Go to the index of other articles to do with Baptismal Integrity.
Go to John's Brinkster Home Page.
Update 46 page 6.
In Update 46:
Parents hear?
Web wanderings
Dear Archbishop
Waters converge
Videos and prep
Andrewes
Of godparents
Convergence of the baptismal waters
Paul Perkin, vicar of St Mark Battersea Rise.
This paper was originally a discussion document for the staff, PCC and pastors of St. Mark's Church. In the event it proved uncontroversial, and we have been given permission to print it with very few changes.
The Two Streams
We have always offered, without any suggestion of preference or superiority of one route over the other, two alternatives to the Christian parents of babies or young children brought into the church family: Baptism (sometimes incorrectly called Christening) and Dedication (or Thanksgiving, which had an authorised form of service in the ASB and is now in CW). After a few years of 'shaking out' it appears that roughly a half of our church children go down each stream, and that there is very little obvious pattern of denominational background, level of commitment, social grouping etc. to explain their choice.
[With unchurched families we do not baptise infants indiscriminately. But for pastoral reasons we
(a) discuss both options with the parents,
(b) help them to see that the latter option is more consistent with their particular stage of pilgrimage, since they need make no public profession of faith or Christian resolve. (This consideration is not of course the reason why some of our own church family opt for dedication)
(c) offer Alpha as the "baptism preparation" course, and
(d) stress that it is their decision at the end of the day.
We never say 'no' to people, or turn people away, or make their decision for them, but only at our most rigorous encourage them to 'wait', and meanwhile to 'take the opportunity to explore the Christian faith'. It is also quite feasible to go ahead with thanksgiving/dedication immediately, and child baptism subsequently after a period of enquiry.]
In offering these two streams without 'weighting' or any value-judgments attached, we are not being merely pragmatic, ducking (if you forgive the pun) the issue, but expressing a doctrinal position, which includes a number of convictions:
(1) We uphold (and I personally am convinced) that infant baptism of the children of believing parents is a viable practice that can be argued from scripture and tradition. I am a paedo-baptist.
(2) We believe, however, that scripture is insufficiently clear, so that (a) infant baptism cannot be insisted upon as the only way, and (b) thanksgiving/dedication is an equally valid deduction from scripture.
(3) We therefore insist that where scripture does not rule definitively, the issue is secondary and Christians have freedom of personal conscience.
Pastorally this means in practice that we are flexible, refusing to allow the issue to be a bone of contention. We will respect those who believe that for themselves thanksgiving/dedication is the way for their children, but we will gently disagree if they insist it ought to be the way for all (and similarly with infant baptism).
It is my hesitant guesstimate that many (and not just evangelicals) in the Church of England are going in this direction of flexibility, combining both pastoral discipline and pastoral accommodation - a certain rigour over the necessity of the faith ingredient with a certain freedom over the age and method of baptism. I won't allow my baptist minister friend to say: "we practise believer's baptism, whereas you don't." I reply: "No, we too only practise believer's baptism, but we hold a more corporate idea of the solidarity of God's covenant promises to the church community and the Christian family, who may express faith on behalf of the baby". On the other hand we are quite agnostic about the appropriate age for baptism and the method of baptism: immersion or effusion (sprinkling) - both of which find allusions in scripture. (Incidentally, it is quite possible to baptise a baby by immersion without drowning it!)
If this survey is accurate, we are heading for (or are already in) a situation where the Church of England is no longer one of the denominations that only or mainly practises infant baptism, in contradistinction to Baptist and some other churches that only baptise adults. The latter may remain true, but the Church of England is increasingly laid back about the whole issue and offers both.
The only feature that reveals that we are not totally at ease with this divergence of practice is the fact that in principle we do not conduct baptism and dedication at the same time on the same day, to avoid confusion. I think this gives something of the game away - that obviously two different practices are at the very least slightly confusing to the congregation, sending a mixed message. But the inconvenience is minor, and this does also at least suggest the necessity of the next consideration ...
