In the present crisis and confusion of the Anglican Way in North America, the Sacrament of Baptism has been and is variously negated, dumbed-down, politicized and neglected. Often it is merely seen as a ceremonial dedication to God or as a religious and social custom, or both. By progressive liberals it is even seen as consecration to a radical program of peace and justice in the world (see “The Baptismal Covenant” of The Episcopal Church).
Here let us try to answer the question: What is needed in order that Infant Baptism functions as a Sacrament according to the doctrine provided in The Book of Common Prayer (1662 & USA 1928 & Canada 1962)—the Service and the Catechism therein—and in The Articles of Religion (especially XXV-XXVII). The answer is in four sections.
What God has to do. There can be no Sacrament if God the Father for the sake of Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit is not active as the God of all grace and mercy. As the basis of this holy Ceremony, there has to be in place from God (a) the covenant of grace as the new covenant sealed by the blood of Jesus, into which the baptized can be placed; (b) the promises of salvation proclaimed in the Gospel concerning the Lord Jesus which the baptized can embrace; (c) the offer of the forgiveness of sin which the baptized can receive; (d) the Family of God into which the baptized can be adopted, and (e) the gift of the Holy Spirit to work within the baptized.
What the Church has to be and do. For the Sacrament to be truly the Gospel Sacrament authorized by the Lord Jesus Christ, Head of the Church, there must be in place the local church as a microcosm of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, and with an ordained ministry. Further, there must be the preaching of the Word of God, the administration of the Sacraments, sound Liturgy, and the exercise of basic, godly discipline. Further, there has to be a pastoral context in which families are treasured and where children are welcomed, nurtured and catechized, leading to Confirmation, taking Holy Communion and committed church membership as a disciple of Jesus Christ.
What the Godparents and Parents have to be and do. In allowing Infant Baptism in his Church the Lord Jesus places a high privilege and heavy responsibility upon those who stand in the place of the infant at the font (as sureties) and who, in his name and for his salvation, make solemn vows and promises to God the Father. As with the centurion (Matthew 8, Luke 7) whose faith availed for the healing of his servant, so with Godparents and Parents who believe vicariously for the Infant and commit to doing all that is required to provide for him the nurture and instruction needed so that he will grow into a truly committed Christian, a true member of the Body of Christ.
What the Infant has to be and do. By the faith of his sureties, the baptized infant is welcomed by God the Father into his family, kingdom, and covenant. As he grows and matures, God expects him and actually provides him with all spiritual help so that he can consciously make his own as a real possession what had been given him at his Baptism. That is, he is consciously to turn away from sin, to believe the Gospel, to learn the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments as the basis of a Christian mind and action. And he has to cooperate with his Godparents and Parents in becoming a committed member of the local church, by being Confirmed and receiving Holy Communion. In short, what his Godparents vowed and promised in his name, he is to make truly his own, by the help of the Spirit of the Lord.
When Infant Baptism and the follow-up from it as Christian Initiation of children is functioning well, then it is usually the case that the local church is in a healthy state. There is growth in maturity and numbers. Right now, very regrettably, as a reflection of the sickness and indiscipline of much of the Anglican Way in North America, the Sacrament of Infant Baptism is not being prepared for, explained, administered and followed-up as it ought to be!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Bishops as signs of unity? Or of schism and disunity?
A discussion starter from Dr Peter Toon
Anglicans, following the western Catholic tradition, have often spoken of the historical Episcopate, that is, Bishops in historical succession from the ancient Church, as unifying the Church across space and through time.
Thus within the Anglican Communion of Churches, there has been a commitment to the doctrine that the member Churches are bound together globally by the college of bishops, with each bishop functioning in his own diocese and only crossing its borders to minister in another by invitation and permission. This commitment to stay in one’s own diocese had its exceptions—overlapping jurisdictions in Europe for English and American bishops, armed forces bishops who crossed many boundaries and also bishops for native peoples, whose lands are in various dioceses—but it general it worked until recently. Bishops, together with the use of the Book of Common Prayer and with a common loyalty to the mother See, Canterbury, were the glue to bind all together until, it seems, yesterday.
But we now have a situation in North America where Bishops are the very opposite of a sign of unity across space and through time.
Begin with The Episcopal Church. Here there are many Bishops and they are very far from being of common faith and practice, even though in general they respect territorial rights. The Episcopate of The Episcopal Church is probably the least united of any Provincial Episcopate in the history of the Anglican Communion. Then, invading the territory of the original Episcopal Church of the USA and The Anglican Church of Canada are two very different sets of Bishops.
