|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Anglican selective covenantal paedo-baptism?
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
I'm getting tired of baptising the infants of non-church members resident in the parish. I feel that my integrity as a minister is compromised. I also feel that the integrity of the church is also being compromised. I wonder if a tighter reading of canon law based on an understanding that our culture is now fully post-Christian is necessary. Here's my current thinking on the issue:
By inference canon B22.2 affirms that it is possible for a minister to delay and/or refuse to baptise an infant. If the parents wish to contest any such refusal or a delay as 'undue' they can appeal to the bishop of the Diocese.
Canon B22.3 says that the responsibilities required of god-parent/s in the baptismal service also apply to the parent/s of the child. The minister has the right to refuse or delay the baptism of an infant if he is not satisfied that the parents and godparents will faithfully fulfil the responsibilities required of them in the baptismal liturgy which are 1) regular intercession for the child, 2) setting an example of committed membership of the local church, 3) setting an example active Christian discipleship, 4) actively involving the child in the life and worship of the local church.
Canon Law assumes that all parents requesting infant baptism will be baptised and confirmed Anglicans. Canon B 23.4 requires that godparents must also be baptised and confirmed Anglicans which, according to Canon B 27.3 means that prior to their confirmation they must have been instructed by an Anglican minister in the Christian faith and life set forth in the Holy Scriptures, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Church Catechism. Parents and godparents applying for the baptism of an infant should therefore be able to 1) recite the Creed, 2) recite the Lord's Prayer, 3) recite the 10 Commandments, and 4) personally testify to saving faith in Jesus Christ in a way which is consonant with the soteriology of the Church Catechism.
Is this a fair reading of Canon? What would happen if an Anglican parish church decided to implement a baptismal policy based on this reading of Canon Law?
Would it essentially mean that it is possible for an Anglican parish to validly operate a Committed Member Policy? Would such a position be desirable?
Can - and indeed - should Anglicans be able to able operate a policy of selective covenantal paedo-baptism?
[ 20. September 2012, 13:31: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
Interesting points. Can you unpack what you mean by 'selective covenantal'? What you appear to be advocating is a shift away from the Erastian concepts of the Magisterial Reformation and towards the Radical Reformation ideas re: the local church as a 'gathered community' of believers.
[ETA - I'm not saying I disagree with the thrust of your OP, just that I don't think it looks like the CofE any more...
PS: Supplementary questions - what about marriages and funerals, and the opportunities for witnessing and evangelism presented by these hatching, matching and despatching ceremonies - will these not be lost if you operate such a 'closed shop'?]
[ 24. April 2012, 12:02: 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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
I'm getting tired of baptising the infants of non-church members resident in the parish. I feel that my integrity as a minister is compromised.
Your tiredness of 'baptising the infants of non-church members (sic) resident in the parish' would certainly appear to compromise, potentially, your integrity as a minister of the CofE. If you cannot, in conscience, meet the obligations that the CofE parochial model imposes, perhaps you might need to consider moving to another denomination which does not place these obligations on its local clergy.
[ 24. April 2012, 12:13: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Sorry to inject come theology into a conversation about, essentially, the frustration of having to minister within a context of what amounts to government civil service to frequently indifferent/resentful/disengaged citizens (and as a Yank I can see how frustrating this might be) -- but at its heart is baptism essentially about what parents do, or about what God does?
And is there a creative way to convey the message of what God does even in a short amount of time even to the most self-absorbed, least theologically literate families who seem to be concerned merely about "having it done" and throwing a party afterwards? (A challenge that is not unknown to us folks in countries with non-Establishment churches that don't HAVE to baptize anyone who comes through the door but who do have to deal with a lot of theological misunderstanding/indifference among the laity.)
Is there a way to take heart in the fact that, despite the increasing secularization of society in general, you still have families with an impulse to have someone of faith involved in the naming (as they see it) of their children, even though this impulse is at best vaguely formed and at least partially socially conditioned in them? Is that a step into at least discussing with families the idea that baptism is supposed to be about an ongoing relationship that God has begun with us, and not a one-time deal you "have done"?
