Validity is a term I don't like when applied to the sacraments. It sounds as if there could be an invalid baptism or an invalid communion. No. Either there is a real baptism or there is not. The same is true for the Lord's supper. It is not possible to have an invalid baptism--if the baptism is invalid, that means it is no real baptism at all.
So if I had the choice, I'd get rid of that term completely.
Now as for efficacy--
What this means is basically, "The faith that the Holy Spirit created during that event--has it been allowed to grow and make a difference in the person's life, or not?" This is where the importance of Christian nurture comes in. It is entirely possible for someone to be baptized and then receive next to no Christian nurture during the next dozen years or so, and STILL to be a believer with a living faith. I'm an example of this.
But I really, really don't recommend it. For every person like me, there are probably a dozen more who lost their faith or at best had it go deep, deep underground, possibly to resurface in old age (so, people like my Dad, then). That is not the kind of outcome we want, is it? At best it's the waste of years and years that could have been given to Jesus' service, but have been thrown away on other crap instead (in my Dad's case, on alcoholism and other serious issues).
So baptism is efficacious--it creates faith--or more carefully phrased, the Holy Spirit creates faith using baptism. But it is possible to so neglect that faith, and even to actively work on destroying it, that the baptism does the person no good in the long run--or what good it does is kind of like the guy in Scripture who escapes from a burning house. He's saved all right, but his lifework is a loss.
All of this is mostly addressed to the parents and sponsors who plan to bring a child to baptism--or to the church leaders who are charged with carrying out that baptism. Baptism is a free gift and a great blessing, but it's not something we should treat carelessly, or with disrespect.
Validity is a term I don't like when applied to the sacraments. It sounds as if there could be an invalid baptism or an invalid communion. No. Either there is a real baptism or there is not. The same is true for the Lord's supper. It is not possible to have an invalid baptism--if the baptism is invalid, that means it is no real baptism at all.
While I’d agree that “valid” isn’t a word my tradition tends to use when speaking of the sacraments, my hunch is that when “valid” is used regarding baptism, that’s what it’s used to mean: “not a real or actual baptism.”
probably, but I have seen people on the Ship treating "invalid" as if it were a third category: a real baptism, just one that was somehow improper and of lesser value. Which is freaky, but there you go.
Orthodox Christians don't differentiate between justification and sanctification in that kind of way, of course.
We don't go in for those kind of dichotomies. We see those as a 16th century preoccupation around controversies within 'Western' Christianity which don't make much sense within our less juridical paradigm.
We understand what Protestant Christians are getting at, of course.
But it's not an issue within our frame of reference.
It's taking me a while to get out of that way of thinking but it increasingly makes less sense to me - which isn't to say it doesn't make sense for those within that paradigm. It's how I used to think, and probably still do to an extent.
The Apostle Paul warned that there might even be fatal consequences for those who don't approach these things with due reverence. Yikes!
I suspect quite a discussion could be had on what Paul was talking about there, but I’m sure that’s a Tangent Too Far.
There's an echo of this, I suggest in the lovely story @LatchKeyKid tells of people leaving the river in the opposite direction to the one they entered it to be baptised. It enacts the change they believe to have taken place, although they'd believe that the action testifies to that rather than effects it.
Or as St. Augustine put it, speaking of the Eucharistic gifts of bread and wine (Sermon 272):
Behold the mystery of salvation laid out for you;
behold what you are,
become what you receive.
So baptism is efficacious--it creates faith--or more carefully phrased, the Holy Spirit creates faith using baptism. But it is possible to so neglect that faith, and even to actively work on destroying it, that the baptism does the person no good in the long run--or what good it does is kind of like the guy in Scripture who escapes from a burning house. He's saved all right, but his lifework is a loss.
One of the more conservative old boys in my local church observed (at a baptism) that it could make you a hypocrite! I chatted to him afterwards, observed that if anyone got baptised for cynical reasons they were a hypocrite already. He corrected himself. “True. Even more of a hypocrite”.
Isn’t that an argument in favour of @Nick Tamen ’s position? It’s not a denial of God’s Grace, more a recognition of the responsibility of leadership.