One set are the 100 plus bishops who belong to the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions and groups which have formed since the nineteenth century but especially since the 1970s. These live within and totally disregard the dioceses and their boundaries of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church. In fact they act as though they do not exist.
The other set are foreign Archbishops and Bishops who have either planted missionary churches in the USA and Canada (e.g. the Archbishops of Rwanda and of Nigeria) or have adopted individual congregations which have seceded from The Episcopal Church. (100 or so of the latter exist)
So if one were to draw a map of the USA and Canada and seek to impose upon it all the various territories claimed by all these bishops then one would have the most confusing picture imaginable. Even the angels with their special and supernatural eyes have great difficulty, I am told, seeing all the lines of demarcation and making out what lies underneath this or that delineation.
And what I am describing is The Anglican Way in North America. Lord have mercy upon us!
What ought to be the primary sign of its unity across the vast areas of the USA and Canada has become the primary sign of its profound sickness. Bishops have completely and totally ceased to be the sign of unity for Anglicans in North America. And one cannot see any indications that they as a whole, or a good number of them, are making any real attempt to bow before the Bishop of all bishops, the Lord Jesus Christ, the great Shepherd of all the sheep, in total submission to allow him to help them to sort out this massive mess. Too many it seems enjoy their “authority” and will not let it go, or they provide themselves with good reasons for maintaining it when common sense says otherwise.
If there is a massive supermarket of varied and competitive religions in the USA & Canada—and there certainly is—there is also within the 1.5 million Anglicans a similar supermarket, howbeit on a much smaller scale! This is new—it was not there fifty years ago. I hope it will not be there in ten years time.
Anglicans, following the western Catholic tradition, have often spoken of the historical Episcopate, that is, Bishops in historical succession from the ancient Church, as unifying the Church across space and through time.
Thus within the Anglican Communion of Churches, there has been a commitment to the doctrine that the member Churches are bound together globally by the college of bishops, with each bishop functioning in his own diocese and only crossing its borders to minister in another by invitation and permission. This commitment to stay in one’s own diocese had its exceptions—overlapping jurisdictions in Europe for English and American bishops, armed forces bishops who crossed many boundaries and also bishops for native peoples, whose lands are in various dioceses—but it general it worked until recently. Bishops, together with the use of the Book of Common Prayer and with a common loyalty to the mother See, Canterbury, were the glue to bind all together until, it seems, yesterday.
But we now have a situation in North America where Bishops are the very opposite of a sign of unity across space and through time.
Begin with The Episcopal Church. Here there are many Bishops and they are very far from being of common faith and practice, even though in general they respect territorial rights. The Episcopate of The Episcopal Church is probably the least united of any Provincial Episcopate in the history of the Anglican Communion. Then, invading the territory of the original Episcopal Church of the USA and The Anglican Church of Canada are two very different sets of Bishops.
One set are the 100 plus bishops who belong to the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions and groups which have formed since the nineteenth century but especially since the 1970s. These live within and totally disregard the dioceses and their boundaries of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church. In fact they act as though they do not exist.
The other set are foreign Archbishops and Bishops who have either planted missionary churches in the USA and Canada (e.g. the Archbishops of Rwanda and of Nigeria) or have adopted individual congregations which have seceded from The Episcopal Church. (100 or so of the latter exist)
So if one were to draw a map of the USA and Canada and seek to impose upon it all the various territories claimed by all these bishops then one would have the most confusing picture imaginable. Even the angels with their special and supernatural eyes have great difficulty, I am told, seeing all the lines of demarcation and making out what lies underneath this or that delineation.
And what I am describing is The Anglican Way in North America. Lord have mercy upon us!
What ought to be the primary sign of its unity across the vast areas of the USA and Canada has become the primary sign of its profound sickness. Bishops have completely and totally ceased to be the sign of unity for Anglicans in North America. And one cannot see any indications that they as a whole, or a good number of them, are making any real attempt to bow before the Bishop of all bishops, the Lord Jesus Christ, the great Shepherd of all the sheep, in total submission to allow him to help them to sort out this massive mess. Too many it seems enjoy their “authority” and will not let it go, or they provide themselves with good reasons for maintaining it when common sense says otherwise.
