Tags
The topic of Baptism has been current here this week, as it has on my Twitter-feed. where Fr Angela Rayner raised the issue of whether the Church of England should be open to all who want their child baptised, or whether conditions, such as attendance at classes and Church should be set. I agreed with those who thought the latter a bad thing, and in so doing, I did what I seldom do on Twitter, which was to say something about myself. But it may be worth elaborating on this to explain why I take the view I do.
My father, who had been “raised” (and I used the word in its loosest sense as I use the noun which follows) in a “Christian” orphanage had what amounted to a visceral distrust and dislike of Christianity. The fruits of the “care” he had received were bitter in his mouth. My maternal grandmother was a good chapel-going widow of the old Yorkshire school, and the Calvinist gloom of that experience left my mother alientated but ambivalent. At home she had been forced to go and disliked it. Nonetheless, once she married and moved away, although she stopped going to chapel, she had been brought up to believe that her children should be baptised. So it was that, just over a month after my birth, I was baptised on Christmas Day.
That experience did not prompt my mother to go to church regularly, but after the birth of my youngest brother, she started to go to a local Methodist Church. My father, a man of the old patriarchal school, was not best pleased, and his displeasure was, as usual, vocalised; but still she went, often not telling him. I don’t know why she went, any more than I know why she stopped going after about a year, though I can guess at the answer to both.
My memory is of a wall with a communion table in front of it and a banner along it in blue and gold which stated: “God is love.” I have no idea why that made sense to me, but it brought the five year old me great comfort. I loved Sunday School where I learned about interesting people such as Zachaeus, about whom we sang. I liked him because back then I was quite small for my age, and it felt good to know that Jesus liked short people, and that naughty people were welcome, provided they said they would be good in future (and did it). Thus the reasoning of the child.
I can’t remember much about the crucifixion; it certainly was not emphasised. Jesus died, we were told, to save us all, and He did so because He loved us. I loved Him too. Although a perpetually questioning child (to my father’s vocal displeasure) I saw no reason to question any of this. The deepest instinct in me told me that was right. Then, after no more than a year and a half at most, my father put his foot down; no more church. His word was law, and so there was no more church.
Oddly, he persisted in this stance despite one of the formative events of that period of our family life. The birth of a daughter left my mother weak, and the insistence that she should take “the pill” to avoid any more children, led to a stroke; no one had warned my parents of the dangers. My mother was whisked back home to her mother, where she remained for a year. This coincided with a prolonged dock strike which left my father with three sons to care for and no regular income. The weekly visit of the Methodist Minister with food parcels was something I looked forward to, not just for the obvious reason, but also because he was a kind man. My father accepted the food with bad grace, but resiled not a jot from his dislike of Christianity and his belief that all Christians were hypocrites. His childhood experiences had bitten too deep for even this act of selfless kindness to touch his heart; but it touched mine.
Yet, unchurched though I was from that point on, I knew God was there, just not how to access Him except through the Lord’s prayer. What that did mean, however, was that when, at University, the chance to go to church again was offered, I was able to take it.
My own children were baptised and taken to church as a matter of course until they reached confirmation age, at which point they decided for themselves; one is an Independent Baptist pastor, his twin brother exercises a lay ministry with regular preaching. My pride in them is immense. The bread is cast upon the waters … .
One can debate and discuss infant baptism and whether or not the Church ought to put conditions on it, all I can say is that I remain profoundly grateful to the unknown Minister who baptised me on Christmas Day. I like to think that he knew in his heart that his action was what God wanted. It may be unwise, or theologically illterate to generalise from personal experience, but there are times when I feel it necessary; this is one of them.
I attend a Baptist church , but I accept infant baptism now and am thinking of terminating my membership, since that might be contrary to our constitution.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If you ae content where you are Nicholas, stay. Only move if that seems the right thing. Finding a church where one feels at home is never easy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
John 3:8 The wind blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
…. well, he clearly doesn’t feel `at home’ there – if he’s thinking of shifting then the reasons probably go much deeper than the take on Baptism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed it is. I’ve been dithering at it for as long as this blog has existed. Many things I dislike about my present church (theologically). But I haven’t found a better. We talked much of this in the first few months here, Nicholas might enjoy a visit to the camp on Mt Nebo. We had much to say, and pretty much remained where we were.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO – but is `theologically’ the most important criterion for a church? If you want theological enrichment, isn’t the best thing to find some nice books (and have friends and contacts who can point you towards the sort of thing you can enjoy)?