Just something to keep you a bit saner.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Interesting points. Can you unpack what you mean by 'selective covenantal'? What you appear to be advocating is a shift away from the Erastian concepts of the Magisterial Reformation and towards the Radical Reformation ideas re: the local church as a 'gathered community' of believers.
By selective I mean not indiscriminate. In practice it means only baptising the infants of parents who are 1) members of the community of faith, 2) following Christ as his disciples, 3) have a place in the life and worship of the Church.
The issue, as you rightly point out, is what constitutes "the community of faith", what walking in the way of Christ looks like in practice, and what having a place in the 'life and worship of Christ's Church" entails.
Again, you rightly discern that my understanding of a local church does equate to a "gathered community of believers" but I would extend that to a "gathered community of believers and their infants".
I would therefore happily say that the temporal Church Catholic is the gathered community of local churches as just defined.
[ 24. April 2012, 12:32: 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
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
If your culture was 'fully post-Christian' perhaps they wouldn't come to you at all...for anything, let alone baptism
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
I'm getting tired of baptising the infants of non-church members resident in the parish. I feel that my integrity as a minister is compromised. I also feel that the integrity of the church is also being compromised.
Why are they asking? Why would they bother?
If it's a "getting into a proper school thing" then I understand (yet that has its own implications because at least the child will know the faith).
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
I'm getting tired of baptising the infants of non-church members resident in the parish. I feel that my integrity as a minister is compromised.
Your tiredness of 'baptising the infants of non-church members (sic) resident in the parish' would certainly appear to compromise, potentially, your integrity as a minister of the CofE. If you cannot, in conscience, meet the obligations that the CofE parochial model imposes, perhaps you might need to consider moving to another denomination which does not place these obligations on its local clergy.
You see, this is the thing: I'm not at all convinced that these "obligations of the CofE parochial model" actual exist in any canonically justifiable way. My suspicion is that these so-called obligations are in fact a cultural myth, secular in origin, that can be traced back to the poor catechistic practices of previous generations.
--------------------
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
Even if you don't believe that baptism causes an "ontological" change in the individual, you might consider that it sets up a basis for later existential meaning and exploration, whereby those baptised as infants and not subsequently actively brought up in the Crhistian religion may still come to place positive significance on their baptism and be motivated to explore its meaning for themselves, in turn drawing them into the Christian faith. Is this a post-Christian interpretation of the sacrament of holy baptism? I don't think so. Rather, it's an argument for recognising that such events in one's personal history have potential subjective meaning quite aside from any supernatural, ontological effect that the Church attributes to certain actions. The two levels of interpretation/meaning aren't mutually exclusive. Indeed, the latter is a matter of faith, whilst the former is to do with conscious subjective meaning. Will this bit of personal history and its potential meaning engage everyone who has received the sacrament of baptism as an infant? Of course not; but then it doesn't seem to engage even a good number of persons who subsequently had some sort of Christian upbringing and catechesis.
I think it's preferable to provide the sacrament of baptism without impediments. Sensitive pastoral counseling of the parents - again a matter of planting seeds, if nothing else - is certainly appropriate. This might suitably include a sort of mini-catechesis of the parents. However, I don't think access to the sacrament should be denied or impeded except in the most unusual and extraordinary of circumstances, if even then (and certainly not because one considers the parent(s) not to be "good enough" Christians or living an "unacceptable" way of life).
[ 24. April 2012, 12:41: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
If your culture was 'fully post-Christian' perhaps they wouldn't come to you at all...for anything, let alone baptism
That has a superficial ring of truth, but is it actually true? In my experience it is entirely possible for a person, or a community of persons, to retain the outward forms of past realities without truly owning those realities in any meaningful or experiential way: the Apostle Paul calls them "dead works".
--------------------
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 Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
I'm getting tired of baptising the infants of non-church members resident in the parish. I feel that my integrity as a minister is compromised. I also feel that the integrity of the church is also being compromised.