If there is a massive supermarket of varied and competitive religions in the USA & Canada—and there certainly is—there is also within the 1.5 million Anglicans a similar supermarket, howbeit on a much smaller scale! This is new—it was not there fifty years ago. I hope it will not be there in ten years time.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Christian Initiation - recovering The Anglican Way for Renewal
Christian Initiation
Since the middle of the twentieth-century, there has been much study of Christian initiation both in the World Council of Churches and in the Roman Catholic Church. Naturally, the Anglican Way, especially in the West, has been affected by this debate and there have been attempts to modify or reform the received method of Christian initiation of the Anglican Way. None has been more obvious and radical than the approach taken by The Episcopal Church. Let us begin with an overview of the traditional Anglican method.
Initiation in The BCP (1662)
The last words spoken by the Priest in the Service of Infant Baptism in The Book of Common Prayer (1662) are these:
Ye [Godfathers and Godmothers] are to take care that this Child be brought to the Bishop to be confirmed by him, so soon as he can say the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments in the vulgar tongue [English], and be further instructed in the Church Catechism set forth for that purpose.
Here we note the method of Christian initiation under normal circumstances with respect to children that was uniformly in place in the Church of England and the Anglican Family of Churches from the sixteenth century through to the latter part of the twentieth century, and is still in place in much of the Communion of Churches. Baptism leads on to Christian nurture and instruction, which leads on to Confirmation and then to the joy and discipline of receiving Holy Communion.
To appreciate this method we need to bear in mind that the Anglican Reformers in the middle of the sixteenth century took what had been the standard practice of Initiation in Ecclesia Anglicana for a long time and made modifications to it, arising from a very major conviction that they held—that the gracious blessings and privileges given by God in Infant Baptism are only truly and fully received by the baptized when he consciously exercises repentance for sin and belief in the promises of God centered on the Lord Jesus Christ. So they raised the recommended age for Confirmation by the Bishop from about seven to about twelve years and did so because they wanted to provide opportunity for the young person knowingly and consciously to embrace the Faith which his Godparents had held and believed in his stead.
Thus the Order for Confirmation begins with this explanatory Preface read by the Bishop or a Minister appointed by him;
To the end that Confirmation may be ministered to the more edifying of such as shall receive it, the Church hath thought good to order, That none hereafter shall be confirmed, but such as can say the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments; and can also answer to such other Questions, as in the short Catechism are contained: which order is very convenient to be observed; to the end that children being now come to the years of discretion, and having learned what their Godfathers and Godmothers promised for them in Baptism, they may themselves, with their own mouth and consent, openly before the Church, ratify and confirm the same; and also promise, that by the grace of God they will evermore endeavour themselves faithfully to observe such things, as they by their own confession have assented to.
And immediately after the Preface the Bishop asks the young persons this question:
Do you here, in the presence of God, and of this Congregation, renew the solemn promise and vow that was made in your name at your Baptism; ratifying and confirming the same in your own person, and acknowledging yourselves bound to believe and to do all those things, which your Godfathers and Godmothers then undertook for you?
To this each one is to say clearly, “I do.”
So we note that the substitutionary faith exercised by the Godparents for the infant suffices before God in the covenant of grace until the child, in the process of maturing, has come to “the years of discretion.” At this point he can, as a young person, with understanding and commitment, embrace that which, in and through Godparents, he is already committed to. That is, as a twelve-year old he now publicly confesses the Faith of Christ and commits himself to be a true follower of Jesus Christ.
Having publicly made his own what had been held in trust for him by his Godparents, the baptized young person is ready for the ministry of the Bishop, the Father-in-God of the congregation of Christ’s flock, to pray for him and to lay hands upon him. And following this Confirmation he is ready, as a repentant sinner and Christian believer, to approach the Table of the Lord, to receive the heavenly food.
It has been rightly stated that:
The Reformers moved Confirmation to the early teens, so that those baptized as infants could receive elementary Christian instruction and could then make the baptismal professions of faith and repentance in their own persons, immediately before being admitted to Communion. Although the Reformers used Confirmation for a new purpose, it was a purpose in general harmony with the New Testament and the primitive Church, one which gave a renewed emphasis to repentance and faith, and completed what had been begun at Baptism. (The Water and Wine, p.76)
Initiation in The Episcopal Church
Until the 1970s, the method of Initiation in the Protestant Episcopal Church followed that laid out in The Book of Common Prayer (1928) which is the same as that in the earlier 1662 edition (which had been used in the original thirteen colonies). Then, under the influence of what has been called “the liturgical renewal movement” and taking into account the developing doctrine of rights for children and other factors, The Episcopal Church approved in its General Conventions of 1976 and 1979 a new doctrine of Initiation. The first words in the introduction to the Baptismal Rite summarize the new doctrine: “Holy Baptism is full initiation by water and the Holy Spirit into Christ’s Body the Church. The bond which God establishes in Baptism is indissoluble.”