I would agree with @Nick Tamen wrt the Church baptising - and actually I think it still works within an RC or Anglican framework (although also, the Reformed end of Anglicanism is keen on Covenant theology anyway - it just gets less attention than fights over Epiphanies issues etc) as far as I can tell. The church I became a Christian in and was baptised in is an Anglican church at the Reformed end of things though so perhaps it's just some Residual Reformed-ness in me
@Gamma Gamaliel AI is a hallucination machine and is poisoning water supplies, I wouldn't use it as a source of information.
As a separate aside, it strikes me that all the other sacraments in Catholicism are aspects of or reflective of baptism and/or the Eucharist - even with more than two sacraments officially, the others all lead back to the first two.
As a separate aside, it strikes me that all the other sacraments in Catholicism are aspects of or reflective of baptism and/or the Eucharist - even with more than two sacraments officially, the others all lead back to the first two.
One of the fruits, if you will, of liturgical renewal and reflection in my denomination over the last 50+ years is the way in which understandings of confirmation, ordination and confession have become more firmly grounded in baptism, which is reflected in liturgical language. (Marriage to an extent, too, but it’s not as prominent as with confirmation, ordination and confession.)
Of course, private confession is very rare for us. But it has become very common, for example, for the corporate confession and pardon (which happens every Sunday) to be lead from the font and to involve water—pouring, maybe sprinkling, maybe even splashing.
Interesting observation, @Pomona. I'd not thought about it that way but can see what you are driving at.
I try to avoid AI by the way but sometimes it kicks in when I Google something. Must be a way of turning it off.
You can't turn AI off in Google now, it's no longer an optional feature - I use Duck Duck Go for this reason. There is AI capability but it's easy to switch off.
I would also question the extent to which most UK Protestants have heard of Bishop Mariann Budde or Jim Wallis. Of course they are well-known in terms of theological circles, but outside of places like the Ship and Greenbelt etc etc I don't think the average churchgoer is really up on that kind of thing - but of course it applies to all churches, it's not like the average RC is going to be reading Thomas Merton either.
It’s a good point. Bishop Mariann Budde and Jim Wallis are quite well known in the US and both have to cope with disapproval of many US conservative evangelicals.
In the UK Jim Wallis has spoken and was very well received at the New Wine annual conference as well as Greenbelt. His books don’t do as well here as in the US I suppose. But he’s anything but mishegas. Nor are supporters of the Red Letter Christian movement (founded by Tony Campolo and Shane Claiborne).
I’m probably in a minority in knowing of these folks. But I’m sure the numbers of UK Christians who do know of them and respect them is significantly greater than zero.
And of course I do recognise that there are churches for whom the epithet may be generally appropriate. I don’t think you believe in generalisations either. There are always exceptions and minorities.
@Barnabas62 I mean, generalisations exist because some things are generally true. I also don't hold a particularly high regard for Tony Campolo or Shane Claiborne (aside from anything else, a white person with locs* is always going to be suspect as hell in terms of their personal politics) and I don't think that anyone is being oppressed because an unflattering term was used to describe Protestantism (and fyi mishegas is a noun not an adjective). Liberal white Protestants can cope.
*"dreadlocks" has some negative connotations, so most Black people who wear their hair in that way prefer the term "locs" - it's a protective style for Afro-type hair (which can structurally be very fragile and prone to breakage) and is not purely for aesthetic or political reasons
Baptism is the beginning of our life within the institutional church,however we understand the words 'institution' and/or 'church'
With reference to sacramental acts being played out on stage or amongst playing children the eucharist ,for example, could not be real if presented in a play unless the person celebrating the eucharist had already been baptised,confirmed and also ordained within the institutional church. However they understand sacraments or ordinances most Christians would expect the person who says 'This is my body' 'This is my blood' to have been appointed to that role by the respective institution.
I can understand how one might believe that a person could carry out a baptism,even if they didn't really intend to conduct a baptism,such as in a stage show,but there must be some point where it does not happen.
