Second Baptism
St German
Shipmate
In my parish, the vicar is encouraging people who were baptised as infants to seek baptism in church by immersion in addition. Is this legitimate in the C of E?
(This is not a case where there is any doubt about the original baptism, but simply an option to seek "believers baptism" .)
(This is not a case where there is any doubt about the original baptism, but simply an option to seek "believers baptism" .)
Tagged:
Comments
No, it absolutely isn't. Your vicar may feel more comfortable as a baptist minister.
It's possible (one might hope) that he's inviting people to renew baptismal vows with water, which is a different thing, but he definitely shouldn't be rebaptising.
Thinking on my feet here - I imagine you could, possibly, if there was sufficient pastoral justification, create a fudge where a conditional baptism is performed to reassure a person baptised as a child that they really are definitely validly baptised. But you wouldn't be running around creating a demand for that sort of fudge like this priest appears to be.
We have baptised adults (who weren't previously baptised) by immersion, in a large paddling pool outside. And we've invited people to renew their baptismal vows in the same way - which many have found helpful who have only come to a meaningful understanding of their faith as an adult. But we make it absolutely clear, in the service and beforehand, that this is in no way a baptism.
Your vicar as as wrong as the wrongest thing ever churned out of the Wrong Thing factory in Wrongtown.
The fudge he suggests would only be permissible if there was some legitimate doubt about the for or legitimacy of the first baptism. For evangelical clergy who fall broadly into the Reformed tradition I would recommend Gordon Kuhrt’s Believing in Baptism (out of print but also available from online booksellers).
An updated version with his son Stephen is also available. I’ve not read the new version, but on balance I’m inclined to trust the recommendation from the former Bishop of Oxford.
Baptism is also seen as a naming ceremony. If someone wants a new name, should the church provide a ceremony for this?
"if thou art not already baptised, then I baptise thee..."
I was indeed baptised, in emergency, when I was a few days old; and then at about the age of two these words were presumably used when I was taken to a service at the local church.
(I think the case was that my grandmother wanted to be sure that my actual baptism by medical staff was valid.)
No.
Baptism administered validly as a child remains valid lifelong, no matter what happens.
As to re-naming, for all I know some churches might have such a provision, but it would not be a baptism.
For people who feel they’ve fallen away from faith there’s provision in the Church of England for them to affirm their commitment to the faith into which they were baptised.
I do ‘get it’, as I wanted to be baptised like Jesus as an adult, and was miffed when told that this was not possible as I was christened as a baby, and we cannot be baptised twice as this is scriptural (Ephesians 4:5).
I was allowed to renew the vows made for me as a baby by full immersion however, prior to confirmation. It was important to me, and a very special service.
Some Baptist churches in the US, particularly among Independent Baptists, do require baptism as the means of entry into membership in the local church, even of those already baptized elsewhere.
Perhaps it would be more clear to me if I read the book, but I’m a little confused. Churches in the Reformed tradition generally practice infant baptism, so I’m not sure why they’d need to be convinced of its validity.
AIUI this is much less common in the Episcopal Church in the USA.
I suspect that there is much in the 1662 BCP baptismal practice and theology which those in the contemporary Reformed tradition would find familiar.
In the (USA) BCP 1979, the Confirmation rite has an option for those not needing confirmation by the bishop but who do want to reaffirm their baptismal vows. Another option is for reception by the bishop into the Communion, which is how I became an Anglican in 1986.
I agree with others about what the Vicar said - but of course as a Baptist I would question if we should be baptising young children in the first place! However that's a separate issue.
They do indeed, particularly important for those who have transitioned and whose baptism was under their "deadname".
Which seems fair enough, and something I hadn't considered.
I took you to be saying that Kuhrt’s book might convince those Anglican clergy who fall broadly in the Reformed tradition why they should accept infant baptism despite their Reformed inclinations, but I’m catching on now that perhaps you meant Kuhrt’s book might show those Anglican clergy who fall broadly in the Reformed tradition how infant baptism is understood in and consistent with that tradition.
Sorry for being dense.
Baptism is not PRIMARILY a naming ceremony. If you want one, you can create such a rite. Baptism is rebirth, forgiveness, regeneration, welcome to the family of God--to hijack it for such a minor thing as naming is extremely unwise. What of those who are baptized unnamed (as I had to do, in an emergency when the name of the woman was not known to me)?
So leaving that out, we're left with the idea that when one's life changes in a substantial way, one ought to be offered the chance to be rebaptized. This is bass-ackwards. Life changes do not precede and drive baptism, baptism may precede and drive some life changes. Besides, it's going to get you into a real mess--where exactly do you draw the line between changes that are sufficient to allow rebaptism, and those that aren't? How many times you can declare a sufficient change of direction and get rebaptized? Why is none of this in Scripture? Yikes.