Why are they asking? Why would they bother?
If it's a "getting into a proper school thing" then I understand (yet that has its own implications because at least the child will know the faith).
My context does involve a CE primary school, but that's not specifically the issue I'm addressing. In answer to your question I think the answer is fearful superstition and pragmatic consumerism.
--------------------
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 Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Even if you don't believe that baptism causes an "ontological" change in the individual, you might consider that it sets up a basis for later existential meaning and exploration, whereby those baptised as infants and not subsequently actively brought up in the Christian religion may still come to place positive significance on their baptism and be motivated to explore its meaning for themselves, in turn drawing them into the Christian faith.
I suppose I could consider it, but they wouldn't constitute considerations of any theological merit or canonical precedent.
quote:
Is this a post-Christian interpretation of the sacrament of holy baptism? I don't think so. Rather, it's an argument for recognising that such events in one's personal history have potential subjective meaning quite aside from any supernatural, ontological effect that the Church attributes to certain actions.
I don't think baptism is supposed to be subjective in meaning. It is a dominical sacrament which has literally no meaning beyond the Christian truth which it was specifically ordained to communicate. Of course what those truths precisely are is the subject of debate.
quote:
The two levels of interpretation/meaning aren't mutually exclusive. Indeed, the latter is a matter of faith, whilst the former is to do with conscious subjective meaning. Will this bit of personal history and its potential meaning engage everyone who has received the sacrament of baptism as an infant? Of course not; but then it doesn't seem to engage even a good number of persons who subsequently had some sort of Christian upbringing and catechesis.
I think it's preferable to provide the sacrament of baptism without impediments. Sensitive pastoral counseling of the parents - again a matter of planting seeds, if nothing else - is certainly appropriate. This might suitably include a sort of mini-catechesis of the parents. However, I don't think access to the sacrament should be denied or impeded except in the most unusual and extraordinary of circumstances, if even then (and certainly not because one considers the parent(s) not to be "good enough" Christians or living an "unacceptable" way of life).
This position is certainly the easiest one to hold, but I don't think it stands up to Canon Law as either pastorally justifiable or ministerially responsible.
[ 24. April 2012, 13:01: 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
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
"Fearful superstition," as errant as it is, still suggest belief in a Supreme Being who cares about human beings and how they respond to that Being.
Instead of getting all judgy about "fire insurance" parents, why not instead see yourself as an agent of grace -- the "official" Church Guy whose job it is to assure them that God doesn't hate them and their child by default and isn't interested in throwing said child into hell because s/he hasn't had the damp hankie thing done...that instead baptism is, for whatever God's reasons, God's means of planting the flag, so to speak, in the person of that child; of claiming that child as God's own. And then that can be your segue into helping them understand that their own "yes!" to God's unconditional "yes!" to them and their children is in the form of teaching their children the Christian basics; teaching them to pray; having them involved in a community of faith where there's mutual support.
Start with the supposition that the parents in your office are people who want to do the right thing by their child and by whatever idea of God they may have. Walk with them from that starting point. Do not sit there thinking them stupid and superstitious and self-absorbed.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Daron
have you spoken to your Archdeacon or your spiritual director about this? Perhaps clergy colleagues will share their own experience of this frustrating situation, which may help you?
You speak of integrity which is absolutely the thing you need to maintain, if the way non churchgoers use the church's services isn't going to drive you bananas. But integrity speaks of keeping a 'wholeness' about things, including yourself and your view of priestly ministry. So I don't think the answer, in this case, is to remove an individual specific of pastoral ministry from the wider picture of whole-parish ministry, and work out a technical solution that works - in your mind - for that one element.
You'll end up having to do the same thing for weddings, funerals, parents seeking signatures for school forms, references etc. In the end you'll be driven insane by trying to balance your conscience with a multi-faceted ministry that will never fit itself into the neat boxes of Canon law.