I’m thinking of the church `down the road’ in our (small) home town (where I don’t live any more, so I do not attend. My parents both take the same view as I do, but they live there and they do attend). There isn’t really much choice. The sermons are pretty much content-free, they don’t sing the beautiful hymns by Charles Wesley and Isaac Watts, but instead go in for modern rubbish, their prayers seem framed blandly.
Because the place is small and there isn’t much choice, therefore the Christians also attend this church. I see how the church works in providing a social life for people who wouldn’t otherwise have one. For example – people who seem to be `backward’ for want of a better word. I know of one example – through `church’ people she has work at a charity shop (unpaid – but the whole point is to get motivation, structure and company into her life) and `church’ people have introduced her to several other activities (e.g. country dancing) where she is made to feel welcome, etc …..
This might not seem to be what the church is supposed to be for, but it is important – and the theologians can get their theology from other places.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sure community is important, but so is orthodoxy, Jock.
I grew up in a small town – 800 people, there were 5 different denominations, I could still list them, and all well supported.. There were also 5 bars and three restaurants. Community is where you make it, it not provided.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO – the town I’m thinking of also has bars and restaurants, but I simply don’t see the `clientele’ of the bars taking the time and trouble to make people who have, shall we say, learning difficulties welcome. The Christians that I am thinking of do. I’m sure that the Christian who is running the charity shop that I mentioned would find her job much easier if she wasn’t taking on `helpers’ where, with a lot of patience (and a breezy personality) she is able to make them feel useful – but in fact her job would probably be much easier without them. I’ve seen what is going on, but very few people have and she gets no thanks for this aspect of her work; everybody thinks she is just running an ordinary regular charity shop in a standard way. This is but one example of several; the church seems to be doing things (and the `Christians’ within the church are doing things) in terms of `community’ which you simply don’t see in secular places (e.g. the bars and restaurants).
LikeLike
Then the town you grew up in is not the town I grew up in. Nobody really thought those you mention should be in positions of leadership, but they were accepted and to a point catered to. Pretty much all of them had jobs, and the dignity that went with that, and were always welcome, in the churches, the businesses, anywhere in fact. Did we sometimes laugh at the ridiculous things they did or said? Sure, and so did they.
Not everyone is brilliant, but everyone has a contribution to make. Remember average is average, just as many are below average as are above it.
LikeLike
NEO – I’m not sure you understood what I wrote.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I understood what you wrote just fine.
LikeLike
Ever read “The River” by Flannery O’Connor ? If not, it’s a short story, you can read quickly, do it today and right about your thoughts on the necessity of Baptism.
The story haunts me to this day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also, I meant Write* but maybe right, depending on whether the ship needs a change of course.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Phillip – I looked at the summary – and basically if you have a good imagination then pentecostalist headbangers make easy pickings.
I’m reminded of the story of an elderly Christian couple at breakfast one morning. The man says, `the lord is very good to us. You know, every night when I rise to go to the toilet, he shines a great light to show me the way.’ To which his wife smiles and replies, `ah ha. Now I know who has been peeing into the refrigerator’.
The humour in the short story that you allude to (of course) takes a more macabre turn, but it is in the same vein.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The story is more complex than a juxtaposition on Pentecostalism. In fact, that barely scratches the surface of the story. The story coneys a theme of grace, the role of baptism, the dignity of the human person, and the theme of election.
The only reason there is Pentecostalism is the story and sets up the theme is because Flannery O’Connor lived in the early to mid 20th century Deep South. She wrote simply wrote what she knew in her particular culture.
I’d encourage you to actually read the short story.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Phillip – I found the pdf and read it – it’s only 11 pages. If it’s all the same with you, I’ll skip it. It looks like the product of a mind that is, to some extend, unhinged. If it expresses even slightly any part of the reality of the world in which she lives then she lives in a completely different world from me.
LikeLike
It is unhinged. And that’s the point. As Flannery said about her work in a world that is deaf, you have to shout.
LikeLike
Phillip – well, I read it following your suggestion – and I’m afraid I can’t see what she is shouting – or, rather, I can’t see how what she is shouting actually corresponds to anything, except perhaps in some poisoned world that is a figment of her imagination.
But if it works for you, then that’s fine.
LikeLike
There are far more worse things in the world than any expression of her imagination.