No, again, if someone really feels the need for a Christian rite marking a major life shift, invent one. But don't hijack baptism.
A couple of years after I became a Christian in my 30s I decided it would be good to have a baptism in a pool.
It sounds like you're drawing a distinction between Christening and Baptism, which the church (well, the part of it that baptises infants) would not make.
Baptism is confirmation with water added. The individual concerned makes/repeats vows, which in the case of infant baptism was made on their behalf by others. Why not repeat the early rite as a fulfillment of promises made then?
I have a bigger issue of baptist churches requiring baptism after confirmation made as an adult tbh. Too many baptist churches still present baptism as a work rather than a grace.
Now the hard bit: what should I do?
(i) pray,
(ii) talk to the vicar,
(iii) complain to the archdeacon,
(iv) ask the PCC to consider the matter,
(v) speak to others about it, and let the ball roll?
My observation of what happens when this sort of thing is brought into the open is not good, as it generally seems to lead to unpleasantness and division. I am strongly inclined to option (i) only. Is this cowardice?
S/he may not be aware of any disquiet, and, indeed, may not have thought the matter through properly in the first place.
I think the first question I'd ask is whether this is your church, or one in whose parish you happen to be.
(i) first, always.
then perhaps (ii), as gently as possible ("I notice you offer baptism to adults who were baptised as infants. I was brought up with the idea that you can only be baptised once. Would you be willing to unpack your thinking around this a bit?")
Then (v) discreetly so you can do (ii) with a bit more emphasis, and only if that fails go further, either to the PCC or Archdeacon (or perhaps the Rural Dean in the first instance).
(i and ii) but no more. It isn’t important enough to go any further or to damage relationships / reputations for, imv.
And yes, I would say this if he were pushing for everyone to be involved in clown ministry, or for total buy in to using an Old English liturgy only.
I'm pretty sure this vicar doesn’t consider the infant baptism to be valid.
My problem is that I live in the parish, go to some week-time things but worship elsewhere on Sundays due to the form of worship ( or the lack of it) in my parish. I am torn between trying to put things right, and the likelihood that I will just end up in a mess having done no good.
Again, I am really grateful for others' wisdom.
All I am saying is that the ceremony took place in the main C of E church for the borough. My mom told me that I was Christened. The vicar probably considered that I had been baptised.
So why the fuss about repeat Baptism, when the Church has already provided for a way to avoid this possibility?
You know, you're actually not responsible for whatever mess-up happens when you do your best to correct a problem. I know you feel responsible, but any bit of good you do in your life could end in a mess-up, and you don't want to stop doing good for that reason, right?
There's also the fact that, if everybody else feels as you do, it's likely the problem will get bigger and bigger and so on, and the eventual fall-out will be that much worse.
No. Put in all the tactful disclaimers you like and phrase things as delicately as you wish, but make it clear and get the job over with, like a responsible adult. Your OP was admirably clear. If you prefaced it with "I'm concerned that the vicar, though excellent in so many ways, ...." etc. and add on the words of the OP, you won't come off as a crank. It would be kind to say it first to his face ("I'm concerned because it seems to me that you are .... and that's not what I understand our church body to teach.") but if you can't bring yourself to do that, you can at least notify whoever has oversight responsibility and let them look into it further.
Comfort yourself that it's like spotting melanoma on the back of a good friend's arm. While it's unpleasant to have to say "Don't you think the doctor should look at that?" you may be saving a life. In this case, you may be saving a congregation's life, as this kind of thing has divided people so severely in the past that congregations have folded over it. Do the right thing and let God deal with the fall out.
In my tradition we wouldn't talk about the "validity" (or otherwise) of baptism.
It does seem a strange thing to be an Anglican but anti-paedobaptist. I think there might be quite a few such in the Charevo end of the CofE howevet.
I'm thinking back to my Leeds University CU days (mid 80s) and a Believers' Baptism position was pretty much the standard, even in people who went to paedobaptist churches. It would not at all surprise me if some such "felt called" to the ministry carrying their theology of baptism with them.
I can't recall any infant baptisms in the Charevo CofE churches I attended in those days, but then again their demographic was largely students. However, I think that infant baptisms would be something they associated with that majority of CofE churches that they'd label "High and Dead".
@St German hasn't said what about the worship he finds off-putting, but I'd be willing to hazard a guess it involves six stringed instruments associated originally with Spain and percussion mounted in such a way as to be playable by a single musician.
They may be aware of it, as other people may have brought the issue to their attention. Whether they do anything about it is another matter, of course.
IME bishops and archdemons archdeacons are usually very reluctant indeed to rock the boat...especially if there are Bums On Seats™ in the church concerned...