In practical terms, some incumbents do indeed have stricter requirements than others which can be said to conform to the Canons. Courses for parents and godparents, that kind of thing. There's also the possibility of follow-up visiting, keeping in touch via mail shots.
The Canon's preference for a confirmed Christian is often waived - perhaps in recognition that many Christians don't belong to churches that do confirmation. But as you've discovered the fact is that - even with baptism - many godparents don't, in terms of attendance, belong anywhere.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
That sounds great but it doesn't actually work. The truth is that the Canonical requirements of baptismal applicants are very rarely fulfilled and the promises made in the baptismal liturgy are very, very rarely kept.
The reality is that the current position of pastoral and canonical laxity has actually turned Anglican baptism into something which, to my mind, is unrecognisable from what was originally intended.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
You knew what you were letting yourself in for. My take, you just want to pull the whole thing to one side and are choosing this subject to do it.
Do a baptismal course, show them a video, give them some tea and cake, get over it.
All the best, Pyx_e.
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Anselmina said:You'll end up having to do the same thing for weddings, funerals, parents seeking signatures for school forms, references etc. In the end you'll be driven insane by trying to balance your conscience with a multi-faceted ministry that will never fit itself into the neat boxes of Canon law.
I really don't think that baptism should be put into the same conceptual framework as marriages and funerals. Baptism isn't an 'occasional office': it is a Domnical sacrament. I do admit to having concerns about conducting the funerals of unbelievers but I have no problem with conducting the marriages of nominal Christians but I wouldn't conduct a marriage of a non-Christian to a Christian.
--------------------
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 Pyx_e:
You knew what you were letting yourself in for. My take, you just want to pull the whole thing to one side and are choosing this subject to do it.
What do you mean by "pull the whole thing to one side"?
--------------------
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
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
And god know there is nothing worse than a tight vicar.
AtB, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Daron, what LutheranChik and Anselmina said. As well as my own assessment: you seem to be taking a very legalistic ("canonical") stance in this and setting yourself up, frankly, as a sort of ecclesiastical court. Neither you nor any of us can know the inner disposition and intentions of any person approaching any of the sacraments. Moreover, disposition and intentions aren't unchanging, unwavering, unevolving things. Even if a person entering into holy matrimony or receiving holy orders has entirely the Church's understanding of these sacraments (again, remembering that there isn't a single understanding across the Church Universal) and is sincerely disposed to the sacrament according to the understanding of the Church, that doesn't mean that they won't lose faith or falter at a later time.
To me, you seem to be having a sort of crisis of your own, one that would seem to militate for counsel from your fellow clergy, from your archdeacon and/or bishop; and perhaps one that will lead you outside the Church of England and the usual Anglican attitude toward ministering baptism and the other sacraments.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I know clergy who operate a 'Baptism policy' that requires parents and godparents to undergo teaching and attend church for a few weeks.
They justify it by quoting various C of E documents but the message received by parishioners is that the vicar is 'tight' and unwelcoming.
Yes, I can very much appreciate this danger. However, if I went to my GP and specifically requested a medication that was inappropriate to my needs would I be right in assuming him to be tight and unwelcoming for refusing my request?
--------------------
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
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
You knew what you were letting yourself in for. My take, you just want to pull the whole thing to one side and are choosing this subject to do it.
What do you mean by "pull the whole thing to one side"?
What do you mean by ignoring "you knew what you were letting yourself in for"?
But to answer your question; What I meant was "pull the whole thing to the Right."
AtB, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Thanks for answering the question about 'selective', but what do you mean by 'covenantal'?
[ 24. April 2012, 13:39: 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
|
|
lily pad
Shipmate
# 11456
|
Posted
Huh? You aren't serious in that example are you? If you are, you need to get out and meet with some real people. Baptism is an open door, an opportunity for you to speak of faith. Do your part and let God work out the rest.
--------------------
Sloppiness is not caring. Fussiness is caring about the wrong things. With thanks to Adeodatus!
