Recently the question of Baptism has raised its head. To clarify my own view, I am Calvinistic regarding the Sacraments. As for how they should be administered I like what Donald Robinson has to say (though, being honest, I am perhaps a little less congregationalist than he is). In short, when I take my Anglican ordination vows next February I don't believe that I'll have to cross my fingers under the cassock.
I also recognise that some in our congregation feel differently about the Sacraments. With respect to Communion it is reasonably easy to keep your views to yourself as you participate. But Baptism (especially of the infant variety) requires a clear and public judgment call - you either Will or Won't. For those who have had reservations I have noticed a certain compromise making its appearance (it may have been around for a while, I'm not really sure). This is the Thanksgiving Service. The idea being that for those parents who are not comfortable making promises of faith on behalf of their child but still wish a public religious service they ask for the congregation to join in a special time of giving thanks for the birth of the child and praying for wisdom and faith as that child grows.
I firmly believe that all people should follow their conscience in this matter. Because of my own convictions I believe that baptism is as it is scripturally described neither a mandatory rite that all must participate in or a 'work' to earn God's favour. Since it is the grace and work of God which is on view (and this cannot be shaped or bestowed by our ceremonies) I am prepared to be gracious towards those who differ from me.
The question: If in the future I am asked to officiate at such a Thanksgiving service should I agree?
On the one hand there is nothing wrong with giving thanks to God. We should all do it a bit more. And since the grace of God belongs to Him and not to me, who am I to sit in judgment on someone else's conscience. Also (for more pragmatic reasons), simply agreeing may avoid a possibly hurtful pastoral situation.
And yet...
And yet, the more I think about it, I am not convinced that I could in good conscience preside over such a service. Three immediate problems spring to mind:
1) It would be contrary to my ordination vows. Part of what I will be agreeing to is to support the theology of the Anglican Church as expressed in the Prayer Book and 39 Articles. Part of that theology is sacramental and so has been set down in particular ways and not in others. Well, so what? Aren't Anglicans famous for shafting the rules when it suits them? Yes, and that is often part of the problem. Despite my Counterculture affinities I'm not the sort of person who goes out to deliberately subvert the system. Let there be a fair fight or no fight at all. Even more so if I actually agree with the rules as they stand.
2) It shifts our theology of grace from Calvinism to Arminianism. In the service of baptism it is God's grace and faithfulness that is most on show rather than the faith of either the baptized or their sponsors. Our faith is important but only as it testifies to the work of God. When my son was baptized I had faith that God was able to nurture faith even in one so young because of His sovereign call. It seems to me that is is this focus on God's election and grace which are most denied by the Thanksgiving practice. The emphasis is on the hope that one day the child will be 'capable of making a decision on his/her own'. Grace becomes something for the future rather than the present. God is placed as inactive now but active later 'when they are ready'. Such a view of God's grace I could not support.
3) Individual conscience trumps community expressions of faith. If you were to go out to dinner at a good steak restaurant you would probably be a little irritated if the manager declared that because there was a vegetarian sitting at Table 24 the whole restaurant would have to be vegetarian for the evening. You get a similar problem with the Thanksgiving service. Everyone knows that Anglicans are part of the Baby Dunking mob. If you attend our services regularly you can expect a certain number of soggy screaming children per annum. You can even expect to be invited to join in prayers for the faith of these infants in that context. However, when a particular couple decides that such an expression of faith is Not Good and proposes an alternative they in effect ask the community their theological convictions by participating. It is never expressed as such, but the effect over time is confusion over exactly what we do believe about sacraments and a belief that church community is a Choose Your Own Adventure to suit individual needs.
These are some of my gut feelings regarding this situation which I am fairly confident of being placed in at some time. Although, if I'm honest, there are probably arguments for the other side that I haven't considered. To clarify again, I think that it is absolutely right and appropriate both that Christian communities should give thanks for the birth and faith of all children born into them. How this should be expressed with respect to established church practice appears to be a more sticky question than I initially considered.
Interesting Luke. We've had some thought about this...but warning - I am more of a Baptist persuasion, and well, you know Toby...We had a thanksgiving for Caleb. He is unbaptized at present. We actually are not against infant baptism. We (esp Toby) think it is a good reflection of the New Testament instruction (we believe it is mandatory in the sense that it a clear command of Christ). Then we read the Anglican prayer book. And we became uncomfortable. We read different editions. We read and discussed it with lots of people. And in the process we turned Toby's parents off infant baptism according to the prayer book (and that says a lot!). We think it does a disservice to the Biblical view on baptism. It is difficult to see how it is possible for one person to make promises such as "I turn to Christ. I renounce evil," on behalf of another person. Each individual is responsible for their own decisions, and must stand personally before Christ's judgement seat.
ReplyDeleteAlso, a prayer that goes "please sanctify this water for the mystical washing away of sins" may be technically correct, but for any non theologically trained ear, it will communicate that it's the water that is important (that washes away sins) - and this is just plain unhelpful.
Our minister (relunctantly) did not baptize Caleb (he told us he could not change the wording of the prayer book), but we prayed for his salvation and to know and love God and gave him a Bible and godparents in the ceremony. A significant moment in committing to raise him to follow Christ, as I'm sure his water baptism will one day reflect.
- MG & Toby
I think that Robinson was very helpful for me in terms of understanding that the confessions of the parents and godparents are not 'imputed' to the child. Rather it is the child's faith which is even at that stage being nurtured through God's election.
ReplyDeleteThe language of the Prayer Book may at points be arcane but I would not classify it at any point as theologically unhelpful. It is the responsibility of those who are theologically trained to instruct those who might be confused rather than discard language that points to Christ's work. This is why it is important to have Catechism classes that doesn't just pass over church practice and prayer book issues as though they were something to be embarrassed about.
Hi Luke,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughts on this - you've clarified some misgivings about Thanksgiving that were rattling around my head.
Thanksgiving does seem appropriate when non-regulars approach us wanting to baptise their child. Yet many of them soon work out that this is a "diet-coke" option that they don't want (as I have witnessed).
And yes, ministers definitely do need to teach what the sacraments mean. I think too many of are scared to speak given the diversity of views in the pews.
Rhys