What,for example, if someone happened to read out loud the words 'ego te baptizo in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti' wthout knowing what these words mean while happening to be pouring water on the head of someone. There would in this instance have been no intention to baptise and unless they understood Latin there might have been no knowledge that this was a standard baptismal formula.
In Schiller's play 'Maria Stuart' Maria is visited in prison by her chaplain who has secreted within his hat a Sacred Host (communion bread) During the interview he gives Communion to Mary Stuart. There is no definite indication that such a meeting ever took place between Mary Queen of Scots and the man who was secretly her chaplain but it is nevertheless a dramatic moment in the play.
@Barnabas62 - FWIW I've heard of all the people you mention except Shane Claiborne.
I didn't understand @Pomona's application of 'mishegas' as a blanket condemnation of all Protestants and I'd be surprised if the Romanian priest in the anecdote would consider all Protestants to be crack-pots either.
Some Orthodox might do so but most of us are aware of the crack-pots and skeletons in our own cupboard.
@Lamb Chopped, I’m afraid you’ve gotten me curious. (I don’t shock easily, but I’m very easily made curious. )
From the Lutheran perspective you’ve described, would the same principle hold for the Eucharist? That is to say, if in a play or movie, someone took bread and wine and said the Verba, would that be a valid Eucharist from the Lutheran perspective you’re describing?
For either baptism or Eucharist (if applicable to the Eucharist), does it make a difference if the actor in the play or movie is Christian or not?
Just trying to understand the framework involved here.
I missed this earlier! (And pardon me if I get incoherent or otherwise am not communicating well--I'm in rather severe pain today from the syndrome I was born with, and none of my meds are sufficient to get rid of it.)
Yes, I've never heard this exact example used, but I'm fairly sure that Lutherans (of my stripe, anyway) would consider this to be ... well, something God would mix himself up in. Though, given his mercy and the fact that none of this sacramental stuff is automatic, I suspect we'd get divine eye-rolling and no bad consequences would follow for anybody.
You might get a laugh (or not!) out of something I accidentally almost did a couple months ago. The sacristy for our double church is roughly 10 feet from the altar, and you access it through a hallway that passes directly behind the altar--so sound communicates really well. I was bringing up the communion vessels from downstairs, where our Vietnamese group meets to worship. After washing everything, I was in the freezer, pulling out a few wafers from the general supply to take home for use visiting a lady with Alzheimer's who can no longer come to church. I could hear the English service clearly, and was singing along with the liturgy, as you do--rather absent-mindedly...
And found myself halfway through the Words of Institution while holding a container of roughly 200 wafers!
I shut up REALLY fast. Because Lutherans also believe in the priesthood of all believers, and if I'd actually finished the words, I would have found myself in a bit of a tight spot.
So baptism is efficacious--it creates faith--or more carefully phrased, the Holy Spirit creates faith using baptism. But it is possible to so neglect that faith, and even to actively work on destroying it, that the baptism does the person no good in the long run--or what good it does is kind of like the guy in Scripture who escapes from a burning house. He's saved all right, but his lifework is a loss.
One of the more conservative old boys in my local church observed (at a baptism) that it could make you a hypocrite! I chatted to him afterwards, observed that if anyone got baptised for cynical reasons they were a hypocrite already. He corrected himself. “True. Even more of a hypocrite”.
Isn’t that an argument in favour of @Nick Tamen ’s position? It’s not a denial of God’s Grace, more a recognition of the responsibility of leadership.
I suspect I don't fully or correctly understand @";"Nick Tamen"
's position. I'm trying, but I'm not in a good place physically today, so forgive any errors.
We definitely see the sacraments as a gift to the church, and as something the church carries out--but the children playing in the ditch are members of that community as well. Presumably the Lutheran child who did the baptizing was himself baptized, mostly likely as an infant--one reason the case is so often cited is because it's rare, Lutherans almost always baptize their babies early (like, first Sunday after they get home, that kind of thing). And since Lutherans (at least in those days!) tend(ed) to live among other Lutherans (this was I believe a farming community), you just didn't run into many situations where a child of the church went and baptized (in play) another child not already baptized. (But if you did, the believing child would hold the priesthood of all believers by virtue of his own faith-and-baptism, and would therefore be eligible to act on behalf of the church universal. We don't put a leadership or age restriction on which believers may act so, we think God can and does act through any Christian.)