This claim is based upon what occurred in the Early Church in and from the third century and what still is the practice in The Orthodox Churches, but which has not been the practice in the Catholic Church of the West since the late patristic period. In the Early Church, there was great variety—indeed a bewildering diversity—of approaches and forms but in general the way in which an adult convert was received into the Church involved, in one complex ceremony, Renunciation of the Devil, Profession of Faith, Baptism in Water, Anointing with oil (chrism), Laying on of hands by the Bishop and receiving Holy Communion. In the Orthodox Churches today the Baptism of Infants follows this general outline, but without the presence of the Bishop. The parish priest baptizes, anoints with oil (blessed by the Bishop) and then gives Holy Communion (a tiny amount usually on a spoon) to the Infant.
So the new practice of The Episcopal Church is like that of The Orthodox Churches but without the rich doctrinal, liturgical and disciplinary context of Orthodoxy. The Episcopal Service contains a Renunciation and “The Baptismal Covenant” before the Thanksgiving over the Water and the Blessing by the Bishop (if present) of the Chrism. Then follow the Baptism and the marking with the sign of the Cross (where Chrism is used), the Welcome of the baptized into the congregation and then Holy Communion. Infants, children, young people and adults are all invited and urged to receive Holy Communion as often as it is provided.
There is a certain untidiness in the Episcopal Rites in the 1979 Prayer Book because—under pressure from Bishops whose visits to parishes have been often historically only for “Confirmation”—Confirmation is retained. However, it is not retained as the completion of Baptism as in the traditional Anglican Way, but rather as a kind of recognition that the baptized communicant is taking up the responsibilities of church membership and Christian living.
Perhaps here is the place to note why, from the standpoint of the Reformed Catholic Faith of the Anglican Formularies, the giving of Holy Communion to infants and young children is unwise, indeed erroneous practice. The apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 10-11 has much of importance to teach us about “discerning the Lord’s Body.” Here we are warned of the consequences of partaking of the bread and the cup without keeping Christ’s death in mind. A person doing so is guilty of profaning the Lord’s broken body and shed blood. Therefore, self-examination is a necessary preparation before coming to the Table of the Lord. For to partake without “discerning the body of the Lord” draws God’s judgment upon the communicant. Thus,
We may surely conclude then that, as infants and small children can neither rigorously examine themselves nor discern the significance of the sacramental bread and wine, it is better that they should not communicate but rather wait until the “years of discretion” (at least 12) for this privilege. (The Water and the Wine, p.38)
Of course, one can add all kinds of practical points to this theological and spiritual reason why it is better for children to wait until they are fully aware of what kind of holy and unique Table it is to which they go. And one can also supply a variety of reasons why in the modern format of services on Sundays in Anglican Churches (e.g. many “Family Communion Services” with very few Morning Prayer Services) there is great pressure to allow small children to communicate—for receiving a blessing does not seem to satisfy children who are used to having their rights respected and their felt desires satisfied by their parents and relatives. Further, especially in The Episcopal Church, with its strong doctrines of inclusivism and communitarianism, from which none of any age or orientation is to be excluded, the full inclusion of children sacramentally is not doubted or questioned.
While the practice of Infant Communion has gained ground in the (numerically declining) Anglican Churches of the West, it has not had much success in the greater part of the [numerically growing] Anglican Family of Churches of the Global South. Wherever there is strong Evangelical Faith then the call for repentance and faith is primary and this acts as a supporter of traditional Anglican initiation. And wherever there is strong Anglo-Catholic Faith this also acts as a supporter because Confirmation is treated as a “Sacrament” which is separate from Baptism and which is judged to be best received before becoming a regular communicant.
