|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Anglican selective covenantal paedo-baptism?
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Daron, you could always use a request for baptism as an opportunity for a full-blown, ole time religion, turn-or-burn fire'n'brimstone preach. That'll put 'em off! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Daron
A effectual sacrament is a sign that accurately signifies a spiritual reality outside of itself: a grace of God. It is a sign of something that exists, not the means of its existence. A sacrament is an outward and visible sign or 'picture' of the grace and goodwill of God by which he works invisibly, inwardly and spiritually in us.
Sacraments are not effectual signs in the sense that they automatically 'do' something; they are effectual signs in the sense that through our action they accurately picture something physically which only God's action can do spiritually.
Well yes, but...
They may well be signs as you describe, but they are surely more than signs. They are signs backed up by God's promises. Of course, independent of the grace of God, they accomplish nothing. But they do point to a deeper reality, that God's grace is in reality at work in the life of the participant through the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.
I think that this is more readily seen in the Lord's Supper*. There is no doubt in my mind that partaking in the bread and wine does actually do something in the life of the partaker. Not for every person, or at all times, or in every situation, but often enough to discount a mere response to socialised cues. Furthermore, whilst I take with utmost seriousness Paul's words about receiving whilst failing to discern the body of Christ correctly, I have to say that experience indicates that this is not dependent on the faith, spiritual state or any other qualifier on the part of the recipient, but solely on the grace and faithfulness of God. IME it is, to use the terminology of the Methodist church within which context I first came to faith, a converting ordinance. Now that is only looking at short term "results", if you like. God works, ISTM, on a much longer timescale, and in ways that are inscrutable from the perspective of us mere mortals. We, none of us, know what the eternal effectiveness of the sacraments are in the lives of any individual.
*More readily seen because most recipients of communion are able to articulate their experience of receiving, in a way that baptised infants are not.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But that whole covenant concept is very OT in origin and makes baptism the NT equivalent of circumcision (how then you come into the covenant if you haven't got a willy isn't explained!); the only NT verse I can find in support of that equivalence is Col 2:11-12, which is a pretty slim hook on which to hang your doctrinal cloak.
I agree. The whole covenantal view common in Presbyterianism does seem a touch 'speculative'. Which to my mind presents the thinking evangelical minister with four options: baptismal regeneration, the liberal protestant view presented by our Lutheran friend upthread, the view I'm exploring, or credo-baptism. I don't accept the first two as biblically valid, so my options narrow down to either selective infant baptism or credo-baptism. Where to now?
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by Daron
A effectual sacrament is a sign that accurately signifies a spiritual reality outside of itself: a grace of God. It is a sign of something that exists, not the means of its existence. A sacrament is an outward and visible sign or 'picture' of the grace and goodwill of God by which he works invisibly, inwardly and spiritually in us.
Sacraments are not effectual signs in the sense that they automatically 'do' something; they are effectual signs in the sense that through our action they accurately picture something physically which only God's action can do spiritually.
Well yes, but...
They may well be signs as you describe, but they are surely more than signs. They are signs backed up by God's promises. Of course, independent of the grace of God, they accomplish nothing. But they do point to a deeper reality, that God's grace is in reality at work in the life of the participant through the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.
Yes, of course a sacrament is a sign of a promise. But the promise stands without the sign of it in exactly the same way as a beautiful panoramic view exists without a road sign informing of its existence. A person can enjoy the reality of the panorama without the existence of the sign. However, if we want to point others to the panorama which we have so enjoyed then the sign is wonderful way of pointing them to it.
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
So is baptism necessary?
[ETA - the credo-baptist would say not, I suspect (unless they are Campbellite in soteriology but we don't get many of them this side of the Pond). I'm reminded of the minister at my last church (Baptist) who was forever chanting the mantra at baptisms "all it does is get you wet", to which my unvoiced retort (and one of the reasons why I left in the end) was "well, why the fuck do it, then? If I want to get wet, I can take a bath or go for a swim. If it's about a public proclamation of the candidate's faith, then they can do that by means of a speech - which they do anyway. What's the fucking point of it?"
Answers on a postcard or at least a post, please... ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ]
[ 25. April 2012, 11:42: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So is baptism necessary?