LikeLike
Phillip – with short story writing, it is a question of `suspended disbelief’. You can write about whatever you like – and if you are able to draw the reader’s attention to some real evil, to `shout’ in such a way that the reader can `hear’ then that is a very good short story.
The point about this author is that she fails to do this. The `suspended disbelief’ doesn’t work.
The style also brings me back several decades to when I was in high school and we had some literature rammed down our throats in literature classes. The writing technique looks like a learned writing technique of mid-50’s American literature that we were forced to look at. I remember J.D. Salinger’s `The Catcher in the Rye’ and some of the stylised and quite deliberate bad grammar that she uses seems to be very much in this way. This style was dated even back in the 1980’s – and more so now.
As I said, pentecostalist-style heresy does make easy pickings, but for me Flannery O’Connor fails on this one – the `suspended disbelief’ just isn’t working here.
LikeLike
Jock, you keep saying she fails to do things or I’d argue some comments even lending into ad hominem in nature. I haven’t really seen anything of substance that you’ve said that proves she’s ‘failed’ to do anything.
I wonder if you have you considered that you’re in the minoirty opinion about O’Connor? There’s very few people who claims otherwise that she is rather one of the most talented short-story writers of the 20th century. In fact, one of my discussion groups I held in the small city I was living in on Flannery O’Connor was the most well attended out of any of them. So, I think for many they realize that saturation of her narratives.
So, maybe, it’s just you?
LikeLike
Furthermore, look what you’ve written in criticism of O’Connor: I could literally plug in Edgar Allen Poe or maybe even Mark Twain into your criticisms because they’re so generalized and without substance that they’d fit those particular writers because I’d argue you havent really said anything other than you don’t like O’Connor’s story or style. Okay, that’s fine.
LikeLike
Yes – maybe it’s just me.
I’d never come across her until I saw your recommend, I read the story you recommended (11 page p.d.f. easily available on the internet) and I didn’t like it. Not my cup-of-tea. In broad brush strokes, I gave you the impression it made on me.
No ad-hominem intended – just that the short story somehow created anti-bodies,. I haven’t quite understood why, but probably because it reminded me too strongly of the worst stuff we had to read in High School English Literature classes.
Of the others you mention to which you say the comments could equally well apply – well, I enjoyed Mark Twain – good style and sense of humour; he works for me. Edgar Allan Poe? Well – the language style is masterly, the stories are very well crafted and somehow perfectly constructed – but there is something there that doesn’t work for me – perhaps too perfect?
Yes – I fully accept that these are my personal preferences, F. O’C. clearly doesn’t work for me, but I feel happiness for those who get something out of it – and I should probably have stuck with the maxim `if you can’t say anything positive, then don’t say anything’.
But perhaps we’re off-topic here.
LikeLike
Chalcedon – several things strike me from this. First and foremost, it sounds as if you had a good spiritual home with the Methodists. From what you write, much good in your spiritual development came from them so that, on the `if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ principle, it seems strange that you switched to something else.
When you were baptised were you endowed with God-parents? (God-father and God-mother)? Did the Methodists put any requirement on your mother such as `we’ll baptise your child, but only if you promise to bring him up in the Christian faith and send him to our Sunday school?’ or was there no such pre-condition?
When you switched to another denomination (you’re now Roman Catholic, but you seem to have moved there via Anglican and Orthodox) did you get Baptised again? Or did they all recognise the baptism you received from the Methodists?
I’ve always (to my earliest memory) been Christian and I’m very glad that my parents didn’t have me baptised. They were Christians and took the view that baptism was for the believer, for someone who professed their faith. I know myself sufficiently well to understand that the one thing that would have put me right off for life would have been the knowledge that I had been `done’ as an infant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s an odd thing Jock. I attended the Methodist chapel for a very brief period of time. Yes, I had Godparents, but only one, my mother’s sister, took an interest, and she still does at 93! There were no preconditions.
The Orthodox insisted on baptism as they recognise no other, but the RC’s did not.
The reason I cast this in personal terms is that I really have no general view. I know it worked for me and am grateful.
LikeLike
Chalcedon – well, it is clear that it was done with good intentions and that God used it for good (irrespective of whether it was done `properly’ and `by the book’).
LikeLiked by 1 person
As I recall, Jesus thought the Sabbath was made for man 😊 I have often, as I e does at spare moments, what my father would have made of his two eldest grandsons being devout Christians. Alas, he died before they were born.
LikeLike