It would seem that if there is to be a genuine Revival of The Anglican Way in the West, firmly based on the Bible, the historic Formularies, and tried and tested Anglican practice, then a return to the traditional form of Initiation will be required, for it is probably the only way right now to keep in its primary place the Gospel call for genuine repentance for sin and saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
[for further reading, THE WATER AND THE WINE by R. Beckwith and A Daunton-Fear, Latimer Studies 61, Latimer Trust, London, order from www.latimertrust.org This is one of the few defences and commendations of the classic Anglican Way in print and is most important for the Jewish background to initiation.]
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Since the middle of the twentieth-century, there has been much study of Christian initiation both in the World Council of Churches and in the Roman Catholic Church. Naturally, the Anglican Way, especially in the West, has been affected by this debate and there have been attempts to modify or reform the received method of Christian initiation of the Anglican Way. None has been more obvious and radical than the approach taken by The Episcopal Church. Let us begin with an overview of the traditional Anglican method.
Initiation in The BCP (1662)
The last words spoken by the Priest in the Service of Infant Baptism in The Book of Common Prayer (1662) are these:
Ye [Godfathers and Godmothers] are to take care that this Child be brought to the Bishop to be confirmed by him, so soon as he can say the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments in the vulgar tongue [English], and be further instructed in the Church Catechism set forth for that purpose.
Here we note the method of Christian initiation under normal circumstances with respect to children that was uniformly in place in the Church of England and the Anglican Family of Churches from the sixteenth century through to the latter part of the twentieth century, and is still in place in much of the Communion of Churches. Baptism leads on to Christian nurture and instruction, which leads on to Confirmation and then to the joy and discipline of receiving Holy Communion.
To appreciate this method we need to bear in mind that the Anglican Reformers in the middle of the sixteenth century took what had been the standard practice of Initiation in Ecclesia Anglicana for a long time and made modifications to it, arising from a very major conviction that they held—that the gracious blessings and privileges given by God in Infant Baptism are only truly and fully received by the baptized when he consciously exercises repentance for sin and belief in the promises of God centered on the Lord Jesus Christ. So they raised the recommended age for Confirmation by the Bishop from about seven to about twelve years and did so because they wanted to provide opportunity for the young person knowingly and consciously to embrace the Faith which his Godparents had held and believed in his stead.
Thus the Order for Confirmation begins with this explanatory Preface read by the Bishop or a Minister appointed by him;
To the end that Confirmation may be ministered to the more edifying of such as shall receive it, the Church hath thought good to order, That none hereafter shall be confirmed, but such as can say the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments; and can also answer to such other Questions, as in the short Catechism are contained: which order is very convenient to be observed; to the end that children being now come to the years of discretion, and having learned what their Godfathers and Godmothers promised for them in Baptism, they may themselves, with their own mouth and consent, openly before the Church, ratify and confirm the same; and also promise, that by the grace of God they will evermore endeavour themselves faithfully to observe such things, as they by their own confession have assented to.
And immediately after the Preface the Bishop asks the young persons this question:
Do you here, in the presence of God, and of this Congregation, renew the solemn promise and vow that was made in your name at your Baptism; ratifying and confirming the same in your own person, and acknowledging yourselves bound to believe and to do all those things, which your Godfathers and Godmothers then undertook for you?
To this each one is to say clearly, “I do.”
So we note that the substitutionary faith exercised by the Godparents for the infant suffices before God in the covenant of grace until the child, in the process of maturing, has come to “the years of discretion.” At this point he can, as a young person, with understanding and commitment, embrace that which, in and through Godparents, he is already committed to. That is, as a twelve-year old he now publicly confesses the Faith of Christ and commits himself to be a true follower of Jesus Christ.
Having publicly made his own what had been held in trust for him by his Godparents, the baptized young person is ready for the ministry of the Bishop, the Father-in-God of the congregation of Christ’s flock, to pray for him and to lay hands upon him. And following this Confirmation he is ready, as a repentant sinner and Christian believer, to approach the Table of the Lord, to receive the heavenly food.
It has been rightly stated that:
The Reformers moved Confirmation to the early teens, so that those baptized as infants could receive elementary Christian instruction and could then make the baptismal professions of faith and repentance in their own persons, immediately before being admitted to Communion. Although the Reformers used Confirmation for a new purpose, it was a purpose in general harmony with the New Testament and the primitive Church, one which gave a renewed emphasis to repentance and faith, and completed what had been begun at Baptism. (The Water and Wine, p.76)
Initiation in The Episcopal Church
Until the 1970s, the method of Initiation in the Protestant Episcopal Church followed that laid out in The Book of Common Prayer (1928) which is the same as that in the earlier 1662 edition (which had been used in the original thirteen colonies). Then, under the influence of what has been called “the liturgical renewal movement” and taking into account the developing doctrine of rights for children and other factors, The Episcopal Church approved in its General Conventions of 1976 and 1979 a new doctrine of Initiation. The first words in the introduction to the Baptismal Rite summarize the new doctrine: “Holy Baptism is full initiation by water and the Holy Spirit into Christ’s Body the Church. The bond which God establishes in Baptism is indissoluble.”
