MM - I had a few minutes in the midst of doing some work and saw your post. What are your thoughts about infant baptism? (I'm sure I already know this.) And how is confirmation affected as a result? I have my own thoughts about baptism and confirmation, but am curious about yours.
SP - i don't have a good theology of infant baptism and i don't think the prayer book does either, but i do it. i do it because of the canon about communing only the baptized. having seen the Spirit in the eyes of infants and toddlers who reach out with great expectation at the altar rail - i am fully convinced that God is very much at work AND they probably grasp just what is going on there more than even those of us who studied it graduate schools. that being said, i would rather we hold dedication services for infants, have an open communion policy, and then do believers baptism.
from that you can probably guess that i hold a very low theology of confirmation. it seems to me that it was (not is) a rite of passage that worked well in its day. you know the old "from Xian loins come Xian children" thing? anyway, if baptism brings with it permission to come and receive then what is left? do we need hands laid on by a bishop in apostolic succession to join a vestry - i highly doubt it.
if it were more an service of ordination into the lay order of ministry - i'd be all about it - but as it stands as a repetition of baptism - it seems redundant.
care to share your thoughts?
TB - I'm a big fan of infant baptism, even though I was baptized when I was 20...or maybe I was 19. Anyway, among other resources, Augustine has a great bit in the Confessions about wishing he had been baptized as an infant. I think a lot of it depends on who you think is doing the work in baptism - is it truly a sacrament in which the water bears grace to the receiver? Or is it merely a confirmation of what the believer already believes the Spirit to have done - "believer's baptism," I think, comes dangerously close to this perspective. Then again, I am not persuaded by, but do have some sympathies with, early Calvinist ideas about election and irresistability. Anyway, the point is that a believer's baptism only sort of thing (and having been raised a Baptist, I know a few things about it :-), I think, focuses too much attention on the one being baptized at the expense of God's role in baptism, and mostly ignores the salvific grace given in this particular sacrament. There. :-)
CL - It's funny, infant baptism is one of the few things that really feels right to me these days. I do not worry abt how much the parents "get". I try teach that it's not about checking off the first step on the list of sacraments... that it's about becoming adopted as children of God, joining the family that is the church etc etc. And I think most of the time that is probably not really heard by my just-about- Roman Catholic parishioners. But in baptism, I don't care. Because it's about God in that child's life. And the potential future of that relationship. And I LOVE giving the kids the bread. I think I find so much hope in those moments... hope in their future with God.
We have confirmations for my first time Sunday. And that has been harder. Because again it is a check mark on the list. And people don't even know why they are there. Do not know what they are confirming. And I can teach that.
But it still feels disappointing and a bit hollow. I am not sure I "got it" when I did it in 6th grade. But if confirmation is supposed to be accepting and taking on our baptismal promises made for us by others originally, I just don't know if it works when it is done at a specific age. When in reality I think most people ebb and flow in their relationships with God.I don't know, I cannot even verbalize it at this point, I do not know what I would change. And it is important to make the commitment, but something feels pretty off to me.
SP -to TB - I wonder if you could expand on the "salvific grace" of baptism. I guess the thing that is so hard for me in infant baptism is that we say "baptism is not salvifiic" and then "mark them a Christ's own for ever." With the service's primary hope being baptism of older children and adults it seems to sway the way of with this water the vows you just made will be possible (see the last words said by the bishop at The Examination).
to CL - "In baptism, I don't care. Because it's about God in that child's life." Thanks for that. You are so very right - the only way, for me, that infant baptism makes any sense is as a planting service - we are planting the seed of God in this child's life and parents, godparents, and congregation all promise to tend to it over the years, but ultimately, as Scripture tells us, it is up to God as to whether or not it grows.
There is a great (albeit it somewhat long) interview with my hero Tony Jones and "pastorboy". In it Tony is asked if he is 'born again" and Tony's reply is priceless. This link - http://www.youtube.com/wat
TB - The "planting" is exactly what I'm talking about - the Church has long taught that in baptism, as a sacrament, grace is given to the child, a grace that saves. The Arminian influenced Protestant teaching that the person's response to God saves them (meaning only those past the 'age of reason' can be baptized) is an innovation of the post-Reformation era. Who says baptism isn't salvific? I say it is. That is the teaching of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. The baptismal liturgy says as much in the Thanksgiving over the Water, "in it we are buried with Christ in his death. BY IT we share in his resurrection. THROUGH IT we are reborn by the Holy Spirit."