This question brings us to the interface between soteriology and missiology. I would say that baptism is primarily missiological because it is a sign of our soteriology. It seems to me that problems arise if baptism becomes our soteriology instead of being the logical outcome of our missiology. Baptism is a missiological sacrament in the sense that it is a sign of a soteriological reality. The problem, I think, is that for some people the sacrament of baptism is considered to be missiologically effective: it isn't, it is missiologically conclusive.
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Necessary in the sense that a driver's license is necessary when you've been stopped for speeding and the officer asking happens to be your father.
He knows very well you HAVE one regardless of whether you remembered to bring it with you, but saying airily, "Oh, I didn't think it was worth bothering" won't go over well.
On the other hand, he's not going to throw you in the slammer either.
Which leads to the question, "Why not just go ahead and DO it, instead of seeing how far you (general you) can tapdance on the edge of the line?"
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Daron, this is a bit of a tangent to the main question, but you appear to me to misunderstand the meaning of "effectual sign". the term does not denote a sign which does well its job of indicating whatever it is signing. The term means a sign which brings about that which it points to.
To my mind the best way forward is to treat with equal seriousness the need to show welcoming love to families coming to the church and the need to treat baptism properly. A positive warm welcoming offer of a special thanksgiving service as a starting point (and a good occasion for them to invite wider family) and proper preparation and thought leading to actual baptism itself further down the line. This is something you would need to discuss and think through with your PCC as they, with you, will be the people who will be held responsible for the policy and for any consequences.
For me the bottom line is that I try and lay out with all seriousness to parents what baptism is about, but there is a limit to how far I am going to interrogate them on specifics of their own state of belief. My own situation is complicated by the very large number of people in my context who are required sometimes/ often to work Sunday mornings. It is pleasing to see some them taking up the 'Messy Church' opportunities that we now offer midweek.
On the subject of baptism itself I have found Gordon W Kuhrt's Believing in Baptism to be a most helpful book. His father was a Baptist minister, so he has thought it through really carefully.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Your view seems similar to that espoused by my Exclusive Brethren in-laws: they wouldn't use the term 'covenant' as it is not in their theological vocabulary but they would restrict infant baptism to the children of believing parents (not just any old believers either but those in their Meeting or Connexion ie: who have signed up to every jot and tittle of their doctrine) and that baptism gets the infant 'into the outer courts', as they say; when you unpack that phrase, they mean incorporate the infant into the benefits and fruits of the parents' faith until such time as the child is able to make a decision for Christ him/herself, with the rider that, somehow, baptism makes that more likely...
[reply to Daron - can't blame clients this time for xps!]
[ 25. April 2012, 12:00: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I would agree with BroJames' analysis of the term 'effectual sign' above as being pretty solidly Anglican (in so far as anything can be!). It is for example totally on all fours with the BCP:
quote:
We call upon thee for this Infant, that he, coming to thy holy Baptism, may receive remission of his sins by spiritual regeneration.
(Italics mine)
[ 25. April 2012, 12:10: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So is baptism necessary?
This question brings us to the interface between soteriology and missiology. I would say that baptism is primarily missiological because it is a sign of our soteriology. It seems to me that problems arise if baptism becomes our soteriology instead of being the logical outcome of our missiology. Baptism is a missiological sacrament in the sense that it is a sign of a soteriological reality. The problem, I think, is that for some people the sacrament of baptism is considered to be missiologically effective: it isn't, it is missiologically conclusive.
I hope that this paragraphs such as this have not characterized the sermons from Daron's pulpit of late or he may find that it is not a case that he be tired of baptizing non-attenders' infants, but that they be tired of presumptions clothed in jargon.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Do Exclusive Brethren practice paedobaptism? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I thought the Brethren, both Exclusive and Open, were credo-baptists ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So is baptism necessary?
This question brings us to the interface between soteriology and missiology. I would say that baptism is primarily missiological because it is a sign of our soteriology. It seems to me that problems arise if baptism becomes our soteriology instead of being the logical outcome of our missiology. Baptism is a missiological sacrament in the sense that it is a sign of a soteriological reality. The problem, I think, is that for some people the sacrament of baptism is considered to be missiologically effective: it isn't, it is missiologically conclusive.
And when you ask your baptism families 'why baptism?' what kind of answer do you get?