The Convergence of the Streams
For some time I have been thinking about the right way to ensure the two streams converge - particularly as I once drove through the middle of a moonlit night through flooded northern France. I observed that
(a) the fact rivers diverged into two was a result of flood not of drought - what we are dealing with is a problem of growth, breadth, inclusivity and widening influence in our ministry, not of exclusivity or decline in our ministry; and
(b) that diverging streams always re-converge further downstream. I believe it is a matter of importance that there is this convergence: that we don't institutionalise two separate faith groups in the church - that a logical extension, even if not a direct interpretation, of Gal.3:28 would include: "There is neither Jew nor Greek ... infant-baptised nor adult-baptised ... for you are all one in Christ Jesus" - and that this unity needs demonstrating liturgically and visibly.
There are two issues at stake:
(1) the one above - the convergence of the infant baptised and the infant dedicated: that is, two groups of young people who both grow up with Christian faith, the newly adult believer; and
(2) the convergence of two groups of adults - those who grew up with Christian faith and those who are new to the faith, the newly believing adult.
So in reality there are more than two streams! Take this latter issue first.
The newly believing adult: must be baptised, not for salvation but for obedience, as part of the way of discipleship. If baptised already we would not re-baptise, for doctrinal reasons of our understanding of the symbolism of baptism - a once-and-for-all death to the old life and rising to new life in Christ. To repeat it would undermine the significance of it (as, to my mind, a remarriage service identical to the first marriage undermines the significance of marriage for everybody - but that's a different matter!).
However, (a) the baptised can reaffirm their baptism vows (as the married can reaffirm their marriage vows), (b) I am open to the contrivance of reaffirmation of baptismal vows with water, (c) I am sufficiently Jesuitical to pursue a policy of asking no questions about a person's ceremonial history (I draw the line at their present belief and moral lifestyle - these are proper areas for examination as the church from the earliest times has always practised), and if I do not know for certain that someone has already been baptised (and it's remarkable how many people have no idea whether they were baptised as infants) I am happy to do so. Although awkward it seems to me preferable to a policy which drives new Christians away to another church "which will baptise me now I'm a real Christian" or "will baptise me properly" (e.g. by immersion rather than affusion).
A further difficulty is that, scripturally, baptism should follow immediately or soon after faith ("What is to prevent ...?" Acts 8), and that charismatic churches have an ease and comfort with laying hands on anything that moves (for example on the Alpha weekend when many people commit their lives to Christ - so that in theory we see any separation in time between the baptism and 'confirmation' of an adult as unhelpful, and in practice we are sometimes ourselves 'confirming' people before they have been baptised!).
To give free rein, as I believe we must, to these two irresistible urges will ride a coach and horses through traditional Anglican practice. This has tended to slow down baptism and intolerably delay the laying on of hands until a bishop visits. By that stage we are finding that it is very difficult to convince potential adult candidates why they should be confirmed, or to explain the time delay. In practice this stream has dried up. Most of the standard explanations of adult confirmation have met with the reply: "Well if that's what confirmation means, then I don't think I want (or need) to be confirmed!". (A most conservative evangelical bishop a year or two ago welcomed our candidates publicly and individually with these words: "We welcome you (who is this 'we'?) into the full sacramental life of the church"! If anyone can explain that statement to me I'd be grateful!)
In addition, confirmation among another local church family (usually with a very different liturgical tradition) feels strange (and like getting married in another church with someone else's family present, while your own family is absent!), and confirmations at St. Mark's are offered by bishops of the diocese only once every three years. Moreover, historically these occasions have been somewhat awkward for visiting bishops as well as for ourselves (although the last one was way back in 1988). Visiting bishops, wanting very much to fit in and be at home with us and our customs, have had the extra burden of trying to meet confirmation candidates and their families, and follow and introduce us to the long and rather laborious confirmation liturgy. Our congregation for their part have not known the visiting dignitary, or been accustomed to clerical vesture, and are wondering what's going on. At the moment when all the attention should be lavished upon new believers in the congregation to make them feel utterly comfortable and at home, we have ended up with a form of service rather alien to ourselves, and our own efforts and the bishop's focused on each other's accommodation. Would it not, as we have done recently with happy results, be far more appropriate to invite the bishops on a more 'normal' Sunday?
