Support the Café
Search our site

Scrapping infant baptism?

Scrapping infant baptism?

Blogging at Lord, Open Thou Our Lips, the Rev. Chris Arnold says the pre-General Convention conversation about sacramental issues such as the nature of confirmation and the practice of offering Communion to people who have not yet been baptized has got him rethinking the question of infant baptism. He writes:

In the Episcopal Church, we claim that baptism is “full initiation by water and the Holy Spirit into Christ’s Body the Church.” But given the current trajectory of our sacramental and ritual theology, for what reason should babies be given this initiation? If we only baptize people who are old enough to ask for it, then we don’t actually need what confirmation has become: “mature public affirmation of their faith and commitment to the responsibilities of their Baptism.” (The language of the prayer book actually says that even those baptized as adults ought to receive the laying-on of hands from the bishop, but this doesn’t in any way complete or fix or finish the work of baptism). We won’t need to be concerned with whether lay leaders have demonstrated commitment and fidelity to the church they are leading. And perhaps, actually, dropping the confirmation requirement for leadership in the church based on the notion that baptism is all-sufficient is a way to open the door to Sydney-style Lay Presidency.

But don’t misunderstand him:

Now, to be absolutely clear, I personally don’t think we should do this. I am too catholic in my religion to do away with a practice that is as old, at least, as St. Augustine. I am one of those Episcopalians who thinks that something does happen, both in confirmation and baptism. But neither is this post tongue-in-cheek. If our theology and practice are heading this direction, adapting and modifying our sacramental theology in such radical ways, then isn’t this a logical next step?

Thoughts?

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

12 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
tgflux

This whole thread feels like Hyperbolic Hypothesizing and Slippery-Slope Slalom. With GC just weeks away, matters at hand please.

JC Fisher

Bill Dilworth

Chris, I daresay that there are questions of sacramental theology at the heart of the discussion, but aren’t they questions (especially the first one) that Anglican Christianity has answered pretty decisively in the past?

Jason Ballard

See helpful post at Haligweorc here: http://haligweorc.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/briefly-on-confirmation/

Sometimes this feels like a race to see how much of given & received Christianity we can huck overboard.

Prknz

I too appreciate Chris raising this issue, and believe he raises an important point regarding the trajectory of liturgical change in TEC. I am not convinced, or perhaps am too naive to admit, that some liturgical changes are consistent with professed theology. For me, Chris’ reflections raise the question of, “have we become theologically lazy,” practicing habits of developing liturgical change and then searching for theological meaning to support the practice. Eisegesis instead of exegesis comes to mind…if praying shapes believing, this should be a matter of great importance for anyone claiming the Anglican tradition.

Prknz – please sign your name with commenting – thanks ~ed.

Jim Naughton

I appreciated Chris raising this issue, and saying that while he didn’t want to scrap infant baptism, he could feel that certain arguments taking place in the church right now might lead in that direction. I am also intrigued that this item hasn’t gotten nearly the kind of response that the postings on Communion Without Before Regardless of Baptism (CWBRB) have. I think that tells us something, but I am not quite sure what.

Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts
2020_012
2020_013_B
2020_013_A

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café