Now Mr [John] Hunt has become the pioneer in a rejuvenated campaign for a way of cancelling baptisms given to children too young to decide for themselves whether they wanted this formal initiation into Christianity.
However, baptism is proving a difficult thing to undo.
The local Anglican diocese, Southwark, refused to amend the baptismal roll as Mr Hunt had wanted, on the grounds that it was a historical record.
“You can’t remove from the record something that actually happened,” said the Bishop of Croydon, the Right Reverend Nick Baines.
Again, if there is no God, if Baptism is just getting wet, then what is the fuss all about? It seems to me that these ‘atheists’ are giving a lot of power to a sacrament in which they claim to have no belief.
A very good point, libraryjim. I feel the same about people getting worked up about Mormons’ “baptism” of the dead. It’s just pretend, and why should anybody care? Maybe these atheists instinctively understand that Christian baptism creates a connection to God.
The poor atheists in the US are faced with the additional problem that even if they were never baptized in the first place, half the TEC parishes out there consider them communicants, and will try to induce them to partake in communion whenever they show up for a wedding or a funeral.
On of my Sunday School kids once asked if it was possible to get un-baptized. It wasn’t that she was particularly hostile to the concept of baptism; she was just miffed that it had been done to her without her consent.
She was a little disappointed when I told her that no, once it’s done it can’t be undone.
I once had a call from a former parish member who wanted to ‘un-Godparent’ her estranged BFF – she saw it as an appropriate way to finalize the break-up from her former friend. I saw it as a silly act of attempted vengeance. In the same way many of ‘this type of atheist’ are not happy just to be atheists, they must mock or strike back at others, the Church, the God in Whom they do not believe, society, whatever.. They are most of all to be pitied.
Baptism is indelible. The only early Church exception to this is if one underwent the taurobolium in the Mithraic religion. That’s according to the late Dr Massey Shepherd.
ASP, you oughtn’t have said that out loud and in print in the blogosphere. Now there will be taurobolium pits going up next to labyrinths and shinto shrines at local organizations known to us. I suppose they will require the “bull”echumens to provide their own bull.
Should now wreak havoc with PETA chapters nearby………..
Comments #1 and #2 are right on.
I have had 2 friends who where baptised as infants in TEC but after joining other churches were rebaptised because the new churches encouraged it, even though the one does infant baptism. The parents of both were understandably upset over the who thing. They, and a former priest, said it was a slap in the face.
Hmm, I’m a bit ticked that my parents chose to birth me in Pennsylvania since I had no choice in the matter. I chose to be a Texan when I could and feel utterly DEPRIVED that I can’t claim to be a Texan by birth, through no fault of my own. Do you think Pennsylvania would agree to register my protest in the birth registry? 😉
This is such utter silliness from obviously insecure and immature people.
If you take away the “water”, one must ask “…can these dry bones live?”
I get in disagreements with my peers pretty frequently about this sort of thing. I’m of a mind where, once you’re baptized, you’re sealed into the Body of Christ. From that point on, it isn’t a matter of whether or not you’re a Christian. You’re a Christian–perhaps heretical, perhaps lapsed, perhaps orthodox, perhaps whatever. But the indelible seal doesn’t go away simply because a given person no longer wants it around.
I was baptized as an infant in the Roman Catholic church. Of course when I joined the Episcopal church, there was absolutely no consideration of rebaptism–and rightly so, I think. But when my husband and I wanted to join an American Baptist Church, I had to be rebaptized–and rightly so agiain, I think! The two denominations have different beliefs about the process–in the Baptist church it’s not even truly a sacrament! In order for me to participate in the life and ministry of that church, I had to abide by their standards. Unlike some in the Episcopal Church today who want to discard ALL standards and participate in the life–i.e. Holy Communion–and the ministry–specifically ordained–according to their own feelings: “I feel just as holy without the ‘trappings’ the Church wants me to adhere to!” Such folks should look at Korah and his family in Numbers! (“I’m just as holy as Aaron is. I should be a high priest, too!”)
From the website: “Bishop Baines is willing to see such notices inserted into the baptismal roll to indicate decisions such as Mr Hunt’s, but the Church of England’s national headquarters made clear that such a concession was not official policy.”
In the immortal words of the late William F. Buckley: ‘Cancel your own damn subscription!”
(I imagine in will become official Church of England policy once Sharia has been formally introduced. Thanks, Rowan! 🙂 )
This has been fun. Yet in all seriousness, I wonder what would happen if Mr. Hunt had been appropriately informed of the significance of infant baptism. It really has more to do with the parent’s covenant to rear the child in the faith than it does with the infant’s “rights” to be or not to be introduced to the church. The whole issue of infant baptism is really misunderstood and if taught properly might be more respected.
So, if the sacrament of baptism can’t be undone, how is it that the sacrament of marriage can?
T
Tikvah wrote: [i]So, if the sacrament of baptism can’t be undone, how is it that the sacrament of marriage can?[/i]
Among the 22 Catholic Churches, it can’t. Only death ends a valid marriage. An anullment does NOT undo a marriage. An anullment is a declaration that a valid marrriage does not exist. A valid marriage cannot be undone nor can one undo something which doesn’t exist.
Tikvah wrote: “[i]So, if the sacrament of baptism can’t be undone, how is it that the sacrament of marriage can?[/i]”
In the Reformation churches, there are only two sacraments: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
[b]XXV. Of the Sacraments.[/b]
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, [b]Matrimony[/b], and Extreme Unction, [b]are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel[/b], being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
–Book of Common Prayer, Articles of Religion
(emphasis added)
PS
Being raised in the Catholic Church, I have some difficulty with article XXV.
JE