But what about believing young adults from Christian homes who were baptised or dedicated as infants, and grew up as believers? This is back to the first issue:
The newly adult believer: Just as, at the point of welcoming the infant into the congregation it is vital that we send no signal of preference or superiority of one stream over the other, so too we must uphold the same principle at the point of re-convergence. For those dedicated as babies, now their young adult baptism must be no superior to the 'confirmation' of those who were baptised as babies. This is simply following the consistency through.
For those dedicated as infants, the opportunity should be given regularly (I reckon once a term, or three times a year) to give testimony to their faith and to be baptised. The appropriate age for this baptism would be the young person's decision after talking to their pastoral leaders (children's church or youth group), their parents and if they want, the pastoral staff. It would be hard to imagine us not laying hands on them at the same time, to be filled with the Spirit and equipped with gifts to live for Christ.
For those baptised as infants, the principle of equality suggests that on the same occasion they also give testimony to their faith (both liturgically/formally and personally/informally) - that they too be prayed over with the laying-on-of-hands. The same occasion for both groups to be affirmed as equal members of the church family would be a dramatic visual demonstration that the two streams which parted at birth have been reunited in young adulthood.
This would be the natural occasion to offer the same opportunity to adults who have recently come to faith - again, both those who have previously been baptised (and those previously confirmed, in addition), and those who have received neither; and so a strategic Sunday would be very soon after the Alpha weekend. Baptism by immersion is now clearly requested at least by a significant proportion, perhaps the majority of adults - but should not be insisted upon. Both could be offered at the same service. Unlike the practice of not performing infant baptism and dedication on the same day (a recognition perhaps that the parting of the streams is not ideal), the baptising and confirming, and immersion and affusion, could all happen on the same occasion, as a glorious but untidy demonstration of the fact that we all finally got to the same place at the end of our different meanderings!
Who should do the baptising? Well, anyone we and the candidates choose - certainly to baptise by immersion you need two or three helpers. Who should do the 'laying on of hands'? The natural and obvious choices would be leaders of the congregation, pastoral leaders of the candidates (for example, Alpha leaders, youth leaders, children's church group leaders) godparents or sponsors, family members if they are believers, including siblings, visiting speaker if there is one (to add the connectional rather than simply congregational nature of Anglicanism). The ordering of presbyters (priests) certainly demonstrates that many people can lay hands simultaneously on one individual.
The Pool of Convergence
Trying to think up an instrument for combining all these into one, I thought I was coming up with an entirely new (and probably desperately controversial!) idea; only to discover that in the new initiation services recently published and authorised by general synod in Common Worship Initiation, just such an instrument has been provided for the church. It even uses the same word that I imagined that I had coined for the purpose, namely: "Affirmation". Just when I thought I was being radical! The service makes provision for the formal recognition of adult belief and commitment to membership in the local and wider church (incidentally, the wider church is surely not primarily the Church of England, or even the Anglican Communion - but surely the Communion of Saints? So maybe it would be good to have with us always if possible a leader of one of the other local church 'streams', with whom we have close fellowship?).
Although the service of Affirmation was devised for those who have previously been confirmed and subsequently come to faith, the pressure for it has come from the practice of presbyteral confirmation in the Roman Catholic Church. The service of Affirmation does not require the presence of a bishop to preside or attend, and it could easily be made flexible to incorporate adult baptism as well. Nor would Affirmation necessarily always replace Confirmation - every three years, if the date fits appropriately, we could combine it with the date offered by a visiting Southwark bishop - so it is not an either/or, but a both/and. This recognises too that some of the congregation will continue to seek Confirmation elsewhere - for example at a boarding school, or if they are happy to accept the traditional pattern of going to another local church Confirmation - and we would encourage people to make their own choice.
One suggestion for the way forward is as follows. In each term's programme, we should publicise in advance a "Service of Adult Baptism and Affirmation". We should install a baptistery (like that in St. John's Southampton). We should try to demonstrate that all these streams converge, and we should have a glorious celebration.
Perhaps I am suffering from sunstroke, or have fallen victim to a total mental eclipse - but I have for years felt a deep urge to carry forward an initiative along these lines.
(The original article also included some practical questions to do with the building's individual design and programme of events.)
Go to the index of other articles to do with Baptismal Integrity.
This web page was last updated on 24th March 2004.
Go to John's Brinkster Home Page.