"Eight years ago I attended an Anglican church for the first time. As a Baptist pastor's daughter I was suddenly transplanted into a church community where men sometimes wear dresses, people sprinkle water on babies' heads, drink real wine at communion, and recite familiar phrases aloud together during their services.
Despite growing up in church pews there was still so much that was mysterious: who were the Vestry and what did they do? Would I ever know the words to The Grace off by heart? Would they still give me communion if I didn't cup my hands just right?"
Read on here to find out what Sophia Sinclair made of her time in the Anglican church (here in Christchurch).
27 comments:
"I was suddenly transplanted into a church community where men sometimes wear dresses, people sprinkle water on babies' heads, drink real wine at communion, and recite familiar phrases aloud together during their services" just like Jesus and the apostles did...
"I never did figure out exactly what the vestry does, or understand why men sometimes wear dresses (sorry - 'vestments'), or come to agree with sprinkling water on babies' foreheads"
- Sophia Sinclair -
From this sentence in her understanding of Anglicanism found at St. john's, Latimer Square, I'm amazed Sophie found any evidence of 'vestments' worn there!
And as for the derogatory mention of "sprinkling water on babies' heads", that does reflect a non-understanding of orthodox Christians tradition of Holy Baptism - as enunciated by Saint Peter in his phrase "Believers children, also, were baptized".
The Anglican vaccination obviously has not worked permanently - as witness the
inward dance to another community.
Nevertheless, St. John's would have appeared to have inculcated some positive marks towards mainline spirituality.
t was good to notice yesterday, at St. Michael's, Christchurch, our Bishop confirming an ex-Presbyterian minister.
Thanks for posting that.
As a Baptist pastor's son, who spent 10 years in Anglican congregations, a lot of the positive dimensions of what Sophia writes resonate. I'd add to her list the centrality of the Eucharist and the profound truths expressed in the practice of infant baptism of believers' children.
I've gone back to a Baptist congregation - for some of the bad or troubling dimensions of Anglicanism - but having gone back I've discovered afresh the truth about not stepping in the same river twice (let alone realising how different the upbringing is of my 10 year old who would prefer Cathedral worship). The practice of weekday Communion has become particularly important.
How charmingly old-fashioned. The lady apparently doesn’t get out much. I remember people like this in ecumenical talk groups in the mid-1960s. Anyway, to the Baptists (in America, at least) we Anglicans/Episcopalians have been a “dying church” for the past 400 years—yet for some odd reason, we’re still here. Yet even the water-drenching, snake-handling Baptists have not been immune to the decline in church membership and growing secularization of American society.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
After reading Sophie's article I found it well-written, containing humour, honesty, as well as encouraging to see what her worshipping in an Anglican congregation has given to her faith journey. And the latter it seems is the reason for her writing of the article.
I was therefore surprised to read in the comments here that all responses bar Michael's were ones of being defensive about observations (not even criticisms although they seem to be taken as such) she makes re what was foreign to her coming from the Baptist tradition.
In response to Jean, my comments were not so much 'defensive' as explanatory of the basic understanding of Baptism being for all people - not just consenting adults - which is obviously the Baptist view!
"Baptism of believers by immersion" would be the common Baptist expression. "Believers" would usually be qualified in practice as "at least aged 10 or more" - ages 12-13 was common when I was young. One former minister in a congregation I was part of was sufficiently uneasy about children being too easily swayed to conclude that no one should be baptised under the age of 20.
Fr Ron
Your words were,
"for the derogatory mention of "sprinkling water on babies' heads"
In the article Sophie said this was one of the things she did not understand when initially attending an Anglican Church and was also not sure of when she left. I am not sure how her commenting is derogatory.
Coming from the position of believers Baptism by immersion as Michael mentions, I can quite imagine the sprinkling of water for infant Baptism would have appeared odd to her. Just as immersion Baptism may be to many used to the Anglican tradition.
Enjoy this warm Tuesday,
Jean
I suspect Fr ron might be the first to agree with me when I say that we Anglicans are not our own best publicists when it comes to explaining why we do what we do.
On baptism by sprinkling, for instance, we look very parsimonious compared to Immersionists (which, incidentally, includes the Eastern Orthodox who immerses infants when baptising). It also, at first sight, looks unbiblical. But sprinkling with blood is an important part of OT sacrificial rites. Thus we Bible believing Anglicans need to speak up about why we do what we do!
Indeed, Peter!
Also in telling the christmas story to children. Mum's recent messy church session, waiting for the king, started by asking the children present who was waiting for Jesus the king to arrive, and much to the chagrin of the grandparents there the three comments were:
Mr Claus
Mrs Claus and
a Reindeer!!
Right details, wrong story!
Let’s straighten up some of the details so we can proceed honestly.
Baptists do not have an agreed position on baptism, neither the amount of water that needs to be used, nor the age at which baptism is appropriate. Many Baptists will put right under the water, for others immersion is not submersion. For some Baptists baptism is a requirement for church membership, for others it is not. Other Baptists still will regularly rebaptise those who were baptised in a Baptist church – including when moving church community. The words used at the moment of baptism can vary from Baptist minister to minister.
Anglicans, on the other hand, do have an agreed baptismal policy. It has nothing to do with the age of the candidate (Anglicans do not believe in ‘infant baptism’ as suggested – Anglicans just believe in baptism), nor with the amount of water used. “Sprinkling” is not one of the options (hence its appearance being understandably understood as ‘derogatory’), and parsimonious use of water is just a sign of poor training and formation of the one baptising.
Immersion is not foreign to ‘Anglican tradition’ as suggested in this thread of comments, in fact it is the first option indicated in Anglican baptismal rubrics (instructions), hence by some exegesis the preferred option, and I (as a priest serving in the Anglican Church) am delighted when a family chooses immersion for an infant (or older), an option I obviously always encourage.