Now, today you might get a freaky situation where an atheist (or otherwise nonbelieving) child baptized an atheist child (and it was therefore an act completely outside the boundaries of the Christian church). I haven't heard of it, but then, a lot of things happen between playing children that even their parents don't hear of, much less the wider church. I would expect any similar case that actually made it to the ears of a pastor would be dealt with, well, pastorally. Which means, not in a way that makes the news. So again, I'd never hear of it.
But since the institution of the sacraments does not clearly reference the church (or its leadership) as a deciding element on whether the sacraments are actually happening or not, Lutherans would IMHO tend to come down on the conservative side. Which is to say, we'd assume the baptism or communion was real unless otherwise proven (a booming voice from heaven?) and any further actions (such as decisions about future baptism!) would be predicated on that basis.
Generally speaking, there wouldn't BE any further actions to take--I mean, if it's communion in a play or film, there's nothing else to do once it's happened, is there? The only case in which baptism would require further actions would be if the person baptized that way later requested baptism from a Lutheran church, and the previous play/film baptism was known--at which point the Lutheran pastor would likely do a conditional baptism just to tidy things up and make sure nobody had middle-of-the-night angst about whether they were really baptized or not.
But getting back to the church--
I'm not denying that Christ gave the sacraments to the church, or that it would be highly irregular for them to take place outside the church. I think the likelihood of any such goings on would be really low. And given that these things are NOT automatic, I would expect God would cope with the one-in-a-million case where a child from an atheist family somehow memorized the words of the baptismal formula, or the words of institution, and used the correct elements (water; bread and wine) and actually managed to conduct a valid sacrament on another child from an atheist family (so no church involvement).
I hope that made some kind of sense. Going to take the ibuprofen I'm forbidden to take now, just to function.
Remember the TV series, The Vikings? There is a scene where the Vikings were establishing themselves in what is now Normandy. They want to get along with the locals but the local king insists one of the Vikings be baptized. Rollo steps forward. It is obvious Rollo considers the baptism a joke--at least in this season. Later episodes do find him eventually renouncing the Viking gods in order to marry a Frank princess.
Would such a baptism be valid?
I understand I am talking about a TV series; however, there are indications many Vikings would have been baptized for political gain. I believe I can find other historical stories where people were baptized for political gain.
Just how valid or efficacious are these instances?
What follows assumes this is not a TV series, but a real life event. I've covered TV series etc. in my previous posts.
If it was done according to the commandment ("Make disciples...baptizing in the Name" etc.), it is a real baptism. If the man goes into it unbelieving, as nothing but a political move, he is messing with God and may find himself coming to faith much to his own surprise--and this may happen at any future point in his life. (God plants seeds of faith, as he did in my father, and this may cause very unexpected results even in late life.)
There may also be no visible result at all, all the way to death and beyond. That's because human beings are capable of rejecting God's gifts faith, life, and salvation, and God will not force the matter if they make this choice. Some do this immediately after baptism and keep on doing it lifelong. Others do it in mid-life or old age (shudder). God is persistent, and he may well get the person in the end. But the act of baptism is not an automatic ticket to heaven because of the possibility of lifelong human refusal.
When babies are baptized we have no idea how things will turn out.
As LC says if the Viking baptisms were carried out in real life with the intention of baptizing then the baptism is both valid and efficacious as far as the promised gift of God is concerned.
It is then the responsibility of the person baptized to make good use of the gifts.
Adolf Hitler was baptized as a baby and was given the gifts and privileges of baptism. His parents and godparents are likely to have hoped that he would use wisely the gifts he received which made him a priest,prophet and king and heir to the kingdom of heaven.