Posts: 2468 | From: Truly Canadian | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
Not sure why you’ve asked a question when you’ve already decided what the answer is … My understanding is that hatching – and batching and dispatching – of people within your parish goes with the territory. As Anselmina rightly says, there are things that you can do to that may make these things sit more easily on your conscience. But if you’ve tried them already, then … Maybe Pyx_e's snarky comment hides a hidden truth.
It’s worth speaking to someone outside your church like your SD. The danger with letting things fester is that you can end up loathing the people that come to the church in those circumstances. And it’ll show and make them even less likely to show up again!
IME, if one Anglican church is “tight” then all people do is travel to the one further down the road where the vicar is more obliging. [Same goes for RC churches come to that].
Tubbs
[ 24. April 2012, 13:43: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
The issue, as you rightly point out, is what constitutes "the community of faith", what walking in the way of Christ looks like in practice, and what having a place in the 'life and worship of Christ's Church" entails.
Again, you rightly discern that my understanding of a local church does equate to a "gathered community of believers" but I would extend that to a "gathered community of believers and their infants".
I would therefore happily say that the temporal Church Catholic is the gathered community of local churches as just defined.
As I said, I think I agree with your analysis, just not sure that it's CofE or even Anglican in its ecclesiology...
--------------------
"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 Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
To me, you seem to be having a sort of crisis of your own, one that would seem to militate for counsel from your fellow clergy, from your archdeacon and/or bishop; and perhaps one that will lead you outside the Church of England and the usual Anglican attitude toward ministering baptism and the other sacraments.
Thank you for your kind concern. I have Anglican colleagues who do not baptise infants as a matter of principle. It's not as unusual a concern as you appear to believe.
What does interest me, however, is your assertion that the 'usual Anglican attitude toward ministering baptism' is the correct one.
Is it correct? By what means is its correctness measured? Is it faithful to canon? Or does it in fact require canon to be laid aside? Is it faithful to Scripture? Or does it require Scripture to be set aside. Is it faithful to tradition? Or does it actually do violence to the sacramental and pastoral integrity of the Anglican tradition?
I think the 'usual Anglican attitude toward ministering baptism' incorrect. I really do.
--------------------
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:
Thanks for answering the question about 'selective', but what do you mean by 'covenantal'?
I mean that baptism is to administered discriminately to the infants of people who understand that the blessings of baptism are the blessings of inclusion in the New Covenant community.
--------------------
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 lily pad:
Huh? You aren't serious in that example are you? If you are, you need to get out and meet with some real people. Baptism is an open door, an opportunity for you to speak of faith. Do your part and let God work out the rest.
But is baptism an open door? It's a nice image, I grant you, but is it accurate? Why, for example, should I believe that baptism is - as you say - an 'open door'?
--------------------
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
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Daron, I have no idea how old you are, but...welcome to ministry.
I can assure you with the assurance of a 50-something insider with experience in a very conservative as well as, now, progressive catholic denomination that, if you found yourself magically transported across the Pond to the US, where you'd be working both with a lack of governmental/ecclesiastical compulsion to offer services to any citizen who walked through the door and within a religious atmosphere where there every tiny hamlet seems home to a plethora of denominational choices, suggesting that everyone has the opportunity to wind up in a church matching their own beliefs and level of commitment -- you'd still be beating your head on your desk about parents/baptismal candidates who don't seem to understand/care about their baptismal promises no matter how carefully or forcefully you explain them. You would still be bruxing the enamel off your teeth by people who, despite having sat through innumerable hours of catechism class, Bible study and your own sermons, don't seem to "get" what your congregation/denomination believe, teach/profess on paper. Even if you were an ambitious type who started yourself a con-Evo megachurch with "high commitment" standards and a hierarchy of "shepherds" to support/edify/rebuke/tattle on your supposedly highly committed members...you'd still be looking out, on Sunday morning, at the same tattered band of broken human beings, no matter what they signed on to in their "membership agreement" or whatever those people call it. Even if you were the priest over at the RC church down the road from ours, a Polish congregation that's more Catholic than the Pope and that at this moment in history presumably has the full weight of its organization behind any priest who'd want to run a tighter ship...you'd still be in the same state of frustration.