This claim is based upon what occurred in the Early Church in and from the third century and what still is the practice in The Orthodox Churches, but which has not been the practice in the Catholic Church of the West since the late patristic period. In the Early Church, there was great variety—indeed a bewildering diversity—of approaches and forms but in general the way in which an adult convert was received into the Church involved, in one complex ceremony, Renunciation of the Devil, Profession of Faith, Baptism in Water, Anointing with oil (chrism), Laying on of hands by the Bishop and receiving Holy Communion. In the Orthodox Churches today the Baptism of Infants follows this general outline, but without the presence of the Bishop. The parish priest baptizes, anoints with oil (blessed by the Bishop) and then gives Holy Communion (a tiny amount usually on a spoon) to the Infant.
So the new practice of The Episcopal Church is like that of The Orthodox Churches but without the rich doctrinal, liturgical and disciplinary context of Orthodoxy. The Episcopal Service contains a Renunciation and “The Baptismal Covenant” before the Thanksgiving over the Water and the Blessing by the Bishop (if present) of the Chrism. Then follow the Baptism and the marking with the sign of the Cross (where Chrism is used), the Welcome of the baptized into the congregation and then Holy Communion. Infants, children, young people and adults are all invited and urged to receive Holy Communion as often as it is provided.
There is a certain untidiness in the Episcopal Rites in the 1979 Prayer Book because—under pressure from Bishops whose visits to parishes have been often historically only for “Confirmation”—Confirmation is retained. However, it is not retained as the completion of Baptism as in the traditional Anglican Way, but rather as a kind of recognition that the baptized communicant is taking up the responsibilities of church membership and Christian living.
Perhaps here is the place to note why, from the standpoint of the Reformed Catholic Faith of the Anglican Formularies, the giving of Holy Communion to infants and young children is unwise, indeed erroneous practice. The apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 10-11 has much of importance to teach us about “discerning the Lord’s Body.” Here we are warned of the consequences of partaking of the bread and the cup without keeping Christ’s death in mind. A person doing so is guilty of profaning the Lord’s broken body and shed blood. Therefore, self-examination is a necessary preparation before coming to the Table of the Lord. For to partake without “discerning the body of the Lord” draws God’s judgment upon the communicant. Thus,
We may surely conclude then that, as infants and small children can neither rigorously examine themselves nor discern the significance of the sacramental bread and wine, it is better that they should not communicate but rather wait until the “years of discretion” (at least 12) for this privilege. (The Water and the Wine, p.38)
Of course, one can add all kinds of practical points to this theological and spiritual reason why it is better for children to wait until they are fully aware of what kind of holy and unique Table it is to which they go. And one can also supply a variety of reasons why in the modern format of services on Sundays in Anglican Churches (e.g. many “Family Communion Services” with very few Morning Prayer Services) there is great pressure to allow small children to communicate—for receiving a blessing does not seem to satisfy children who are used to having their rights respected and their felt desires satisfied by their parents and relatives. Further, especially in The Episcopal Church, with its strong doctrines of inclusivism and communitarianism, from which none of any age or orientation is to be excluded, the full inclusion of children sacramentally is not doubted or questioned.
While the practice of Infant Communion has gained ground in the (numerically declining) Anglican Churches of the West, it has not had much success in the greater part of the [numerically growing] Anglican Family of Churches of the Global South. Wherever there is strong Evangelical Faith then the call for repentance and faith is primary and this acts as a supporter of traditional Anglican initiation. And wherever there is strong Anglo-Catholic Faith this also acts as a supporter because Confirmation is treated as a “Sacrament” which is separate from Baptism and which is judged to be best received before becoming a regular communicant.