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cedd
Shipmate
# 8436
|
Posted
This is an interesting thread and I have no doubt that it is something which all Anglican clergy have struggled with from time to time, especially after the more 'irreverent' baptism parties!
Prior to being ordained in the CofE I spent many years working as a lawyer. I can therefore always see the temptation of becoming a canon law geek and running everything entirely by the letter of that law.
However, speaking as a priest rather than a lawyer, I am acutely aware that God's grace trumps our rules every time. I have always adopted an open baptism policy here and the fruit of that is an ever-widening circle of good relationships in the community, backed with the ability to invite children and parents to post-baptism celebrations.
I shall also shortly be marrying the (previously divorced) parents of children who have brought all three of their kids for baptism over the past several years. Had I been legalistic and said 'no' to the first child I would probably have never seen them again and they may, eventually, have had a civil wedding. However, by trying to be graceful, they have kept coming back to celebrate their significant life events in the presence of God, and that has to be what we are here for.
If I were to be audited for a strict adherence to every jot and tittle of canon law then I would doubtless fail. However, that is a risk I am prepared to run in order that no one in this community should ever feel rejected by the church.
--------------------
Cedd
Churchmanship: This week I am mostly an evangelical, catholic, orthodox with both liberal and illiberal tendancies. Terms and conditions apply.
Posts: 377 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Do Exclusive Brethren practice paedobaptism?
I thought the Brethren, both Exclusive and Open, were credo-baptists ...
The OBs are credo-, EBs are paedos*
(*Always wanted to be able to legitimately say that! I need to get out more!)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
This is pretty much Colin Buchanan's position. He wrote a couple of books about it. They are worth reading. (I personally disagree with it, but its worth reading.)
What meaning or spiritual benefit could baptism possibly have for anyone who wilfully or by virtue of parental example remains outside of the community of faith, the presence of Christ among his people, and the life and worship of the church? I suggest that there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to be had from such so-called 'baptisms'. It's not magic. Such baptisms are merely accidental in every possible sense of the word. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I disagreed with Colin in the other direction. I, and a number of other Anglicans I know, chose not to have our children baptised as infants.
When he came to our church and preached about baptism at our evening service it turned into a something between a question-and-answer session or debate on the matter, with lots of the congregation joining in.
At the end of it, and after reading his books, he managed to persuade me to change my mind on church weddings of non-Christians, which I'd had doubts about before. But not about infant baptism which I continued, and continue, to think of as valid but often unhelpful (and ideally irregular, though of course they techically are regular in the CofE because our rules allow them).
That sort of feeling is what lead to the newish liturgy for the dedication of a child, whose authors (I suspect) imagined would be used mainly for non-churchgoers who were reluctant about the baptismal promises, in fact being mainly used for the children of churchgoers who were unsure about infant baptism.
The walk-ins want real baptism, or rather "christening" as they are likely to call it, and they often seem to see the promises as just words they need to say to get through the ceremony.
--------------------
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
Sorry, I cocked that up and didn't get to the edit slot in time. Maybe a Well-Meaning but Powerful Person might delete my previous post. It should say
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
This is pretty much Colin Buchanan's position. He wrote a couple of books about it. They are worth reading. (I personally disagree with it, but its worth reading.)
What meaning or spiritual benefit could baptism possibly have for anyone who wilfully or by virtue of parental example remains outside of the community of faith, the presence of Christ among his people, and the life and worship of the church? I suggest that there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to be had from such so-called 'baptisms'. It's not magic. Such baptisms are merely accidental in every possible sense of the word.
I disagreed with Colin in the other direction. I, and a number of other Anglicans I know, chose not to have our children baptised as infants.
When he came to our church and preached about baptism at our evening service it turned into a something between a question-and-answer session or debate on the matter, with lots of the congregation joining in.
At the end of it, and after reading his books, he managed to persuade me to change my mind on church weddings of non-Christians, which I'd had doubts about before. But not about infant baptism which I continued, and continue, to think of as valid but often unhelpful (and ideally irregular, though of course they technically are regular in the CofE because our rules allow them).
That sort of feeling is what lead to the newish liturgy for the dedication of a child, whose authors (I suspect) imagined would be used mainly for non-churchgoers who were reluctant about the baptismal promises, in fact being mainly used for the children of churchgoers who were unsure about infant baptism.