Welcome to ministy.
Have you ever read Bonhoeffer's "Life Together"? It may be a help. Because even though Bonhoeffer certainly had his idea of an ideal Christian community, he also had a very clear-eyed understanding of the real-life mechanics of such a community.
[ 24. April 2012, 14:00: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
You knew what you were letting yourself in for. My take, you just want to pull the whole thing to one side and are choosing this subject to do it.
What do you mean by "pull the whole thing to one side"?
What do you mean by ignoring "you knew what you were letting yourself in for"?
But to answer your question; What I meant was "pull the whole thing to the Right."
AtB, Pyx_e
I wasn't aware that "you knew what you were letting yourself in for" required a response. It looked like a statement to me.
"Pull the whole thing to the Right" of what?
--------------------
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
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
This all sounds very judgemental to me and dismissive of the young babe. Some people came to my Anglican church seeking baptism for their baby as they had been turned away by the church up the road because the minister had judged them unworthy. They were very hurt and didn't understand why their baby was rejected. Our church baptised their baby and the whole family have become regular attenders and contribute in many ways to the parish.Our minister says that he never turns anyone away as he wants to leave the door open for families to return in the future. He maintains that if you shut the door they will never return.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
...you'd still be looking out, on Sunday morning, at the same tattered band of broken human beings.
Or not. Which is kind of my point.
--------------------
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
|
|
lily pad
Shipmate
# 11456
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by lily pad:
Huh? You aren't serious in that example are you? If you are, you need to get out and meet with some real people. Baptism is an open door, an opportunity for you to speak of faith. Do your part and let God work out the rest.
But is baptism an open door? It's a nice image, I grant you, but is it accurate? Why, for example, should I believe that baptism is - as you say - an 'open door'?
I mean that the family seeking baptism have opened the door to having a conversation with you about faith. You get to have a shot at a discussion that you wouldn't get to have otherwise. You get to decide whether or not to close the door.
Jesus said to go and baptize. That's what we do. I don't know any Anglican clergy who don't practice infant baptism as a matter of principle. Sounds pretty exclusive to me.
--------------------
Sloppiness is not caring. Fussiness is caring about the wrong things. With thanks to Adeodatus!
Posts: 2468 | From: Truly Canadian | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
This all sounds very judgemental to me and dismissive of the young babe. Some people came to my Anglican church seeking baptism for their baby as they had been turned away by the church up the road because the minister had judged them unworthy. They were very hurt and didn't understand why their baby was rejected. Our church baptised their baby and the whole family have become regular attenders and contribute in many ways to the parish.Our minister says that he never turns anyone away as he wants to leave the door open for families to return in the future. He maintains that if you shut the door they will never return.
This is the most compelling argument so far for a more open policy, but does such a pragmatic approach inadvertently do an injustice to the sacramental integrity of the baptismal rite itself? Yes, infant baptism can be a good boat to fish from, but is that a good way to treat a 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
|
|
lily pad
Shipmate
# 11456
|
Posted
Do an injustice to the sacramental integrity of the baptismal rite itself? Not a chance.
A good way to treat the sacrament? Absolutely.
--------------------
Sloppiness is not caring. Fussiness is caring about the wrong things. With thanks to Adeodatus!
Posts: 2468 | From: Truly Canadian | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
This is the most compelling argument so far for a more open policy, but does such a pragmatic approach inadvertently do an injustice to the sacramental integrity of the baptismal rite itself? Yes, infant baptism can be a good boat to fish from, but is that a good way to treat a sacrament?
Was mankind made for the sabbath or the sabbath made for mankind?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Tell you what, Daron, with your high and scrupulous standards, when you get to heaven you're going to have to rough it a bit...
(Which is intended as a charitable way of saying ease off, don't get so hung up about perfection, and when you're dealing with the flawed and tattered human race, look a bit more for the cracks where the light might get in.)
