a quieter service than the main Sunday one.
--------------------
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
As an usher I grumble on 'baptism Sundays' because of the number of non-regulars present who don't know the offertory or communion drills, talk loud before the service, etc. But that's just me being grumpy. The rubrics say what the rubrics say and we try to do the best we can. Of course we're in a different position in TEC compared to the CofE, which apparently English citizens view as 'their tax dollars at work' when it comes to providing spiritual services.
I forgot how many Sundays are considered 'appropriate for baptisms' although I know the next one up is of course the Great Vigil – which really can be a cattle call what with all the baptisms and confirmations.
--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
How many infant baptisms per parish?
There are about 700,000 live births in England and Wales per year - about one for every 50 people.
Less than one baby in five is baptised in the Church of England - so 140,000 maximum. About one baptism for every ten people who attend church, or for every 250 who don't.
There are abut ten thousand CofE churches, so we would guess 14 per church per year.
Children (other than those whos parents are on the parish electoral roll) will normally be baprised in the poarish their parents live in, so other things being equal we would expect more of them in small rural parishes than in large urban parishes.
Round here parishes typically have populations of six to ten thousand. A parish of four thousand is likely to be merged with another unless it has a very popular church that draws people from oputside. A parish of two thousand probably will be closed.
In rural areas parishes of less than two thousand are common - I think in Hereford the mean parish population is under one thousand, including the towns. Many are smaller than that, four or five hundred is not uncommon. A parish that size is unlikely to have more than ten to twenty regular adult worshippers and probably can't put a service on every Sunday - or if it does they will be lay led. But apart from the children of those regular churchgoers they are likely to have one or two baptisms a year. So why not have them in the main service?
A large urban parish is going to have 30-40 infant baptisms a year. But it ought to have the resources to cope with that. Baptisms once a month maybe?
I think we typically have about twenty but I haven't checked. As I said I think we just baptise in the main Sunday morning service, and we have done that for as long as I've been at this church, now over twenty years. If there are hole-in-a-corner baptisms in the afternoons they don't tell me about it.
[ 07. March 2011, 15:58: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
A bit of recent history which probably fits with what Anselmina has just said.
The Camerons, as far as I know, are CofE, not Methodists, Romans or Baptists. They certainly aren't any variety of US Episcopalian. So it is CofE practice that is relevant, not anyone else's.
And it seems important to remember, in line with what ken says above, that the CofE is in a quite different position from any American church. As I understand it, as the national church it must provide for the baptism of all comers who live within the parish. Is that right? (And is it the same in the Church of Scotland?)
We don't have the same situation here. Here, I think the normal pattern (among those who baptize infants) would be that baptisms are mostly limited to the children and perhaps grandchildren of members of the parish or congregation. It's a different dynamic.
[ 07. March 2011, 16:31: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by shamwari:
[qb] ... it is bad to be rude to guests and visitors. So it is terminally embarrassing to preach Christian doctrine to baptism parties which are full of unbelievers.
Why?
Does their golf club let me set the rules on the course?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
As an usher I grumble on 'baptism Sundays' because of the number of non-regulars present who don't know the offertory or communion drills, talk loud before the service, etc. But that's just me being grumpy.
Does it really matter whether they know or not? Surely its better that they are inside rather than outside?
If u were a grumpy usher at our place your post would soon be advertised! One of the things most likely to put people off church is grumpy people ....
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Ken posted
"Because middle-class English people are brought up to believe that it is rude to tell anyone anything about religion that they might not agree with. And it is bad to be rude to guests and visitors. So it is terminally embarrassing to preach Christian doctrine to baptism parties which are full of unbelievers."
I am not sure whether Ken is posting what he thinks should be the case = avoid being rude. I suspect not.
Fact is baptism is a Christian sacrament. And to hell with those who think that preaching Christian doctrine at a specifically Christian event is rude or insensitive or whatever.
The real pastoral work is done is pre-ceremony briefings with the parents. The proclamation of the Gospel in a service is without regard to whether people like to hear it or not. Whether it offends them or not.