We definitely see the sacraments as a gift to the church, and as something the church carries out--but the children playing in the ditch are members of that community as well. Presumably the Lutheran child who did the baptizing was himself baptized, mostly likely as an infant--one reason the case is so often cited is because it's rare, Lutherans almost always baptize their babies early (like, first Sunday after they get home, that kind of thing). And since Lutherans (at least in those days!) tend(ed) to live among other Lutherans (this was I believe a farming community), you just didn't run into many situations where a child of the church went and baptized (in play) another child not already baptized. (But if you did, the believing child would hold the priesthood of all believers by virtue of his own faith-and-baptism, and would therefore be eligible to act on behalf of the church universal. We don't put a leadership or age restriction on which believers may act so, we think God can and does act through any Christian.)
This is where I think our difference comes in. We would not say the priesthood of all believers means any baptized person/believer can baptize. For us, baptism is an act of the church, and therefore only a person authorized by the church can baptize. If an individual has not been authorized by the church to baptize, then they shouldn’t baptize. Our starting point is that only the church, as community, can celebrate the sacraments. An individual cannot, or at least should not except in really extreme and rare circumstances.
And given how this discussion has gone, a few caveats should go with that.
First, we don’t really talk in terms of “validity” or “invalidity.” We’re much more likely to talk about “reasons of order,” or as Paul says, “doing all things decently and in order.” That we say only persons in specific ordained ministries can baptize has to do with order, not with any distinctions of priesthood.
And in our tradition, baptism necessarily means baptism into a community. That is why in my tribe, before a minister can baptize a person, the Session must, except with limited exceptions, approve the baptism first. In approving the baptism, the Session accepts responsibility for the person being baptized. (And even when an exception exists, the Session needs to be involved as quickly as possible.)
We certainly would agree that God can act whenever and wherever God chooses to act, including through an “irregular” (maybe a better word than “invalid”?) baptism. God certainly can act through just about anything, including our screw-ups, well-intended or otherwise. The operative word there from our perspective is “can.” But when the church baptizes, we have confidence that God acts.
Nick, thank you for the explanation of where the difference lies. I'll add that I think Lutherans would say that baptism creates the community (the church). We tend to put it that way around, especially in a mission context where you may have no worshipping community as of yet--we started with a band of inquirers, and didn't have our first baptisms for three years. I think the two truths are complementary.
In terms of who may baptize, Lutherans, as usual, emphasize freedom. Anyone who DOES baptize is responsible to report it to the church so it can be properly recorded and the person cared for in the community of faith. And naturally we'd be a wee bit perturbed if someone took it upon themselves to go about baptizing all over the place, with no emergency or other sensible reason for not sending people to the church for that. Such a person would doubtless be pulled aside for a review of what "good order" means, and urged to direct new converts to congregations. But if they came under discipline, it wouldn't be for the baptizing--more likely for causing division in the church, or starting a cult (if in fact they were doing so).
Given the last few posts, I think I'd better repeat (briefly!) that I am not an intentionalist (whoever said that, it wasn't me) and that Lutherans normally don't speak of invalid or inefficacious baptisms (spelling?)--it either is a baptism or it isn't. If it's a baptism, it's always with God's power behind it. And nobody but God can say for sure if the baptism "worked"--the new life planted at that time may pop up even years later. Or it may be refused.
Comments
Validity is a term I don't like when applied to the sacraments. It sounds as if there could be an invalid baptism or an invalid communion. No. Either there is a real baptism or there is not. The same is true for the Lord's supper. It is not possible to have an invalid baptism--if the baptism is invalid, that means it is no real baptism at all.
So if I had the choice, I'd get rid of that term completely.
Now as for efficacy--
What this means is basically, "The faith that the Holy Spirit created during that event--has it been allowed to grow and make a difference in the person's life, or not?" This is where the importance of Christian nurture comes in. It is entirely possible for someone to be baptized and then receive next to no Christian nurture during the next dozen years or so, and STILL to be a believer with a living faith. I'm an example of this.
But I really, really don't recommend it. For every person like me, there are probably a dozen more who lost their faith or at best had it go deep, deep underground, possibly to resurface in old age (so, people like my Dad, then). That is not the kind of outcome we want, is it? At best it's the waste of years and years that could have been given to Jesus' service, but have been thrown away on other crap instead (in my Dad's case, on alcoholism and other serious issues).
