What is in Kelvin's Head?

Baptism and the Churches

24/07/2013

Liturgists and People Who Know What They Are Talking About have worked very hard to persuade people that we should be trying dissuade people from talking about Christenings and instead talk about the sacrament of baptism. Today the Church of England appears to have let the cat out of the bag with a post that seems to suggest that no-one, least of all anyone in the Church of England’s press team has been paying the blindest bit of notice.

The post, Top 10 facts about Christenings is being comprehensively panned and rubbished on twitter by friends I know in the Church of England.

The post itself reminds me of a conversation that I had only yesterday with an American friend when I realised that what we think about baptism differs radically in different parts of the world. Like marriage, we believe baptism to be a universal thing commonly understood. And then you look at the formularies for the services or chat to someone about it and you realise that we are not always talking about the same thing.

During my trip to North America last year, I was more concious than ever that the churches over there have bought into a baptismal theology that we just don’t talk about. It is based around something called the baptismal covenant – a little catechism that is used at baptisms.

Now, we use the words here too. People will recognise them as being part of the service of baptism.

Here’s one form of it:

Do you believe in God the Creator, who made the world?
I believe.
Do you believe in God the Saviour, who redeemed humanity?
I believe.
Do you believe in God the Sanctifier, who gives life to God’s people?
I believe.

This is the faith of the Church.
This is our faith. We believe in one God, Creator, Saviour and Sanctifier.
Amen

NN., as those who will love and care for N., will you continue in the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and in the prayers?
With the help of God, I will
Will you proclaim the good news by word and deed, serving Christ in all people?
With the help of God, I will.
Will you work for justice and peace, honouring God in all Creation?
With the help of God, I will.

This is the task of the Church.
This is our task: to live and work for the kingdom of God.

Now the point is, this isn’t called The Baptismal Covenant in Scotland. And in England, so far as I can get my head around the liturgy, it is entirely optional and even then only for those who have been baptised who can answer for themselves, not for babies.

Yet, my friends in the US and Canada speak about the Baptismal Covenant as though it is universally understood, always used at baptisms and as though it justifies all kinds of things.

For a lot of people over there, the questions about gay relationships, ordaining women as bishops and priests and all kinds of other issues about justice are simply answered with a shrug of the shoulders and “well, we need to do these things because of the baptismal covenant”.

I don’t think that I do well in explaining to friends from across the pond that though we may (or indeed may not) use the same words at baptisms, we don’t generally carry those ideas through into thinking that they are slam dunk answers to difficult questions that arise in other areas of church life. Indeed, they look at me as though I am bonkers. I don’t know anyone in the UK who would seriously argue in public that same-sex marriage or the ordination of women are obviously things that we should do because of anything to do with baptism yet that association is commonplace in other parts of the Anglican Communion.

I may be bonkers, of course. But I think I’m right to say that the north American churches believe that there is something going on at baptism that I think most Christians in the UK Anglican churches and indeed most Christians in all of the rest of Christendom through all the ages of the church would be bewildered and puzzled by.

I’m puzzled by it too. Though there is nothing in the Baptismal Covenant that I disagree with, it isn’t a set of promises that were either made on my behalf as a child nor was I asked to assert any of it when I was baptised.

When you travel, you discover that some things are universal. When you travel well, you realise that they are not the things that you expected to be universal.

Thoughts?

Anglican Church of Canada, baptism, baptismal covenant, christenings, Church of England, the episcopal church

10 responses to “Blogging”

Lisa

18/01/2007

First, let me argue that Bishop Paul Marshall — who wrote that letter you cite — is not one of the great liberals of the Episcopal Church in the U.S. He is widely respected and regarded as a moderate. What he wrote in that letter is a frustration that many of us share: Why can the Archbishop meet privately with the most extreme conservatives of the Episcopal Church in the U.S., but consistently refuses to meet with our bishops assembled? I think that is a fair and valid question. I would urge folks to read Bishop Marshall’s whole letter and not just Ruth Gledhill’s biased “gloss” on it.

I agree the overall tenor of dialogue on U.S. Episcopalians’ blogs is worrisome. But I do not believe it’s the “liberals” that have gone out of bounds. If you want to read true venom, go to Virtue Online or StandFirm.