Blessings
Bosco
Hi Bosco
That's true. I have never seen a baby sprinkled only water poured on a baby's head. Mind you the word sprinkled may just be interpretation, not intent to be offensive.
Full immersion is great isn't it! In my last Parish we were lucky enough to include our baptism's with a picnic either at the Sea or River, except babies. Although, I have to say all other Anglican Churches I have encountered don't use immersion but the font, and I am supposing this is the most common method used most in the NZ AC?
Best Wishes
Jean
Bosco
Despite your comment that "Baptists do not have an agreed position on baptism", I doubt you would find any Baptist leaders dissenting from the "Baptism of believers by immersion" formulation. Yes, at the margins there are differences around the requirements for "church membership" - but quite what "church membership" means theologically, as distinct from under the respective local constitutions, is probably more of a grey area. I've never heard of "rebaptism" of someone previously baptised in a Baptist church (or having been baptised by immersion as a consenting believer in any other congregation). There are divergences of practice - somewhat in the nature of the Baptist movement, with no central authority. Looking back through this string of comments I didn't see anyone suggesting that immersion was foreign to Anglicans.
In my experience it is the baptism of infant children that most strongly divides Anglican from Baptist practice/belief around baptism (and even more so, in respect of baptism of infant children in families that do not attend church). It was the obstacle that held me back from Anglicanism for many years. As it is now, I am grateful that my children have been baptised, and we call that baptism to mind in our prayers each night. There was something wonderful about being able to take our first born along to the first baptismal preparation class one Sunday morning just a week after he was born). I even convinced myself - perhaps wrongly - that full immersion was not necessarily a Biblical standard, or apostolic practice.
Having said all that, the tone of this thread has surprised me a little. I thought Sophia's article was a fairly appreciative one of her Anglican experience, if written in a way to grab some readers, and all the rest of the commenters are Anglican, (and I mostly wish I was able to be). It is a great gift to be able to see ourselves as others see us.
Hi Anonymous
I am publishing your comment this once because it makes some pertinent points. But the policy here is the use of a name, at least a first name.
Sorry Peter, that was my comment - accidentally left my name off
Yes, Anonymous, but you have done it again, so we are none the wiser ...
sorry Peter
Michael
"I have to say all other Anglican Churches I have encountered don't use immersion but the font" Jean
Thanks for your comment, Jean.
Just to clarify - the 'font' merely refers to the architectural feature where baptism occurs. 'Immersion' should not be in contrast to 'the font', and it is tragic (though understandable) that it is seen in that way. I am one of the strongest, most-public advocates in our church that we renew that feature with good contemporary structures that sees immersion as normal.
At our last synod I moved the following:
'That this synod encourages ministry units planning new church buildings or renewing their worship space, to seriously consider having a highly-visible font in which it is clearly possible to baptise "by immersion in the water, or by pouring water on the candidate."'
That passed unanimously.
The section in quotes within the motion is from our agreed formulary (teaching, instruction) on baptism.
Blessings
Bosco
No worries!
Interestingly, the Anglican Church of St. Matthew, in the City of Auckland, does have a Baptismal Pool for full immersion.
However, they also have a font - which serves as a place for Baptism.
Hi Bosco
That's a great idea, especially with the number of churches needing re-built or re-structured post earthquake; and where access or weather makes outdoor immersion Baptism unlikely.
The option of both too is a great idea Father Ron : )
Good clarification Michael, I think only the Salvation Army and Unitarian's do not practice Baptism. On that note I have always wondered why the Sally's don't does anyone know? I understand given their roots why communion might have been omitted from their practices...
God Bless
Jean
I do not like the idea of two places for baptism within the one worship space, separated by some distance, where one is used for immersion of adults and the other for pouring on babies, just as I do not like people using one word for the rite with adults and another word for the rite with babies.
There is only one baptism.
There are plenty of contemporary designs and examples of fonts where both immersion and pouring are possible.
There are plenty of ways to renew existing fonts so that both are possible.
If a church has inherited a bird-bath size font that cannot be used with abundant water (where only the previously-mentioned parsimonious is possible), or renewed for contemporary worship, please put it outside and use it as a birdbath or sundial stand.
Blessings
Bosco
I think you will find, Bosco, that St. Matthews in the City of Auckland normally uses the Font for the Baptismal rite - for both adults and children. The pool is only used for those people who insist on full immersion. Pewrhapxd both are neceesary in an 'Inclusive Church'.
I, myself, have baptized people in the sea and in a swimming pool - where the circumstances warranted the practice. However,my preference is for using the Font - in the manner for which fonts were originally designated in the Church, Catholic and Orthodox.
I would encourage parents to bring their new-born children to the Font - in accordance with Anglican tradition.
“I, myself, have baptized people in the sea and in a swimming pool - where the circumstances warranted the practice. However, my preference is for using the Font - in the manner for which fonts were originally designated in the Church, Catholic and Orthodox.”—Fr. Ron
This was also true, Father Ron, for the parish church in which I grew up—St. Luke’s, Jamestown, NY. (an area you may have heard, along with the city of Buffalo, is recovering from a massive snow storm). My religious mentor, Father (later, Canon) Ken Seitz always made arrangements to baptize by immersion if that was the preference of the person seeking to receive Holy Baptism.
Parson John Wesley baptized by immersion when he was the High Church rector of Christ Church, Savannah in the 1730s.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
Hi Kurt,
Was that a second baptism for John Wesley or a renewal of his baptismal vows using water?
He used immersion to baptize members of the parish who had not previously been baptized by an "apostolic clergyman," i.e. one who had not be ordained by an Anglican bishop.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
Post a Comment