clergychickita used this liturgy on a post in Parenting while talking about another side of babtism. Thank you chickie  The follow -up dialogue is mine.

Greetings!

I have often struggled in a baptism when the congregation is asked to stand and commit their support for the family and child presented for baptism.  I struggled in not knowing how to support and encourage the family in their faith, especially when it is a family that is not involved in the church.  I came to realize that sometimes all I can do to help the family spiritually is to do my part to make sure my church stays open and that when and if they are ready, my church is there to welcome them as part of the faith community.  This requires stewardship of both my time, gifts/talents, and my finances.

Hope, peace, joy, love . . .

Wow, the only thing  in Baptism that I can heartily assert to IS supporting the infant and the family. The rest is  a bunch of corrupt hocus pocus.

Baptism ritual has an awe about it that calls agnostics and atheists into the church to lie about their beliefs in a God and then baptise their infants - who will only connect to the ritual through photographs and the existance of  a pretty infant gown, which looks like an infant European wedding dress - so that this image will return the infant to the church to use another white frock, also remembered only through photog`s and the existance of another piece of pretty fabric. 

  The question, then, is really,  why do these people feel so compelled to baptise their infant and is a deeper question that the church should explore beyond the arrogant assumption that it is the inate and insatiable need of people to `come to God` that is behind their act of baptism. 

I would argue that is people`s deep and complex need to come to community.  And they will spout, ignorantly some romantic God stuff if it makes people happy. 

I have said vows for many infants and families over the years but really that is as far as it goes. I  noticed that in some cases follow ups of these families did not  even happen by the church.If , (not in all cases) but in some cases, baptism has no meaning other than " the thing to do",  " my mother wants  them done" and "I don't want them to go to hell".

jiln, I am not sure why you think that agnostics and aetheists would lie about their belief in God to get a child baptised.  I woudl imagine they woudl feel the entire baptism thing is hog wash.

If they do undergo baptism, perhaps in reality they do have an underlying need to experience God.  And we should be supportive of that.

We also see couples arrrive for a "drive by" baptism but we accept them.  To me , it is one of those times, like Christmas and Easter services, where as a Christian community we can be welcoming and encouraging of their babysteps towards faith. 

I think jlin is on the right track. The atheistic and agnostic majority come to Church only for baptisms, weddings, and funerals because these rites are still strongly traditional and socially acceptable, but otherwise stay away from a Church whose "superstitious absurdities" they no longer accept.

I think there is a dire need to re-define God! Unfortunately, there is a resitance to that by both the religious minority and the atheistic and agnostic majority.

The religious minority hang on to their supernatural definition of God. And, because this God is presented to the atheists and agnostics as the only possible God, the atheistic and agnostic majority resent such a God.

If God were re-defined as the totality of being, then this would render God natural, tangible, and plausible, and perhaps attract the atheistic and agnostic majority back to Church.

At one time I used to be involved with following up with families on the anniversaries of the child's baptism by sending cards - but that was years ago - however I do feel that we should be doing more than we are in following up with these  children we vow to support.

At  the church I now attend  we have a good Sunday School and Youth program so that is one way we are supporting them. 

How can we better support these families?  Any thoughts?

Greetings!

I think it is okay with a follow-up, such as an invitation to attend Sunday School activities (when the children reach that age), inviting the parents to various activities also, keeping them up on what is happening in the church  . . . but in the long run . . . if they don't want to come, or aren't interested . . . there isn't much more you can do . . . except keep the doors open . . .

Hope, peace, joy, love . . .

In our congregation's baptismal celebrations, there are questions asked of the parents:

- What is your child's name? (Just so I don't get it wrong. *grin*)

- Do you bring X for baptism? (Just to make sure.)

- Would you take a moment to express to the congregation what this baptism means to you?

- Then the questions of the parents:

    "Do you believe in God, who has created and is creating?"

    "Do you believe in Jesus, the Word-made-Flesh, who came to this world to reconcile it and make it new?"

    "Do you believe in the Holy Spirit - and that the Holy Spirit remains in the world, teaching us what it means to be part of God's household?"

    "Will you do everything in your power to teach X what it means to be part of God's family and household in Christ's love, and will you love her/him to the best of your ability and beyond, each and every day of your life?"

Then, before the questions of the congregation, I say to them, "Ok, folks... you know what I'm going to ask you. If you are not prepared to make this promise, then I would ask you to remain silent."

"Will you do everything in your power to teach X what it means to be part of God's family and household in Christ's love, and will you love him/her to the best of your ability and beyond, each and every day of your life?"