The Gospel (like the sacrament) is all about acceptance and inclusiveness and forgiveness and new life. If that is considered rude I am happy to be rude.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lurcher
Apprentice
# 12704
|
Posted
Isn't the key the proper preparation given rather than timing. CofE Clergy do have the right to insist that parents and godparents come to preparation, and people do not usually refuse to do so.
lurcher
Posts: 44 | From: Birmingham | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
And it seems important to remember, in line with what ken says above, that the CofE is in a quite different position from any American church. As I understand it, as the national church it must provide for the baptism of all comers who live within the parish. Is that right?
That's right. It's part of the "hatching, matching and despatching" trio. It's important to remember that the CofE isn't, and isn't supposed to be, a gathered church although some clergy like to treat it as such.
Here in sunny Croydon baptisms can be done in the main Sunday service, or at midday (they may also happen on other days but I'm not sure of that). The main Sunday service baptisms tend to be regular congregation members but I don't think it's a hard and fast rule either way. Overall we get a lot of baptisms here and I believe the vicar is firmly of the view that the important thing is to introduce the baptism party to some religion and not to frighten them away completely by forcing them into the parish's worship mould.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
As a pastor friend of mine is wont to say...it all comes down to cases.
Ideally, I think baptisms should take place in the context of Sunday worship, for all the good reasons others have stated.
Yes, there are some logistical issues with that, including the "cattle call" Sundays (a phenomenon in my church as well...and I will wager that the assortment of family and friends who show up for ours rival Sine Nomine's crowd for inappropriate behavior/general cluelessness); on the other hand, it can be difficult to keep the thematic flow of the lectionary going from week when there may be a baptism on any given Sunday.
I can see circumstances when pastoral discretion are in order. I once heard about a woman with agoraphobia who wanted to be baptized but was afraid of leaving her home, who got attitude from a pastor who insisted that she do so if she were serious. (My observation -- why not have "the Church," in the form of caring Christian friends/family/church members, come to her? Duh!) On the other hand, in the case of entitlement-mentality families who think of the whole thing as a quaint little ritual that one has "done" at one's convenience, and that shouldn't be spoiled by having strangers/the wrong sort of person present...well, if I were the pastor, I think I'd draw my line in the sand there: "We'll see you in church Sunday morning the __th, then. Or not." ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
If the C of E MUST provide baptism for all within the parish does that mean it will happily baptise the child of Buddhist parents who really want to get them into a CofE school (not for faith reasons but because it is a damned good school) and the school demands a baptismal certificate?
I am aware of many parents who seek baptism for reasons of educational prospects. My own son for one!!
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
If the C of E MUST provide baptism for all within the parish does that mean it will happily baptise the child of Buddhist parents who really want to get them into a CofE school (not for faith reasons but because it is a damned good school) and the school demands a baptismal certificate?
I thought that 40% of places in CofE schools could go to students of other faiths, so long as their family practised the faith. And I live in the US and know this...
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I am aware of many parents who seek baptism for reasons of educational prospects. My own son for one!!
Really? Did you have it at the main Sunday service? And how often have you attended since then?
[ 07. March 2011, 17:52: 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
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
your post would soon be advertised!
Really? What do you pay? It's got to be more than I'm making at the cathedral, which is nothing – other than the joy of working in the Lord's vineyard, of course.
I did have a baptism mom come up to me and another usher one time and thank us for being there – like we'd gotten out of bed and dressed just for her. I really did want to say "Actually I would have been here anyway' but I'm sure she meant well in an ego-driven sort of way.
--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
As I understand it, as the national church it must provide for the baptism of all comers who live within the parish. Is that right? (And is it the same in the Church of Scotland?)
In the Church of Scotland there's an obligation to provide funerals for anyone within the parish. There's no obligation with baptisms, though. A minister can refuse a baptism if s/he feels the parents will be taking vows which they have no intention of keeping. I don't know how often that happens, though; my minister will baptise any baby, even if it's blatantly clear the parents are treating the whole thing as an opportunity for cute photos and a family knees-up (or if they're having the baby dunked to keep granny happy.) Alternatively, the baby can simply be blessed.
Baptisms are in front of the congregation, unless, of course, it's a baptism for a sick baby.
We have a couple of dozen a year, so generally two or sometimes three at a time. We had one excellent combined baptism/parents wedding.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
