Carl

That is why understanding the OT background is so important here. Yes, Israel broke the covenant, a fearful thing, but over against this is the steadfast love and faithfulness of God. Even though God allows his people to be chastened for their sin he never withdraws his  covenant commitment nor the invitation for boys to carry the sign of the covenant in their bodies.

Ken wrote:

"If we really believe that children should be baptised its hard to see why we should withold it from them because of the spiritual deficiencies of their parents."

If you hold to covenant baptism, then by baptising a child you assert he has become a child of the covenant and so is responsible for keeping the covenant.  You have induced the the parents to perjure themselves, even as you place the covenant child in a family that will not teach him the Gospel.  He is deprived of the normative path to faith - learning of God at the feet of his parents.  And yet the responsibiility of the covenant is laid upon him.  To break a covenant with God is a fearful thing.

carl

<p>
User 1507 wrote: "I've found that many parents requesting Baptism don't actually realise that the CofE actually have two forms of service which can be used to formally recognise and welcome a child. Although we have infant baptism, we also have the service of thanksgiving and dedication."
</p>
<p>
Every thanksgiving for the birth of a child I've seen has been for the child of believing churchgoing parents. The folks who walk in and ask for a "Christening" invariably want the real deal. And quite a lot of church members I know did not get their own children baptised as babies, including myself.
</p>
<p>
Carl wrote: "If an adult man came forward to be baptised, and said "Look, I don't believe any of this nonsense, but it will make my girlfriend's mom happy, so just tell me what to do, and I'll do it." should he be baptised?  The entire sacrament would be a lie.  So why then let parents of a child participate in a similar deception?"
</p>
<p>
But they aren't being baptised, the child is. <strong>If</strong> we really believe that children should be baptised its hard to see why we should withold it from them because of the spiritual deficiencies of their parents. Do the children of sick parents have less need of a doctor?
</p>
<p>
A long time ago Colin Buchanan gave a very interesting sermon at our church, which turned into a general discussion, trying to persuade us that covenant baptism of the children of church members was the right policy. I think he suspected, that our church was full of secret advocates of believer-only baptism. (Partly correctly, some of the older ladies did go off the the local Baptists to be re-baptised as adults back in the 1950s, though the younger mostly African members of the church tend to be happier with infant baptism). He failed to persuade me of that. He did manage to persuade me that infant baptism was valid but not that it should be regular  (he also managed to persuade me that we ought to carry on doing weddings for unchurched apparent unbelievers - two changes of opinion in one sermon must be a bit of a record!)
</p>
<p>
But my way of looking at it leads to the really odd situation (which I have observed in more than one evangelical church) that the parish church baptises other people's children, but not its own. Which seems weird.
</p>

This doesn't require that recipients should fully understand either the faith or the sacrament, but it does strongly suggest that some work needs to be done with parents who present a child for baptism without having darkened the door of the church since their wedding (if then). Otherwise what chance is there that as they bring up their child they will do anything to enable them to benefit from the sacrament.

User 1782

I don't think you are being entirely fair here. You are representing a particular kind of open Baptism Policy, but I turned to the Canons and the Book of Common Prayer to raise questions about your position, or at least the manner in which you express it.

The BCP and Canons require the parents of a child to be instructed that they have the same responsibilities as Godparents. It permits delay for the purpose of instructing parents and godparents in their duties.

You say that it is clear that the parents want Baptism. Actually this is not necessarily clear and parents can be quite inarticulate about what they want. Answers include, for example:

1 We want to do the right thing.

2 It protects against bad things, doesn't it?

3 We want to give him/her a choice.

A critique of your position would suggest that it was based on a christendom model (the implicit assumptions it would be suggested are no longer valid in a secular society), and would want to interrogate your theology of baptismal regeneration.

You are very terse in your own analysis - you are you know - so you appear touchy too.

And for your information we have an open baptism policy here, and I myself came to understand my own vocation through the open policies which were adopted by some of the people who nurtured me when I was young - so I am a sympathetic reader of your comments. Actually my own view is that the Church takes on a reponsibility in baptism too - "we welcome you" - and we expect and work hard at making sure people come back.

I'm not sure that post-baptismal evangelism makes the best theologial sense, though I do know that it can work - but I do hope you take your own post-baptismal responsibilities seriously. Why else would you be baptising these children?

Yet many people do think of it as a commodity  - that is precisely the point.  Isn't  it surely incumbent of the CoE to disabuse them of that notion? God's grace may well be communicated when people are shown the significance  of the rite and required to consider it's implications  before going ahead

hi, carl.  i don't see anything on my posts that could reasonably lead anyone to assume that i think it is like a commodity to be purchased at what english people call the corner shop. it's a sacrament of the church, and it's one that we have been teaching people for the last thousand years they should seek for their children.  sectarian vicars have had little success in trying to rid people of this desire, and i'm glad they haven't. i don't presume to know how god's grace is mediated, but i'm pretty sure that it happens at baptism, whatever mixed motives the parents and godparents may have. and, speaking of mixed motives, what motivates people to seek ordination? of course there is a sense of vocation, but are there other, baser, desires involved?

That is just the point - we cannot treat baptism as a commodity. People cannot demand baptism and one of my big concerns is that people ring me having booked the pub. the photographer, organised godparents often several of them, and want it at such and such a time. That will not do, even as much as big hurdles will not do.

Kevin

User 1782

You speak is if baptism is a commodity to be purchased at the corner store.  What exact purpose  do you think baptism serves?

carl

wow, Philip, you're touchy, aren't you?

Here's the deal.  The Canons of the Church of England:

is brought to the church to be baptized.

Thanks User 1782 for your reasoned, considered and reflective response - not. Could you at least do us the courtesy of giving us your real name so we know who's ranting at us?

We have a responsibility as the established church to prepare people carefully and responsibily for baptism: which is exactly what the policy I proposed is designed to do. It is not our job either to sell people or the sacrament short.

any of these policies will do, if you want to stop being the national, established church in this country. otherwise, do your job and baptise, without first erecting ridiculous obstacles, the children of the parish.