| Feature Article – March 2008 |
|---|
The Revd. Iain Elliott started us off, with a brief summary of the history of baptism. He quoted Gregory of Nyssa (always a good starting point):
In other words, baptism is not an end in itself but is performed in order that the child is so nurtured to make his/her own profession of faith later in life.
This is the rationale of infant baptism: the younger the better, because it emphasises the total grace of God, plainly before any squirming baby has acquired any merit points of good deeds or faith. Confirmation – the response of the baptised – comes later. It is vital but is the ‘other side of the coin’.
We talked about the part superstition played, and still plays, in so-called ‘rites of passage’. In the Middle Ages (when infant mortality was high), it was believed that if a baby died unbaptised, it would go to ‘limbo’. So since mum was still flat on her back and father was out working in the fields, the baby was rushed to church within the hour by friends (= ‘god-parents’).
And superstition dies hard. One member recalled his curacy in a busy parish, when not only 4-8 baptisms a Sunday were the norm (at 3 p.m.) but one or two of the mothers would require ‘churching’, a mumbo-jumbo rite involving a totally inappropriate psalm and a few prayers, because it was believed that a woman was unclean after childbirth and could not go shopping until she had been ‘churched’.
But how hard should the rules be? Abp William Temple was quoted as saying it was “a terrible thing to refuse baptism”. On a more pragmatic note, it is also disastrous diplomacy. No matter how carefully one phrases a refusal, what the mother hears is “you’re rejecting my baby”, or – just as bad – “the church is not for the likes of you.” The remedy was to spell out what the promises entailed. All very well, said another, but if more than one in four decide not to go through with it after your boring lecture on the Pauline doctrine of baptism, then you have probably “come on far too heavy”. Far better for the parents to say “well, we didn’t really want it ourselves . . it was the granny, really . .” In other words, give them permission to back out, which is what they wanted to do anyway.
One felt strongly that you can/must never judge another person’s motivation and sincerity. Another recalled genuine dialogue sermons that he used to conduct occasionally with the congregation, when the one on “Baptism – indiscriminate, or tough rules? It’s your church” developed into a spirited exchange between the choir (hard-liners) and congregation (“let ‘em all come”), in which he acted as a Wimbledon umpire, not saying a word for ten minutes!
Inevitably, Bonhoeffer was quoted: Inviting all to baptism, to the altar rail, to confirmation, can mean “cheap grace”. All the same, any kind of examination or inquisition is self-defeating and indeed contrary to those strands of scripture that we hold most dear. Not only was the Prodigal Son not allowed to get a single word out, in real life Zacchaeus was not interrogated about his motives for inviting Jesus to lunch.
As for those who request baptism but never come to church, their non-attendance could be because of you, Rector . . .
Not necessarily. One instance was quoted (and echoed by several) of parents who had moved away and asked for a christening back in their home church, but who made no effort to confirm the date or take any more steps than one would when going to City Hall to get a dog licence. So aren’t they just testing our humility, then? Or, rather, lack of it? Aren’t we here to give and not to count the cost, to serve and not to ask for any reward, like consideration? That kind of thing?
No, we’re not.
Or a request for baptism could be an inarticulate desire for their child to “have a better start” than they did, in the same way that parents born the wrong side of the tracks often deprive themselves to a sacrificial degree in order to give their children a better education.
‘Spin-off’ was mentioned: what started as a request for “baby to be done” not infrequently ended with either an agnostic father being baptised and confirmed, or a whole family.
Did baptism practice differ among First Nations folk? They are strong on baptism, not so strong on churchgoing, we were told.
“Ah,” we said.
We talked a bit about the leaning tower of Pisa, how the baptistry is deliberately separate from the main church, and the ‘correct’ place for the font to be in a church, symbolically, but we were getting hungry by this time and adjourned to Gullivers in convivial mood.