After the congregation says their, "I do"... I say something to the effect of. "Prove it."

"I'd like to know who here will take the responsibility of praying for X, each and every day, for the rest of their life?"

Usually there are at least five or six people from the congregation who put up their hands. They are invited to come forward and join the family at the font.

The baptism happens (in all of its watery goodness *lol*), and when it comes time for a blessing, the parents are invited to lay a hand on their child, and everyone else is invited to touch the shoulder of one of the parents, or me, or the person in front of them... and we share a blessing.

Since we've started doing that, we've had a whole bunch more people - both inside and outside the regular congregation - do some serious consideration of what the baptismal vows mean to everybody.

Christ's peace - r

I love this Richard and can I call you Dickie?

Well... only if you call me Reverend Dickie.

We do need to keep *some* decorum here. *ROTFL*

Christ's peace - r

I think The Baptism has a lot more deeper meaning than the ceremonies of the church. It's said that the baptism of water represents the control over the emotional body. And just as the 2nd birth symbolizes the baptism of matter, the Chirst spirit, in our physical body and the baptism of air, the transfiguration, shows us the vision of the Light of God in our mental body, so does the baptism of fire bring us full circle on the cross to full alignment with the Soul.

I know this sounds silly, but WHY DO WE BAPTIZE BABIES, as opposed to adults?  In a way,  I wonder if, rather than baptism for infants, should we be rather be doing parental vows?  What does baptism DO for a baby on a spiritual plane?  Does it save the baby from hell?  Because I was raised in an Evangelical home, I was always taught that only adults (who had the capacity to understand the serious nature of the sacrament) should be baptised.  The catch phrase was 'Baptism is an outward sign of an inward state', meaning that the adult was proclaiming his/her own personal dedication & vows to God.

I'm not opposed to infant baptism, I'm more unsure of the symbolism.

I'd love feedback.  Thank you.

It's interesting, Diva...

if I had my druthers, I'd have ceremonies of dedication/celebration at the life of a child, and wait until individuals could make their own profession of faith for baptism.

Having said that, I minister within a denomination that practices baptism of infants... so I've been working on what I understand it to mean.

The phrase that a "sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace" (John Wesley) definitely helps me to be able to celebrate infant baptism - 'cause the water and the words are symbolic of God's grace... which (as has been tossed about in this forum many times) is not effected by what we human beings do or don't do.

Ok. My brain is blathering. I'll sleep on this and see if I make any sense in the morning.

Christ's peace to you - r

I am a Christian.  I do not believe in the biblical Christian gods ( which can be anywhere from 4 - 8 or so, if one starts sorting out varieties of Angels as well)  of them) but I do believe in mythopoesis and I do believe in the connected unconsious (which is out of fashion, I realize) and I believe in the unconnected unconsious and I believe in the universal awareness of being and not being.  This not the uncomplicated symbology of the Christian Gods as presented at a baptism, however, they are deffinitely the morphs and evolution of the eccumenical wisdom of Christianity, Buddhism, Zen, Hinduism, Moslem, and Native Spirituality, also forms of religious communism . . . . and social gospel. 

One of the things that I learned from the Mennonite faith when I lived in the same home as one, ( My step-father was the only non-practicing Mennonite in his extended family) was the encouragement the Mennonites had for individuals under their roof to work out their issues in their "home" . . . thus, the incest, gltb, addictions, and  disaffection et al becomes a part of everyone's focus under the roof of the church. 

The United Church has been far more exclusive, as exclusive as the right wing fundamentalist churches, in some regards ( and this is odd because, the Mennonites should claim 1st and foremost a position as right wing fundamentalist) at casting out people and leaders who can't claim the simple symbology as making any sense whatsoever.

In time, people assent to the meaninglessness of the drama, but the meaningful drama, I suggest is the calling by the family back to it's home, the coming home to present their child to the church - to their spiritual community, a community connected to something other than the chaos of one-up,manship  soap operas.    Sadly, the parents of the church are too materialist in their spiritual purity and are too arrogant and superior an disaffected to be moved by  their child and godchild's homecoming. In fact, what they get is a candle and a kick in the pants with a brusque ceremony that connotates, "if you can't sink your oar with this simple mafia-like cast of characters and spiritual guides, then, the baby  is very nice, but you could do better."   --  Charming!

We think we are gods ourselves and have nothing to learn from our children and we protect the crumbling God , hidden in holy vessels and water, in academic degrees and Lay Minister's self importance, from our chldren as well. 