So baptism is efficacious--it creates faith--or more carefully phrased, the Holy Spirit creates faith using baptism. But it is possible to so neglect that faith, and even to actively work on destroying it, that the baptism does the person no good in the long run--or what good it does is kind of like the guy in Scripture who escapes from a burning house. He's saved all right, but his lifework is a loss.
All of this is mostly addressed to the parents and sponsors who plan to bring a child to baptism--or to the church leaders who are charged with carrying out that baptism. Baptism is a free gift and a great blessing, but it's not something we should treat carelessly, or with disrespect.
In coming to faith, God alone acts.
In living out the faith, the believer—now enlivened by the Spirit—truly participates.
We don't go in for those kind of dichotomies. We see those as a 16th century preoccupation around controversies within 'Western' Christianity which don't make much sense within our less juridical paradigm.
We understand what Protestant Christians are getting at, of course.
But it's not an issue within our frame of reference.
It's taking me a while to get out of that way of thinking but it increasingly makes less sense to me - which isn't to say it doesn't make sense for those within that paradigm. It's how I used to think, and probably still do to an extent.
Or as St. Augustine put it, speaking of the Eucharistic gifts of bread and wine (Sermon 272):
Behold the mystery of salvation laid out for you;
behold what you are,
become what you receive.
One of the more conservative old boys in my local church observed (at a baptism) that it could make you a hypocrite! I chatted to him afterwards, observed that if anyone got baptised for cynical reasons they were a hypocrite already. He corrected himself. “True. Even more of a hypocrite”.
Isn’t that an argument in favour of @Nick Tamen ’s position? It’s not a denial of God’s Grace, more a recognition of the responsibility of leadership.
@Gamma Gamaliel AI is a hallucination machine and is poisoning water supplies, I wouldn't use it as a source of information.
I try to avoid AI by the way but sometimes it kicks in when I Google something. Must be a way of turning it off.
Of course, private confession is very rare for us. But it has become very common, for example, for the corporate confession and pardon (which happens every Sunday) to be lead from the font and to involve water—pouring, maybe sprinkling, maybe even splashing.
You can't turn AI off in Google now, it's no longer an optional feature - I use Duck Duck Go for this reason. There is AI capability but it's easy to switch off.
It’s a good point. Bishop Mariann Budde and Jim Wallis are quite well known in the US and both have to cope with disapproval of many US conservative evangelicals.
In the UK Jim Wallis has spoken and was very well received at the New Wine annual conference as well as Greenbelt. His books don’t do as well here as in the US I suppose. But he’s anything but mishegas. Nor are supporters of the Red Letter Christian movement (founded by Tony Campolo and Shane Claiborne).
I’m probably in a minority in knowing of these folks. But I’m sure the numbers of UK Christians who do know of them and respect them is significantly greater than zero.
And of course I do recognise that there are churches for whom the epithet may be generally appropriate. I don’t think you believe in generalisations either. There are always exceptions and minorities.
*"dreadlocks" has some negative connotations, so most Black people who wear their hair in that way prefer the term "locs" - it's a protective style for Afro-type hair (which can structurally be very fragile and prone to breakage) and is not purely for aesthetic or political reasons
With reference to sacramental acts being played out on stage or amongst playing children the eucharist ,for example, could not be real if presented in a play unless the person celebrating the eucharist had already been baptised,confirmed and also ordained within the institutional church. However they understand sacraments or ordinances most Christians would expect the person who says 'This is my body' 'This is my blood' to have been appointed to that role by the respective institution.
I can understand how one might believe that a person could carry out a baptism,even if they didn't really intend to conduct a baptism,such as in a stage show,but there must be some point where it does not happen.
What,for example, if someone happened to read out loud the words 'ego te baptizo in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti' wthout knowing what these words mean while happening to be pouring water on the head of someone. There would in this instance have been no intention to baptise and unless they understood Latin there might have been no knowledge that this was a standard baptismal formula.