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by leo:
but the message received by parishioners is that the vicar is 'tight' and unwelcoming.
Oh No!!! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Daron, at least in Lutheranism baptism is about God's work -- not yours, not the baby's, not the parents'. It's the equivalent of an old agent of a state power landing on the shore of a new unexplored land and planting the state's flag in the sand and saying, "I claim thee for _____!"
From my perspective your job as a called and ordained servant of the Word, as you're disembarking from the boat and wading through the surf to the shore as your Sovereign has called you to do, is at that point not to evaluate the potential of the land or the skill level of the development team that is supposed to work with the land. Your job at the moment is to "plant the flag" and claim the land for your Sovereign and not angst about outcomes. As representative of your Sovereign, do you have a responsibility to help the development team that you've got with you understand what your Sovereign wants them to do in this place? Certainly. Does it frustrate you if they don't do it, and ignore your visits and e-mails? Sure it does. But at the moment that is not your concern. Your concern is planting the flag.
Now, if at heart your baptismal theology really isn't the catholic standard -- if deep, deep down you're a believer's baptism adherent -- you may reject this metaphor. But I know enough about my Baptist et al neighbors to know that thinking one has a truly voluntary, committed group of Christians all walking in the same theological and behavioral direction by virtue of adult individuals "making a decision," by having signed membership agreements and vetting potential members through the rest of the congregation and trying to keep everyone on the narrow path through various "pastoral" means...you're not going to wind up with what you think you are.
In the US, what happens then is that the "pure" folk get angry and frustrated and spin off into their own church. And then that all happens again...and again...and again. Or the "pure" folk get angry and frustrated and go stomping off to find a "purer" church that suits their convictions. And then they get disappointed with that church, and leave for yet a purer church... and then leave that church...
In my lay ministry training, one of our pastor-mentors told us that, in the end, "You've got to love your people." Bottom line.
By virtue of your own office, "your" people include any citizen in your parish -- people who may indeed not love you or the Church back in any way that you can ascertain.
But here you have a family with a little child who, for whatever vague reason, have voluntarily come to you as local representative of the Church with a request to...well...it has to do with God, and not doing it might be hazardous in a number of ways, and their family has always had it done. So they'd better have it done too; and then you're invited around afterward for drinks and festivities with the clan and friends.
There you go, Daron. Love your people. Love them more than you love what you think Real Christians [tm] should think about Holy Baptism. They're real people, and they've come through the church door into your study asking you for something. Love them. The Holy Spirit can take care of the rest.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
LutheranChick. You're on fire!! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Plant the flag.
Each time I attend a baptismal service and that water goes on the head and the oil is spread that's the feeling I get.
I claim thee ___ ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
[ 24. April 2012, 14:58: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Thanks. I'm engaging in work avoidance, which sometimes concentrates the mind powerfully.;-)
And, frankly, once upon a time I used to be Daron. When I was in my 20's I wanted to go to seminary and become ordained, and boy, would MY church be the epitome of belief and practice. How could it not be, with such a dedicated, enthusiastic and thoughtful shepherd at the head? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Funny how real life intervenes in these kinds of fantasies.
[ 24. April 2012, 15:06: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Daron's post begins: quote:
I'm getting tired of baptising the infants of non-church members resident in the parish.
Daron-- I don't think your boredom quotient is particularly relevant- it's not about you. If this is the primary consideration, you do need to look around for another line of work. Or perhaps emigrate to serve in one of those Anglican churches which operate in a more sectarian (sociologically speaking) environment.
If your core concerns centre on the need to educate parents and develop in them a stronger sense of membership and belonging and consciousness of their lives as Xns and transmitting this to their children, and the real frustration in doing this in a context of a secular(izing) society, then other shipmates have given you some very helpful ideas and perspectives.