The walk-ins want real baptism, or rather "christening" as they are likely to call it, and they often seem to see the promises as just words they need to say to get through the ceremony.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
To my mind the best way forward is to treat with equal seriousness the need to show welcoming love to families coming to the church and the need to treat baptism properly. A positive warm welcoming offer of a special thanksgiving service as a starting point (and a good occasion for them to invite wider family) and proper preparation and thought leading to actual baptism itself further down the line.
This is what some of my more conservative Anglican brethren do in my diocese.
I think it's a fair alternative if conscience really dictates against baptism.
But then.....we aren't an established church.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by leo:
but the message received by parishioners is that the vicar is 'tight' and unwelcoming.
Oh No!!! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
You seem OK with the church being an exclusive club? Not like the Christ who ate with sinners.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Depends what you means by 'the Church', Squire ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So is baptism necessary?
This question brings us to the interface between soteriology and missiology. I would say that baptism is primarily missiological because it is a sign of our soteriology. It seems to me that problems arise if baptism becomes our soteriology instead of being the logical outcome of our missiology. Baptism is a missiological sacrament in the sense that it is a sign of a soteriological reality. The problem, I think, is that for some people the sacrament of baptism is considered to be missiologically effective: it isn't, it is missiologically conclusive.
I hope that this paragraphs such as this have not characterized the sermons from Daron's pulpit of late or he may find that it is not a case that he be tired of baptizing non-attenders' infants, but that they be tired of presumptions clothed in jargon.
Fair point. I was struggling to get my head around how infant baptism works in a missionary context in which parents aren't Christians and now Matt's point about (alleged) baptismal regeneration in the BCP liturgy has thrown yet another spanner into my smoothly running mental machine!
[ 25. April 2012, 14:47: Message edited by: Daron ]
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Not just the BCP but also Art 25. I'm not sure either go as far as the Catholic concept of baptismal regeneration but they sure as heck say that baptism does quote a bit more than 'just get you wet'!!
[ 25. April 2012, 14:55: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
To my mind the best way forward is to treat with equal seriousness the need to show welcoming love to families coming to the church and the need to treat baptism properly. A positive warm welcoming offer of a special thanksgiving service as a starting point (and a good occasion for them to invite wider family) and proper preparation and thought leading to actual baptism itself further down the line.
This is what some of my more conservative Anglican brethren do in my diocese.
I think it's a fair alternative if conscience really dictates against baptism.
But then.....we aren't an established church.
This is an interesting point. There seems to be some misapprehension that being a minister serving in an established church requires me, of necessity, to baptise the infants of anyone who asks. Where does this idea come from? As I've said upthread, I think it has entered British cultural mythology via the (uncanonical) pastoral practices of 20th century liberalism.
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
There seems to be some misapprehension that being a minister serving in an established church requires me, of necessity, to baptise the infants of anyone who asks. Where does this idea come from? As I've said upthread, I think it has entered British cultural mythology via the (uncanonical) pastoral practices of 20th century liberalism.
As far as the Canon goes, you must baptise children from within the parish, subject to due notice, and to such delay only as may reasonably required for instructing the parents or godparents.
The only other canonical requirement is that quote:
The godparents shall be persons who will faithfully fulfil their responsibilities both by their care for the children committed to their charge and by the example of their own godly living.
Needless to say, the canon doesn't say how that might be tested.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So is baptism necessary?
This question brings us to the interface between soteriology and missiology. I would say that baptism is primarily missiological because it is a sign of our soteriology. It seems to me that problems arise if baptism becomes our soteriology instead of being the logical outcome of our missiology. Baptism is a missiological sacrament in the sense that it is a sign of a soteriological reality. The problem, I think, is that for some people the sacrament of baptism is considered to be missiologically effective: it isn't, it is missiologically conclusive.
And when you ask your baptism families 'why baptism?' what kind of answer do you get?
Generally awkward silence followed by something vague about Christian values.
[ 25. April 2012, 15:37: Message edited by: Daron ]
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
There seems to be some misapprehension that being a minister serving in an established church requires me, of necessity, to baptise the infants of anyone who asks. Where does this idea come from? As I've said upthread, I think it has entered British cultural mythology via the (uncanonical) pastoral practices of 20th century liberalism.