In Schiller's play 'Maria Stuart' Maria is visited in prison by her chaplain who has secreted within his hat a Sacred Host (communion bread) During the interview he gives Communion to Mary Stuart. There is no definite indication that such a meeting ever took place between Mary Queen of Scots and the man who was secretly her chaplain but it is nevertheless a dramatic moment in the play.
I didn't understand @Pomona's application of 'mishegas' as a blanket condemnation of all Protestants and I'd be surprised if the Romanian priest in the anecdote would consider all Protestants to be crack-pots either.
Some Orthodox might do so but most of us are aware of the crack-pots and skeletons in our own cupboard.
I missed this earlier! (And pardon me if I get incoherent or otherwise am not communicating well--I'm in rather severe pain today from the syndrome I was born with, and none of my meds are sufficient to get rid of it.)
Yes, I've never heard this exact example used, but I'm fairly sure that Lutherans (of my stripe, anyway) would consider this to be ... well, something God would mix himself up in. Though, given his mercy and the fact that none of this sacramental stuff is automatic, I suspect we'd get divine eye-rolling and no bad consequences would follow for anybody.
You might get a laugh (or not!) out of something I accidentally almost did a couple months ago. The sacristy for our double church is roughly 10 feet from the altar, and you access it through a hallway that passes directly behind the altar--so sound communicates really well. I was bringing up the communion vessels from downstairs, where our Vietnamese group meets to worship. After washing everything, I was in the freezer, pulling out a few wafers from the general supply to take home for use visiting a lady with Alzheimer's who can no longer come to church. I could hear the English service clearly, and was singing along with the liturgy, as you do--rather absent-mindedly...
And found myself halfway through the Words of Institution while holding a container of roughly 200 wafers!
I shut up REALLY fast. Because Lutherans also believe in the priesthood of all believers, and if I'd actually finished the words, I would have found myself in a bit of a tight spot.
My husband laughed at me when I told him.
Oh yes, I laughed!
Much to ponder there. Thanks for your response, especially since you’re not feeling well.
I suspect I don't fully or correctly understand @";"Nick Tamen"
's position. I'm trying, but I'm not in a good place physically today, so forgive any errors.
We definitely see the sacraments as a gift to the church, and as something the church carries out--but the children playing in the ditch are members of that community as well. Presumably the Lutheran child who did the baptizing was himself baptized, mostly likely as an infant--one reason the case is so often cited is because it's rare, Lutherans almost always baptize their babies early (like, first Sunday after they get home, that kind of thing). And since Lutherans (at least in those days!) tend(ed) to live among other Lutherans (this was I believe a farming community), you just didn't run into many situations where a child of the church went and baptized (in play) another child not already baptized. (But if you did, the believing child would hold the priesthood of all believers by virtue of his own faith-and-baptism, and would therefore be eligible to act on behalf of the church universal. We don't put a leadership or age restriction on which believers may act so, we think God can and does act through any Christian.)
Now, today you might get a freaky situation where an atheist (or otherwise nonbelieving) child baptized an atheist child (and it was therefore an act completely outside the boundaries of the Christian church). I haven't heard of it, but then, a lot of things happen between playing children that even their parents don't hear of, much less the wider church. I would expect any similar case that actually made it to the ears of a pastor would be dealt with, well, pastorally. Which means, not in a way that makes the news. So again, I'd never hear of it.
But since the institution of the sacraments does not clearly reference the church (or its leadership) as a deciding element on whether the sacraments are actually happening or not, Lutherans would IMHO tend to come down on the conservative side. Which is to say, we'd assume the baptism or communion was real unless otherwise proven (a booming voice from heaven?) and any further actions (such as decisions about future baptism!) would be predicated on that basis.
Generally speaking, there wouldn't BE any further actions to take--I mean, if it's communion in a play or film, there's nothing else to do once it's happened, is there? The only case in which baptism would require further actions would be if the person baptized that way later requested baptism from a Lutheran church, and the previous play/film baptism was known--at which point the Lutheran pastor would likely do a conditional baptism just to tidy things up and make sure nobody had middle-of-the-night angst about whether they were really baptized or not.