Hallelujiah, we are saved from seeing the light!

Coming from a faith that does not have infant baptism I can see both the pros and cons.  The pro of infant baptism is the child grows up knowing they are a member of the church family.  There is security and comfort there.  The unspoken family rule that no matter what you do you are part of us and we are here.

I was taught that to be baptized one had to make an intellectual committment.  It had to be thought out and you had better "feel" the prescence of God.  It was confusing and there was always a sense you had to earn the right and frankly, a feeling that one never quite measured up.  It was very easy to think oneself out of the process and therefore out of the "family".

I do think the intellectual process is important.  It reinforces the comittment and the values that one is willing to embrace.  If, as other have pointed out, that the baptism is nothing more than a ritual and insurance policy it does nothing to enrich the life of the individual or the church family as a whole.

LB - just my .02

The lack of emotional security of our American young people is due, I believe, to their isolation from the larger family unit.  No two people - no mere father and mother - as I have often said, are enough to provide emotional security for a child.  He needs to feel himself one in a world of kinfolk, persons of variety in age and temperament, and yet allied to himself by an indissoluble bond which he cannot break if he could, for nature has welded him into it before he was born. 

Pearl S. Buck

Great question

I believe that as a church we are doing a poor job in furfilling our responsibilities as a congregation to the baptised child.

as a minimun we should have a booklet presented to the parents explaining what their resposibilities are and suggestions what they should do in order for them to uphold their committements.

If the baptism is of a child who lives somewhere else then the church should notify a church in their area about the baptisn and the address of the child.

Every once in a while the church which baptises should send a letter to the family seeking to update the files etc.

Baptism is a serious matter. If the church as it does now considers it only a social event then we are failing as a church.  

I've heard no mention of "god parents". I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say that it means they are to take care of the child if the parents die.

What sort of preparation is given to them on what is expected?

I don't think the United Church has the same concept of "godparents" that other faiths do. We call them sponsers and you can have the baptism with them or without them.

Hi, LB... One of the things I try to be really clear about - on a regular basis - is that every child is beloved of God - whether we've dripped water on their head or not. From my perspective, baptism by water is the tangible/visiual/physical sacrament of the mystical/mysterious/sacred baptism by Spirit.

We have a number of children at St. Andrew's who are not baptised. Some because their parents would prefer for them to be baptised when the child makes their own profession of faith. Some because their parents come from two different faith traditions (UCCan-Christian & Jewish; UCCan-Christian & Hindu). They are all fully part of the congregation - participate in our nurture programmes, participate in communion, lead worship... just about whatever.

The difficulty comes when someone wishes to offer their gifts of vision or leadership in the church in a formal way... because the UCCan requires that members of the Session/Board/Council need to be members of the congregation... and that includes Profession of Faith/Baptism.

Waterfall.... about "Godparents"... many UCCan congregations have "sponsors", rather than Godparents. They are folk in the congregation who take a special/particular responsibility for exploring with that child matters of faith and life. Part of the conversation we (at St. Andrew's) have with the parents is to find out who the guardians of the child are, in case of the parents death. We ask is their desire has been discussed with the guardians, and if it is included in their will. If people desire to have "Godparents", we ask them to help us understand what they see those folks doing and why. We ask to meet with the Godparents, so we can help them to understand the responsibility they are taking on - both supporting the parents as they explore with their child what it means to be part of God's family and household in Christ's love... and being responsible for doing the same.

greg... the only thing I'd disagree with you about is that the connect points (the booklet, the update letter, etc.) need to be done by people, rather than just by paper. We're working on having our Elders (the people on our Board) or our Contact & Caring division be in telephone or face contact with every family on a monthly basis. There's something about the personal connection that helps people to remember that the congregation has made committments to their child.

jlin... *chuckle* I've erased what I've typed here, four times, because I can't seem to find the words to express what I'm trying to express. I'll just blurt, so we'll have some material to rip up and turn into a better quilt.

It seems to me that no single ritual - baptism or otherwise - can respond to the welcome for which you are calling. There need to be a whole bunch of things - saramental, ritual, and every-day-loving-conversing-learning-from-one-another's-experiences-and-dreams - that make up our living together. We need to be creating places where people can safely explore their faith and spirituality... and help the rest of the congregation to explore theirs.

We're trying... one of the things we do is ask parents who wish to have their child baptised to come and join us for our worship & community gatherings at least three times before they decide to celebrate their child's baptism with us. Partially so we can get to know them... but even more so they can get to know us - and make an informed decision if this is a place and people with whom they wish to connect their child.