Reply
David

18/01/2007

It would be great to have a meet up and blether!

Reply
kelvin

18/01/2007

Thanks for the comments

Lisa – it was precisely standfirm and virtueonline that I had in mind.

You’re presuming that I don’t have sympathy for Paul Marshall. I have a great deal of sympathy for his position. I think he is angry. And I think he is right to be angry. I deliberately linked directly to his piece rather than Ruth Gledhill’s stuff about it, which people can find for themselves.

Perhaps if I had written “Those of us with strong liberal convictions…” my own position would have been clearer.

Reply
Tim

18/01/2007

Sociability good. (And arguably good for online interactions too – there are several notable folks whose adventures I read, whom I could happily put in a room together with a football and lock the door 😉

Reply
Frank

18/01/2007

There comes a time to toss convention and start communicating. I have a tea party in mind.

cheers

Reply
Raspberry Rabbit

18/01/2007

Kelvin, I think the whole blogging machine on the right in the U.S. has been set up for a good long while now. They’ve become proficient at it – the ‘blog storm’ if you like which sees itself quite self consciously as ‘generating’ public opinion for particular ends. The amount of support which ‘social conservatives’ will lend to religious conservatives as ‘deserving cousins’ allows those involved in the present TEC dispute access to an immense network.

I agree with the first comment about Bishop Marshall being middle of the road and not particularly liberal.

Reply
Raspberry Rabbit

18/01/2007

Oh and with respect to SEC bloggers. A meeting might be a good idea

Reply
Dennis

18/01/2007

Kevin: Just discovered your blog through MadPriest’s blog. I’ll add you to my regular visits.

It is exciting for me, an American far away from the Episcopal Church of Scotland, since I was confirmed at St Mary’s Glasgow back on Pentecost Sunday in 1988 – your church is where I became an Episcopalian – Fr John Turner was the chaplain at GU. Fr Malcolm was provost.

How exciting. Glad to find your blog.

Dennis

The world of political blogs in the US isn’t really that bad. The most important blog in the US for political progressives is DailyKos (www.dailykos.com) – I’m over there quite a lot – worth watching – it has a lot of voice and influence in the US Democratic party for supporting and raising money for underdog candidates last year who happened to win.

Reply
Dennis

18/01/2007

make that Kelvin, not Kevin. sorry about that!

Reply
Lisa

20/01/2007

I’ve corresponded privately with Kelvin about this, but let me make a few comments here in public.

I usually have to do my reading and writing on “things Anglican” after a full day at work. I regret to say that means I am sometimes too tired, and I miss the nuances. Which clearly happened in my public reply here. I apologize for that, and I apologize for making unwarranted assumptions about Kelvin’s stance.

One of the things I am realizing is that we in the Anglican Communion really do not understand enough about each other’s cultures and ethos. Over here in the U.S., we are very much hoping that the churches in the U.K. (and a few other provinces) will allow us to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling,” as St. Paul urged. I fear that our colonial past [of which most U.S. Episcopalians repent most sincerely] is working against us. We do not want to “export” our positions to others in the Communion; we don’t want to tell others they must do as we have done. We simply want the space in which to walk the path that seems right to us — and that path already has a 30-year history of prayerful discernment, both about the place of women in ordained ministry and about the place of gay men and lesbians in the Church and ordination.

Unfortunately, in the larger U.S. culture now, both “liberal” and “moderate” are anathema. A very scary conservativism (verging on — dare I use the term? — fascism) is taking hold.

When folks say the Episcopal Church is “bowing to popular culture,” they could not possibly be more wrong. “Popular culture” now in the U.S. is strongly capitalist, imperialist, nationalist, sexist, and anti-gay. Our church is “bucking” that tide, and we are paying a great price for what we truly believe to be a Spirit-led, prophetic witness.

It remains to be seen whether others in the Anglican Communion will trust us to continue in this time of discernment.

These are very, very hard times for all of us. And I hate how the positions are being polarized.

At our church’s General Convention [Do you call it a synod?], several people spoke about how the “diverse center” had spoken. I hope and pray that the “diverse center” will find their voices in Tanzania.

Reply