If you think that you need to tighten how the canons operate, you can only realistically do this in concert with your neighbouring colleagues, else the parents will simply go off to S Norbert the Merciful, where the vicar was much nicer--- and, as well, you need to apply the rules fairly and in a non-arbitrary manner, always careful that in doing so you are not defeating your missionary role. Remember that you are operating in an established church setting, where a question such as the one you posed: quote:
Would it essentially mean that it is possible for an Anglican parish to validly operate a Committed Member Policy? Would such a position be desirable
has no point.
On your question of a fair reading of the canon, you are loading far too much into B27.3. As an example, when you say "personally testify to saving faith in Jesus Christ in a way which is consonant with the soteriology of the Church Catechism," that is a gloss and extrapolation on what the canon says: "can render an accountof their faith according to the said catechism." This alone raises a question of how much you are trying to use canons and procedures as a vehicle for personal views.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
It seems to me that one of the primary functions of the church is to bless the good in the world, and to stand in witness against the bad. It also strikes me that baptism is something that is good. Surely, it is better to throw the weight of the church behind any seed of faith, no matter how insignificant, and to trust and pray that, in due time, God will bring the increase.
If I were a vicar or pastor, which you will no doubt be relieved to hear I am not, I would baptise wherever I could, solemnise the marriages of whoever I could, and generally be as profligate as I could with God's grace. Who would I be to judge when I was casting pearls into the local piggery?
Quite apart from that, what would you be doing if you weren't engaged in all that baptismal visiting. My bet is that it would be something of far less evangelistic potential.
--------------------
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
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
quote:
If I were a vicar or pastor, which you will no doubt be relieved to hear I am not, I would baptise wherever I could, solemnise the marriages of whoever I could, and generally be as profligate as I could with God's grace. Who would I be to judge when I was casting pearls into the local piggery?
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by lily pad:
Sounds pretty exclusive to me.
The Horror!!!
That all said
I insist all parents bringing their children to be baptized attend at least two baptism classes (and more depending on how well they understand the Christian faith) if it's their first child. Attend church regularly and subsequent children will be baptized without you having to take the class. Don't attend church and we will do the classes for every child. However, the parents and godparents take the vows. If they break the vows, they'll have to answer to God. Now, if they tell me outright, they have no intention of ever bringing the child to church. I won't baptize their child. Most parents presenting a child for baptism at least know what they are supposed to be doing even if they don't do it.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Is baptism a work of God or a work of Man? Yes, I know it can be both but which way you lean on this question will tend to determine to whom it is administered ie: if it is primarily the work of human beings eg: believer's baptism, where the candidate is using baptism as an acted metaphor to publicly declare his/her faith in Christ, then the spiritual and theological mettle of the candidate is important. If, however, baptism is a work of God and a means of communication of His grace, then the calibre of the candidate (and his/her family and godparents) is well-nigh irrelevant and is not grounds for refusal of baptism IMO.
--------------------
"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
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I think I can safely say that if my pastor were confronted by parents who flatly declared that they had no intentions of following up on their baptismal promises -- he'd at least try to unpack what the resistance was essentially all about. (And it might often be less hostility/indifference to the Christian message than, say, some sort of ongoing family drama involving competing sects or some vicar behaving badly to Great-Aunt Florence back during the war.) And I think he'd try to get an idea of who the faithful people were in this kid's life, in the case of the parents expressing some familial impetus to get their children baptized. (Never underestimate the power of believing Grandmas and Grandpas.)Not because these factors impact God's baptismal promises; but because they provide some ideas/starting points for other pastoral care.
But ultimately this comes down to the work of the Holy Spirit...and, even though many of us try to be the Holy Spirit, we ain't.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
How do you know what will happen to that family in the future? How do you know what will happen to that child? When I church steward, I sometimes see comments in the visitor's book from children who were baptised as babies returning to the church for a visit. Sometimes I see them coming in to light a candle or to play quietly with the toys. And they will return with their school for visits, pointing out the font where they were baptised.
Does it matter that they don't attend services on Sunday? No. They still have a very real sense of it being their church.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
