One of the privileges of having been ordained at Conference is that you are given the opportunity to stay and watch it in action. Over the last couple of days I have been doing exactly that. And this afternoon, I found myself getting annoyed, maybe even angry.
In some ways this is a good thing as it shows that there are real issues being discussed here, things that are worth debating. However, despite a few tweets on the matter it's difficult to explain your thinking in 140 characters, so hence the first blog post for ages.
The debate in question was the one on reaffirmation of Baptismal Vows including the use of water. It may not sound a great title, but it certainly got me interested in part because it touched on something I addressed on this blog long ago - whether Baptism leaves a lasting mark.
The Faith and Order Committee seem to have done their best to provide a neutral background for the debate, and seemed to want to offer an opportunity for Conference to express its views. They also made it very clear what was being talked about here - not re-baptism, but re-affirming one's baptismal vows in a liturgy or form including water. The Conference debated, and then decided that they did wish this to be pursued - and that is where I was starting to get hot under the (clerical) collar.
There were a number of things that I wasn't convinced about during the debate, and others that were not always brought up.
First of all, where the request is coming from. Apparently it has been brought to a couple of District Chairs by Ministers who have been asked by people about being re-baptised. So the question arises out of a Pastoral concern. That's as may be, but the implication is as well as pastoral, theological - we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, so what would agreeing to re-baptise do? While the position on re-baptising hasn't changed and wasn't up for debate, the implication seemed to be that in order to meet this pastoral need we need to be able to offer something close enough to satisfy those that seek it - whether allowing someone to sign themselves with water from the font, or some other way.
This is not re-baptism, but one thing that does concern me is that it may be seen as such. There were mentions on Monday of how we have an internal dialogue in the Methodist Church (such as at Conference) and an external one with those outside it. Will those outside understand that this is not re-baptism? Will other Churches? I cannot answer with any confidence at all that they will. And if detailed explanations have to be made about why this isn't baptism, for me having water involved is only going to confuse matters.
What's wrong with instead working out how we explain and implement confirmation better? There is no reason why this can't be an equally powerful and spiritual experience; I found mine (at the age of 18, having been away from church for several years) to be an amazing, Spirit-filled experience.
Another point that I couldn't help but think as some speakers came forward and spoke of having to turn away people wanting to be re-baptised is that there is nothing to say that what is proposed would in any way give us something to offer them in any case. If someone comes and asks, in all earnest, to be re-baptised, and they are firm in their conviction that this is what they need to happen, we will still not be able to do as they wish.
I was also concerned about the image that was presented of people being told that we couldn't help them. I suspect that the limited time available for speakers prevented clarity on this, but nothing was said of working pastorally with those seeking re-baptism and exploring their need for and understanding of baptism.
I will look with some interest at what Pete Phillips and the Faith and Order Committee come up with, but I can't help but wish there were other options being explored - how about for example annointing someone with oil in an act of reaffirmation, healing and wholeness?
1 comment:
I am concerned that the people who want to be re-baptised will think that this is what they are being offered. In my opinion it would be better practice to teach them why there is only one baptism needed and some exploration of doctrine so that they may better understand what it is they are asking. I agree completely that there should be more emphasis on confirmation as affirmation of baptismal vows and would fully support the use of anointing with oil as a means of re-affirming commitment and "sending out" - seems to be under-used but can be very powerful.
Post a Comment