We're working on ways of helping families to explore scripture and their own spirituality in their own familial contexts... recognizing that some will have a very traditional understanding of faith (and Christianity), while others will have a more expansive one. The biggest task, I find, is the one we have at the WonderCafe - to help each other have dialog that comes out of our own places of love, even when we are in complete and utter disagreement.

So... we put together explorations/discussions of Harpur's "The Pagan Christ", and explorations of the similarities and differences between the Center for Progressive Christianity's "Eight Points" and the Canadian Centre for Progressive Christianity's "Eight Points" and how they might fit with the UCCan's "Song of Faith"... as well as inviting people into lectio divina. We invite people to come and explore, wherever they place themseves on the theological spectrum.

It's always a wild ride. *grin*

Having said that... there are two questions your post raises for me is, "In my faith exploration and searching... what is the point at which I can no longer self-define as Christian... or a 'United Church' Christian?" and "Is it fair/just/right for a faith community to set that definition in its own context?"

Curled up in the warm dark of God's love... Christ's peace - r

Yes, that's my Anglican upbringing showing through. Even though my uncle was a United Church minister I never knew that. Thanks.

Oh my last comment was for Crazyheart. Forgot the quote button.

Very good post Rev Dickie. Well done

RRB

I find that the Mennonites are like Jews in many ways.  You are one if you are born one.  Conversion is suspicious.  Catholics are a little more accepting and the UC is really quite accepting of a wide range of new middle class characters joining their church.  That is the huge UC limitation and idiocy.  It is not only the non-middle class that the UC excludes and treats as inferior, but  people already in their own family who will often go beyond what is presently accepted in the pulpit.  It's odd, but that's what now exists.

So, I ( am not at all middle class, - and not, I apologize, out of choice but out of life circumstance - have taken a page from the Mennonites and pasted it in my UC experience.  I am home and I am working out my stuff, whether  people get along with me or my stuff or not.  Yes, it is working.  There have been major & minor explosions. but oh so,  it goes!   Acceptance and balance happens as well.

I like Tom Harpur as well.  Borg doesn't like him, which I find interesting, only in that Croisson continues to be able to reach Borg - who is slowly becoming his own god. 

[quote=RichardBott]

Having said that, I minister within a denomination that practices baptism of infants... so I've been working on what I understand it to mean.

The phrase that a "sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace" (John Wesley) definitely helps me to be able to celebrate infant baptism - 'cause the water and the words are symbolic of God's grace... which (as has been tossed about in this forum many times) is not effected by what we human beings do or don't do.

______________________________________________________________________________

 So, I confess that I don't know how to turn off the quote setting, so I've drawn a line to show where my own musings start.  Technical advice would be most welcome!!!

Thank you so much for replying to my question.  Thank you for including the phrase by John Wesley.  I'm certain that the 'inward change' mutant was used as the 'catch phrase' when I went through Catechism.  It's funny:  a)  I never knew that the correct phrase belonged to John Wesley.   b)   'Grace' versus 'change' in the phrase seems much more meaningful --yet another example of the influence of one word!

So, what I understand from your post, Richard is this:

Within the context of grace, bapism is all about the work of the Holy Spirit (versus an adult proclamation of faith).  And, of course, God and the Holy Spirit are indeed, working in the life of a child.  In this context, it seems that baptizing a baby gives him/her a clear identity as a member of the famliy of God.  Which is probably a nice secure sense of belonging.

Thank you, RichardBlott.  Peace to you.

Hi Crazyheart.

I believe that we do.  I expect part of the reason for that has been dialogue within The United Church of Canada around issues of membership as it pertains to the local congregation and the universal catholic Church.

On the plus side we have made access to initiation into the universal catholic Church pretty much a given.  No reasonable request will be denied.  I don't think that is necessarily a bad idea. 

On the minus side I do think that by making such access so easy we may have encouraged others to take it for granted.  As we have cut the line between the universal and the particular we have severed the traditional avenue into both.  Individuals who want the ritual can get it done without all the fuss and bother of actually initiating a covenant relationship with a congregation.

This in turn results in a majority of baptisms taking place for show and no deeper reason.

We hope, as we enact the covenant that God will cling fast to all who participate.  Perhaps he does with some.

Proactivity helps.  It might be true that once the child is towelled off we never see the family come through the doors.  It is just as true that few congregations have a session in place which will ensure that if they aren't walking through our doors one of us is walking through theirs.  Relationship is a two way street.