But getting back to the church--
I'm not denying that Christ gave the sacraments to the church, or that it would be highly irregular for them to take place outside the church. I think the likelihood of any such goings on would be really low. And given that these things are NOT automatic, I would expect God would cope with the one-in-a-million case where a child from an atheist family somehow memorized the words of the baptismal formula, or the words of institution, and used the correct elements (water; bread and wine) and actually managed to conduct a valid sacrament on another child from an atheist family (so no church involvement).
I hope that made some kind of sense. Going to take the ibuprofen I'm forbidden to take now, just to function.
You're welcome!
Would such a baptism be valid?
I understand I am talking about a TV series; however, there are indications many Vikings would have been baptized for political gain. I believe I can find other historical stories where people were baptized for political gain.
Just how valid or efficacious are these instances?
If it was done according to the commandment ("Make disciples...baptizing in the Name" etc.), it is a real baptism. If the man goes into it unbelieving, as nothing but a political move, he is messing with God and may find himself coming to faith much to his own surprise--and this may happen at any future point in his life. (God plants seeds of faith, as he did in my father, and this may cause very unexpected results even in late life.)
There may also be no visible result at all, all the way to death and beyond. That's because human beings are capable of rejecting God's gifts faith, life, and salvation, and God will not force the matter if they make this choice. Some do this immediately after baptism and keep on doing it lifelong. Others do it in mid-life or old age (shudder). God is persistent, and he may well get the person in the end. But the act of baptism is not an automatic ticket to heaven because of the possibility of lifelong human refusal.
As LC says if the Viking baptisms were carried out in real life with the intention of baptizing then the baptism is both valid and efficacious as far as the promised gift of God is concerned.
It is then the responsibility of the person baptized to make good use of the gifts.
Adolf Hitler was baptized as a baby and was given the gifts and privileges of baptism. His parents and godparents are likely to have hoped that he would use wisely the gifts he received which made him a priest,prophet and king and heir to the kingdom of heaven.
That's also the case when adults are baptized.
Very true! So far as God’s persistence is concerned I remember a bit of C S Lewis.
“There are two kinds of people. Those who say to God ‘Your will be done’ and those to whom God says ‘Your will be done’”.
Eventually, at the end.
And given how this discussion has gone, a few caveats should go with that.
First, we don’t really talk in terms of “validity” or “invalidity.” We’re much more likely to talk about “reasons of order,” or as Paul says, “doing all things decently and in order.” That we say only persons in specific ordained ministries can baptize has to do with order, not with any distinctions of priesthood.
And in our tradition, baptism necessarily means baptism into a community. That is why in my tribe, before a minister can baptize a person, the Session must, except with limited exceptions, approve the baptism first. In approving the baptism, the Session accepts responsibility for the person being baptized. (And even when an exception exists, the Session needs to be involved as quickly as possible.)
We certainly would agree that God can act whenever and wherever God chooses to act, including through an “irregular” (maybe a better word than “invalid”?) baptism. God certainly can act through just about anything, including our screw-ups, well-intended or otherwise. The operative word there from our perspective is “can.” But when the church baptizes, we have confidence that God acts.
In terms of who may baptize, Lutherans, as usual, emphasize freedom. Anyone who DOES baptize is responsible to report it to the church so it can be properly recorded and the person cared for in the community of faith. And naturally we'd be a wee bit perturbed if someone took it upon themselves to go about baptizing all over the place, with no emergency or other sensible reason for not sending people to the church for that. Such a person would doubtless be pulled aside for a review of what "good order" means, and urged to direct new converts to congregations. But if they came under discipline, it wouldn't be for the baptizing--more likely for causing division in the church, or starting a cult (if in fact they were doing so).
Given the last few posts, I think I'd better repeat (briefly!) that I am not an intentionalist (whoever said that, it wasn't me) and that Lutherans normally don't speak of invalid or inefficacious baptisms (spelling?)--it either is a baptism or it isn't. If it's a baptism, it's always with God's power behind it. And nobody but God can say for sure if the baptism "worked"--the new life planted at that time may pop up even years later. Or it may be refused.