Also, those questions in the baptismal liturgy are for the most part an innovation of the '79 BCP - to see the original examination, where the rubric actually says that the priest "demand[s]" the questions of the godparents, not the one being baptized, check the Elizabethan BCP (1559), p. 273 in John Booty's edition. For further thought, check out the Catechism, p.857 in the '79 BCP, the response to the question "What are the sacraments?" and in particular the last line of that response. And of course, the 'Holy Baptism' section of the Catechism is useful as well, especially the response to "Why then are infants baptized?"
And Steve Pankey, who is telling you that baptism isn't salvific? That would be, in my opinion, an extremely heterodox thing to say. I'm sure there's a third century heresy about that, but I don't have time to check my history books before my vacation starts...woo hoo!
MM - hmm. my head's kind of swirling with thoughts at the moment. without much explanation (because i have to babysit my unbaptized niece), i'll simply say that i tend to lean away from baptism and confirmation as they currently exist. this is a topic that i feel i may need to do some more in-depth research and prayer on, but, for now, suffice it to say that i would prefer to see us doing dedications and believers baptisms.
TB - Why does it matter if the baptized person believes or not? Upon what is their salvation dependent?
SP - i've been telling myself it isn't. baptism offers grace that could save, should be be accepted, but it could very well be rejected also.
i carry a dual-theology of baptism
for infants - it is a planting of grace that could one day save
for adults - it is the outward and visible sign of what the grace that the Holy Spirit has been working in the newly baptized persons life.
in neither case does the action of baptism do the saving - thereby it is not a salvific action. grace filled - of course, but not salvific.
i'll post more as they come.
UPDATE -
MT - Fr. Steve,
Boy am I with Todd on this one. Why name just one heresy you are committing, when you are swimming in so many of them. You are having issues with not heresy in particular, but with:
1. Ecclesiolgy
2. Nature of Original Sin
3. Sacramentology
4. Joyless, rigid Protestantism
As for the seed theory, I agree to a point. Infant baptism does indeed plant the seed for a life lived in communion with God, but the metaphor falls short in that baptism is not the beginning of a longer conversion, but the conversion itself. Baptism is salvific by nature and opens the door to the other sacraments, which is why Orthodox babies are baptised, confirmed, and given the Blessed Sacrament at the same time, so that all righteousness might be fulfilled. By the way, I am doing a baptism on the 29th with the full rite - exorcism, baptism, anointing. Why take chances?
SP - i knew tucker could do it - joyless, rigid protestantism - i've been accused of that before. :-)
i'm still not buying. what do we do with the person, baptized as an infant, who then lives the rest of their life denying God's grace. Are they bound for the new Jerusalem because mom and dad got them splashed even if they would prefer to not accept God's love? Doesn't your way lead on a slippery slope toward universalism?
i have argued elsewhere that all the sacraments are the Church catching up with what God is already doing. From baptism to ordination and back - it is all a means of celebrating God at work - not putting God to work by our action.
MT - The person baptized as an infant has the same chance anyone else does who has put on Christ to attain to heavenly joys. All fall short, all turn from God, all have the chance to turn back. That is why the doctrine of Purgatory is actually the most grace-filled doctrine of the Church - check Dr. Ferlo's commencement speech to more on that...
As for the sacramental questions you raise, you are doing two things here that cause you to worry about infant baptism:
1. You aren't giving God enough credit. I know this sounds paradoxical, but you aren't allowing God to work His grace by any means He deems fit. If He has chosen to mediate grace temporally in the sacraments, than who are we to question that?
2. You aren't giving the Church enough credit. The Church is not a inorganic clubhouse of believers, but the living continued incarnation of Christ on Earth. The Church acts in the name of Christ much as ambassadors - whatever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven... It's not about putting God to work, as if we could or as if He would even mind, but about fulfilling the work we have been given to do.
SP - 1. by your argument would you allow for God to mediate His grace by means other than baptism? If so, then we aren't really arguing against one another, just two sides of a multi-sided die.
2. I'll never give the Church that much credit. It is inherently flawed - a human means to interact with God. If God chooses to work through a flawed system, fine, but the day we ever get out of our own way and really fulfill the work we have been given to do is the day I return to Rome.
Thanks for weighing in Deacon Tucker. I choose to ignore your push for Purgatory, though will agree that those who have chosen a way other than the Kingdom will most likely have to wait until the 2nd coming for a chance of redemption (Dante's vision notwithstanding).
No comments:
Post a Comment