When I was in NL Conference the number of folk coming back to the Island from Alberta to have their baby baptized was staggering.  Most never put down any roots or tried a relationship with the Church next door to them.  That should probably result in a phone call (not to check up on them) but to the Church next door to let them know they have someone new in the neighbourhood and they should make introductions soon.

I think lack of support is part of it.  I think lack of meaning is a larger part.  The action of baptism means something to these families.  Even if we disagree with the meaning assigned to the sacrament their meaning is something they bring to the table and it is the catalyst for them to seek a congregation out.

What happens after the sacrament (the routine life and work of the church) doesn't appear to hold very much meaning for them.  That might be because they have some pre-existing assumptions of what the Church routine will be that are accurate or just as inaccurate as some of their beliefs surrounding the need for baptism.  Either way if those assumptions are not addressed they shape everything which follows.

The action of Baptism is but a second.  Covenant lasts a lifetime.  God hasn't forgotten that but I think most of us have.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hello D1VA and welcome to WonderCafe,

Paedobaptism (baptism of infants) is a longstanding practice within the universal catholic Church and follows from a covenantal understanding similar to the covenant of circumcision.

It is a corporate covenant moreso than an individual one.  The covenant obligations that God lays upon us are for us and for our progeny so children are included in the covenant before they are able to give consent.  Because the covenant emphasizes gracious action, what God intends to do with us and for us regardless of any personal desire or merit there is simply no need to have the children aware of what is going on.

It has also been a longstanding tradition in the universal catholic church that the baptized individual will recieve a thorough education in the faith and be able to make a public profession of faith at a later date.  In the United Church this is typically what is happening in the Confirmation liturgy.  In the Confirmation or Renewal of Baptismal Vows the individual becomes represent at their own Baptism and participates in the giving of the vows.  (It's weird but it you watch Star Trek and remember any time travel episode you get the basic idea).

As the liturgy is constructed for infant baptism the parents speak on behalf of the child and do covenant to raise the child in a Christian home.

We never know for certain.  We hope that God shows up so that as God enters into the covenant to always be the child's God we can be assured that God will always be God to the child(ren) participating in the covenant.  We cannot force God to take part and as I don't think God is mocked I wouldn't be surprised if some baptisms that we celebrate (of both infants and adults) happen without God's participation.

We simply will never know.

To be completely honest if God has decided of his own free and sovereign will to be God to that individual not being baptized will not be a problem.  No amount of water forces God's grace.  No amount of arridity can thwart it.

The covenant, if ratified, makes for wonderful fire insurance.  The covenant is not ratified until God signs on.  That is not automatic and it has nothing to do with what the individual or the individual's parents do or don't do.  It is all up to God and God's graciousness.

That understanding comes out of a works righteousness paradigm which requires human agency to complete God's grace.  It suggests that humanity has the ability to resist God's grace which severely limits the ability of God if it holds true.  I don't believe that it does.

That catchphrase is a corruption of the reformational understanding of sacrament which lifts Baptism and the Lord's Supper up as outward signs witnessing to interior action.  As we celebrate the sacraments God moves within to accomplish all that the sacraments are designed to convey.

The symbols are essentially the same.  The understandings are quite different.  Infant Baptism posits that the Grace of God is primary and in respects irresistable.  Because we cannot earn God's favour we are in need of God's grace, this symbolism comes to the fore in the practice of infant Baptism.  The infant is carried, the infant is held, the infant is liturgically passive and while covenants are made by the parents, congregation and God all parties are forever onward responsible for their own integrity.

It isn't a contract where if someone slips up everyone else is free.  On the contrary the covenant is binding for all time.  There is never, in the life of that child a time when the congregation is set free from its obligations.  It chooses to honour them or back out.  The same holds true for the parents.  God keeps God's covenants zealously.

In adult baptism (believer's baptism) grace is still present but it is ineffectual until the individual permits God to give it.  Effectually this means that the individual calls the shots more than God does.  Because that understanding seriously diminishes God's ability to be redemptive or salvific I think it is a paradigm which needs to be discouraged.

That doesn't mean that we ignore public profession of faith.  I think that such professions are vital to the health of congregations.  I do think that we need to eliminate the idea that the testimony compels God to action so much as it allows the individual to be a part of the covenantal relationship.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Dear RevJohn,

Thank you so much for your thorough reply to my questions!!  It makes things so much clearer now.  I'm going to save the writings from this post, to use as a reference for ongoing learning.  I really appreciate your hard work, which is so evident in your reply to me.  Thank you for participating in my journey of faith.