As far as the Canon goes, you must baptise children from within the parish, subject to due notice, and to such delay only as may reasonably required for instructing the parents or godparents.
The only other canonical requirement is that quote:
The godparents shall be persons who will faithfully fulfil their responsibilities both by their care for the children committed to their charge and by the example of their own godly living.
Needless to say, the canon doesn't say how that might be tested.
BCP also requires the godparents (interestingly, not the parents) to be baptised and confirmed, although the latter can be dispensed with in the minister's discretion.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
There seems to be some misapprehension that being a minister serving in an established church requires me, of necessity, to baptise the infants of anyone who asks. Where does this idea come from? As I've said upthread, I think it has entered British cultural mythology via the (uncanonical) pastoral practices of 20th century liberalism.
As far as the Canon goes, you must baptise children from within the parish, subject to due notice, and to such delay only as may reasonably required for instructing the parents or godparents.
That's not true. Canon B 22 says that there are occasions when the minister can refuse or delay the baptism. If the applicants wish to contest the minister's decision they "may apply to the bishop of the diocese, who shall, after consultation with the minister, give such directions as he sees fit", which suggests to me that the bishop may choose to either uphold or over-rule the minister's decision.
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
There seems to be some misapprehension that being a minister serving in an established church requires me, of necessity, to baptise the infants of anyone who asks. Where does this idea come from? As I've said upthread, I think it has entered British cultural mythology via the (uncanonical) pastoral practices of 20th century liberalism.
As far as the Canon goes, you must baptise children from within the parish, subject to due notice, and to such delay only as may reasonably required for instructing the parents or godparents.
The only other canonical requirement is that quote:
The godparents shall be persons who will faithfully fulfil their responsibilities both by their care for the children committed to their charge and by the example of their own godly living.
Needless to say, the canon doesn't say how that might be tested.
BCP also requires the godparents (interestingly, not the parents) to be baptised and confirmed, although the latter can be dispensed with in the minister's discretion.
It's not that the parents do not have to be confirmed; it's that - rightly or wrongly - canon assumes that they will be.
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
What do people think the attitude of the bishop might be in the instance cited by Daron?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
And when you ask your baptism families 'why baptism?' what kind of answer do you get?
Generally awkward silence followed by something vague about Christian values.
Otherwise known as your opportunity to 'interface' with the family God has put in your way for that moment in time, to do something gracious with.
Look. You don't have to convince anyone in orders how abused one feels, on behalf of oneself or the Church (or the Church's doctrines), when some parents press the button on the vending machine marked 'chuch' to get the baby done! But - if you're an incumbent - you do have the discretion to implement pastoral practices that should satisfy your conscience. Within the canons of the Church under whose authority you have your ordination, of course!
[ 25. April 2012, 17:19: Message edited by: Anselmina ]
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Solly
Shipmate
# 11919
|
Posted
The Canon leaves judgment to your discretion - quite a burden in the circumstances, I think.
Posts: 70 | From: Sussex UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
@Anselmina
I know I do. This thread is just a way of testing out, refining and correcting my thinking by subjecting it to a community hermeneutic. It's a conversation I'm having on many levels with lots of people: Anglican, non-conformist, lay, ordained, online, IRL. I appreciate everyone's contribution. It's proving very helpful.
The most challenging at present is being forced to revisit the BCP baptismal liturgy.
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
As someone who accepts the Catholic teaching on infant baptism, original sin (and the modern pronouncements on limbo), I would not like to answer on the day of judgment if I refused an infant baptism, for the baby to die shortly thereafter.
And I can't put into words just how much I'm against Thanksgiving services. Baptism is important. Souls are at stake. Anything presented as an 'alternative' is not good news.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
In fairness to BroJames Canon B 22.4 says that:
quote:
No minister shall refuse or, save for the purpose of preparing or instructing the parents or guardians or godparents, delay to baptize any infant within his cure that is brought to the church to be baptized, provided that due notice has been given and the provisions relating to godparents in these Canons are observed.
I take that to mean that there are two reasons, according to Canon, why a minister might rightfully refuse or delay the baptism of an infant, 1) when due notice has not been given and 2) when provisions relating to godparents in Canon are not observed.
The question, therefore, is what are the provisions relating to godparents in Canon? According to Canon B 23.2 they are quote:
The godparents shall be persons who will faithfully fulfil their responsibilities both 1) by their care for the children committed to their charge and 2) by the example of their own godly living.
Firstly, we have to remember that Canon B 22.3 says that quote:
The minister shall instruct the parents or guardians of an infant to be admitted to Holy Baptism that the same responsibilities rest on them as are in the service of Holy Baptism required of the godparents.
This means that the responsibilities mentioned in Canon B 23.2 - which are to be found in the baptismal liturgy - apply equally to parents and godparents. Those responsibilities appear to fall under two heads: 1) responsibilities toward the child and 2) responsibilities toward God.
We should look directly at the liturgy to see what these responsibilities are because if the minister has cause to believe the the parents and godparents will not faithfully fulfil their responsibilities Canon allows for baptism to be refused or delayed.
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Unless you're going to do an old fashioned churching of women service, focussing on the mother rather than the little monster, I find the idea of Thanksgiving services or blessings in lieu of baptism confusing, innovative and rather repulsive. But that's just me.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
...confusing, innovative and rather repulsive. But that's just me.
I couldn't agree more! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Unless you're going to do an old fashioned churching of women service, focussing on the mother rather than the little monster, I find the idea of Thanksgiving services or blessings in lieu of baptism confusing, innovative and rather repulsive. But that's just me.
I think it could be useful as a way of supporting church-active families who don't want to do the infant baptism thing.
The 'confusing' element can be there for some people, however. I remember come time ago explaining the 'Thanksgiving' liturgy to a family, who were thrilled at the idea. But right at the end said to me: 'that's great. Could we have that, then, with the watery bit thrown in?' ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Daron posts: quote:
We should look directly at the liturgy to see what these responsibilities are because if the minister has cause to believe the the parents and godparents will not faithfully fulfil their responsibilities Canon allows for baptism to be refused or delayed.
I think that it's very important that we not be arbitrary or seen as arbitrary in these matters. People should know in advance what these responsibilities are---I would imagine that it be best that they be placed on a diocesan website so that it is clear that they are authoritative and not whimsical. As well, there should be some written guidance for clergy to outline how they establish cause to believe that "the parents and godparents will not faithfully fulfil their responsibilities." This will obviate relying on gossip or knowledge not appopriately obtained. It would certainly be risky and/or foolish for clergy to proceed without such guidance.
Advance notice and clarity can save a lot of unpleasantness down the road, while indicating that the Church treats this sacrament with great seriousness.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Daron posts: quote:
We should look directly at the liturgy to see what these responsibilities are because if the minister has cause to believe the the parents and godparents will not faithfully fulfil their responsibilities Canon allows for baptism to be refused or delayed.
I think that it's very important that we not be arbitrary or seen as arbitrary in these matters. People should know in advance what these responsibilities are---I would imagine that it be best that they be placed on a diocesan website so that it is clear that they are authoritative and not whimsical. As well, there should be some written guidance for clergy to outline how they establish cause to believe that "the parents and godparents will not faithfully fulfil their responsibilities." This will obviate relying on gossip or knowledge not appopriately obtained. It would certainly be risky and/or foolish for clergy to proceed without such guidance.
Advance notice and clarity can save a lot of unpleasantness down the road, while indicating that the Church treats this sacrament with great seriousness.
Well, the Common Worship baptismal liturgy requires the parents and godparents to make the following promises:
quote:
Parents and godparents, the Church receives these children with joy.
Today we are trusting God for their growth in faith.
Will you pray for them,
draw them by your example into the community of faith
and walk with them in the way of Christ?
With the help of God, we will.
The responsibilities outlined in this promise are:- Intercession for the child
- setting an example of committed church membership to the child
- model what it is to follow Christ as his disciple to the child
setting an example of Christian discipleship to the child[/list]
quote:
In baptism these children begin their journey in faith.
You speak for them today.
Will you care for them,
and help them to take their place
within the life and worship of Christ’s Church?
With the help of God, we will.
The responsibilities outlined in this promise are:- care for the child's welfare, including their spiritual welfare
- helping the child take their own place in the life and and worship of the Church
Those seem like pretty serious obligations to me, obligations that only prayerful, actively committed, biblically literate regular worshippers would capable of keeping faithfully.
[ 25. April 2012, 21:32: Message edited by: Daron ]
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
@ Daron-- my post was intended to focus on ways of making obligations and conditions clear well in advance, so that people could have them handy, and that we avoid clergy riding their own many varied and dappled hobbyhorses.
But you need to be careful about loading extra layers on to existing texts. You posted: quote:
Those seem like pretty serious obligations to me, obligations that only prayerful, actively committed, biblically literate regular worshippers would capable of keeping faithfully.
I don't see a lot of your description in the texts themselves. Your indicators are, while arguably accurate, your indicators (and IMHO are what the RCs call a counsel of perfection). This is a good example of the individual-cleric-originated rule which will inevitably differ from parish to parish, rendering any standard practice a joke. And when we add on these extra not-in-the-text qualifications, we then have question of who will judge what degrees of prayerfulness, commitment, biblical literacy, and regularity in worship, are necessary. Again, I wonder if you're asking for people to have a BA Hons before being allowed into university.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
[...]With the help of God, we will.
[...]Those seem like pretty serious obligations to me, obligations that only prayerful, actively committed, biblically literate regular worshippers would capable of keeping faithfully.
Since the promises are made, not to do these things alone, but rather with the help of God, perhaps it is not up to you to prejudge how much help God might or might not provide to those making the promises?
[ETA: clarity. I hope.]
[ 25. April 2012, 22:02: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
@Autenrieth Road
An Anglican minister is duty bound to duly administer the sacraments and Canons B21–26 contain the requisite information that a conscientious minister should try to understand and apply to their baptismal ministry. Part of that ministry includes making judgements concerning the observation of certain provisions, including the promises made at the baptismal service.
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm reminded of the minister at my last church (Baptist) who was forever chanting the mantra at baptisms "all it does is get you wet", to which my unvoiced retort (and one of the reasons why I left in the end) was "well, why the fuck do it, then? If I want to get wet, I can take a bath or go for a swim. If it's about a public proclamation of the candidate's faith, then they can do that by means of a speech - which they do anyway. What's the fucking point of it?"
Why didn't you ask him?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
@ Daron-- my post was intended to focus on ways of making obligations and conditions clear well in advance, so that people could have them handy, and that we avoid clergy riding their own many varied and dappled hobbyhorses.
But you need to be careful about loading extra layers on to existing texts. You posted: quote:
Those seem like pretty serious obligations to me, obligations that only prayerful, actively committed, biblically literate regular worshippers would capable of keeping faithfully.
I don't see a lot of your description in the texts themselves. Your indicators are, while arguably accurate, your indicators (and IMHO are what the RCs call a counsel of perfection).
OK, let's talk about the meaning of the wording of the five key promises in the baptismal liturgy. Let's set aside my 'take' on their meaning and open it up to discussion.
quote:
Parents and godparents, the Church receives these children with joy.
Today we are trusting God for their growth in faith.
Will you 1) pray for them, 2) draw them by your example into the community of faith
and 3) walk with them in the way of Christ?
With the help of God, we will.
quote:
In baptism these children begin their journey in faith.
You speak for them today.
Will you 4) care for them,
and 5) help them to take their place
within the life and worship of Christ’s Church?
With the help of God, we will.
So firstly, how do people interpret these responsibilities?
And secondly, in the light of Canon B 23.2 how might the parents and godparents be reasonably expected to faithfully fulfil these responsibilities?
Canon B 23.2 says:
quote:
The godparents shall be persons who will faithfully fulfil their responsibilities both by their 1) care for the children committed to their charge and 2) by the example of their own godly living.
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
We were in a church with a pronounced credo-baptist policy when our kids were born. Heck, it was so credo-baptist that, after we'd left and moved on, mind you, one of the leaders even required the son of an Anglican vicar who was in the worship-band to be baptised 'as a believer' before admitting him back onto the worship-band rota ... ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
So, it was natural for us to have our kids 'dedicated' rather than baptised/christened at that time. The hope, of course, would be that they would come to a decision themselves later in life and accept believer's baptism.
They're both well into their teens now and show no sign of doing so, and very little interest in faith/church things either, to be honest.
An Orthodox deacon once suggested to me that I'd put the eternal destiny of my own children at risk by such a course of action - which seems to accord with the line that The Man With The Stick is taking.
Admittedly, the Orthodox priest, who was present at the time, apologised to me afterwards as he'd felt his deacon had gone too far.
It's a conundrum ... because whilst I don't have such a 'stake' in these things as Daron does (not being a cleric and all and required to adminster these things), I do take baptism very seriously and probably have some kind of limbo position on the whole thing that lies somewhere between Daron's more reformed position and a fully-orbed sacramental one ...
No wonder I'm confused!
Either way, I do have a lot of sympathy with what Daron's saying here and I also recognise, as others have said upthread, that it is something that can exercise people from more 'catholic' traditions too - despite the general appearance that it is all very indiscriminate at that end of the spectrum.
Consequently, I wouldn't suggest that Daron is requiring candidates to have a BA (Hons) before entering higher education, but he does seem to be looking for evidence of A Levels or at least some kind of intention to stay the course - or even turn up at the first week's lectures!
Perhaps the way forward would be to exercise some kind of 'accreditation of prior learning' like they do in adult education?
But even that involves some kind of judgement call.
I'm not sure the automatic, 'get my child done with the water thing' is a corollary of 20th century liberalism ... I suspect it's older than that and goes back a lot, lot further.
We forget that back in the 17th and 18th centuries regular church-going wasn't as common as we sometimes think. It was pretty much hatched, matched and despatched for many people back then. Indeed, lots of people only attended church a few times a year. Ok, there were also - even before the Wesleys - a fair number of people involved with 'religious societies' in the wake of the Pietistic movement. There were 40 such societies in London in the 1740s when Wesley set up his own Fetter Lane Society. There were also plenty in Pennine Yorkshire where parish churches were few and far between.
I suspect the difference, going back, is that people who brought their kids for baptism did have at least a smattering of catechesis and some kind of residual folk-idea of what it was all about ... as indeed, I suggest, is still the case in predominantly RC or Orthodox countries today - even if those views are mixed with all manner of folk-tradition and outright misconceptions in many instances.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
The most challenging at present is being forced to revisit the BCP baptismal liturgy.
Happy to oblige!
[ 26. April 2012, 08:48: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm reminded of the minister at my last church (Baptist) who was forever chanting the mantra at baptisms "all it does is get you wet", to which my unvoiced retort (and one of the reasons why I left in the end) was "well, why the fuck do it, then? If I want to get wet, I can take a bath or go for a swim. If it's about a public proclamation of the candidate's faith, then they can do that by means of a speech - which they do anyway. What's the fucking point of it?"
Why didn't you ask him?
I did, albeit in somewhat more polite words! He replied something to the effect that it was commanded in Scripture and that was good enough for him. I said that that was fine as far as it went but there must have been a reason why Jesus and the Apostles commanded it do be done, and it was that reason I was after. He said I shouldn't question Scripture but should just accept it.
A conversation that was but one step on my journey away from that particular church...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Val Kyrie
Apprentice
# 17079
|
Posted
When people hand you their baby to be baptised, they are trusting you with somebody small and precious to them. They may not be ideal, their choice of Godparents may be dubious (perhaps they don't really know anyone "worthy") but at least they are trying. And at least they recognise that baptism is a good thing. The baby will hopefully be glad to "belong" at some point later on in life.
My parents had me baptised by the Anglican church, when I was a baby, but didn't go to church themselves and never really sent (or took) me. Fast forward to the present me... I'm 54, started going to church 2 years ago, was confirmed last year and am now considering training for lay ministry. Being baptised made me feel confident that the Anglican church was where I SHOULD be. God was very patient.
Posts: 27 | From: Up North | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
That's a lovely story and I'm very glad that you have now connected with the community of faith. However, helping people know exactly which church they choose not to attend is not, in my view, a due administration of the sacrament
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
The most challenging at present is being forced to revisit the BCP baptismal liturgy.
Happy to oblige!
Matt, I have to confess that I am having serious difficulties accepting as biblical the theology of this liturgy. My tidy evangelical world is beginning to unravel...
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