It would seem that if there is to be a genuine Revival of The Anglican Way in the West, firmly based on the Bible, the historic Formularies, and tried and tested Anglican practice, then a return to the traditional form of Initiation will be required, for it is probably the only way right now to keep in its primary place the Gospel call for genuine repentance for sin and saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
[for further reading, THE WATER AND THE WINE by R. Beckwith and A Daunton-Fear, Latimer Studies 61, Latimer Trust, London, order from www.latimertrust.org This is one of the few defences and commendations of the classic Anglican Way in print and is most important for the Jewish background to initiation.]
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Changes In AMiA’s Structure Raise Concerns About Ordination Policy
Report/Analysis By Auburn Traycik
The Christian Challenge
www.challengeonline.org
January 23, 2007
Is the booming Anglican Mission in America effectively re-embracing its original policy of accepting women priests?
Some may claim it is – and some distraught AMiA clergy certainly fear it is – following a change announced with little fanfare at the AMiA’s seventh annual Winter Conference, which opened with a Eucharist attended by some 1,600 persons January 17 and concluded January 20 in Jacksonville, Florida. The Anglican Mission, it seems, is now to be part of a larger international structure, overseen by a single AMiA bishop, that includes a second American wing that has female priests.
The AMiA is of course the U.S initiative backed by the Anglican Communion province of Rwanda, but not recognized by the U.S. Episcopal Church. It started controversially, with the surprise consecrations in 2000 of two Episcopal clerics, Dr. John Rodgers and Chuck Murphy, at the hands of Rwandan Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini and now-retired South East Asian Bishop Moses Tay (both of whom attended the Winter Conference). But now AMiA represents a significant and expanding piece of the Anglican realignment currently underway in response to deviations from historic faith and morals in some northern Anglican provinces. While the Anglican Mission began by accepting ordained women into its ranks, a careful and highly praised study undertaken by Bishop Rodgers led it to conclude in 2003 “that the most faithful response to the witness of Scripture and its teaching on headship would dictate that women be ordained only to the diaconate,” in the words of Bishop Murphy. “While recognizing that the Church is presently seeking further clarity in this matter through a period of discernment and `reception,’ the important concept of `headship’ proved to be the most critical issue for us as we developed our policy on the issue of women’s ordination.” That determination brought AMiA significantly into line with historic Anglicanism and the wider Universal Church.
Signs of an opposing trend actually began to emerge last year, however. In early 2006, AMiA’s overseer, Archbishop Kolini (whose province allows female clergy but has few of them) agreed that the Anglican Coalition in Canada (ACiC), comprised of some 20 faithful congregations and also accepting of women priests, should form a separate wing of AMiA. To that end, Kolini established on an ongoing basis what had been the temporary episcopal care of the Canadians by AMiA’s Bishop T.J. Johnston. At the time, Bishop Murphy, AMiA’s Chairman, denied that this represented a change in or violation of Anglican Mission policy. He said that all AMiA bishops are part of the Rwandan Church’s House of Bishops and “subject to the authority of Archbishop Kolini,” and added that Rwanda gave the ACiC “the same opportunity that AMiA had been given to express its preference on women’s ordination.” More to the point, Murphy noted that two viewpoints on women’s ordination are officially recognized by the Anglican Communion, of which AMiA claims to be a part, due to its link to Rwanda. To belong to that Communion “is to be in communion with those who are not of one mind on the issue of women’s ordination,” he said.
In this, he spotlighted the difficulties for some orthodox groups attempting to remain in the Communion, and one reason some extramural Anglicans have little interest in being brought back into it: the Communion as a whole no longer has a common view of holy orders or believes that the full interchangeability of ministers is necessary to true communion (as it is in other apostolic bodies); the Communion is content to say, officially, that women’s ordination is still being tested (in the aforementioned process of “reception”) and is therefore “provisional,” which is to say that the sacramental ministrations of ordained women might or might not be a valid and efficacious lifeline for the faithful, and might or might not be finally and fully accepted!
It is a state of affairs that AMiA leaders had already accepted to a significant degree, but one that they now appear willing or under pressure from Rwanda to live with in a closer and more commingled way than might have been expected. In remarks to the gathering January 18, Bishop Murphy indicated that the AMiA is now to be put under the umbrella of the new, Rwandan-backed “Anglican Mission in the Americas ” alongside the ACiC, and a new entity, the Anglican Coalition in America (ACiA), which, unlike AMiA, will accept women priests. All three entities will be under Murphy as chairman of the super-structure and “in communion” with each other.
Reportedly, the new American coalition was requested by Archbishop Kolini. A “fact sheet” distributed by the new umbrella structure stated that:
“In May 2005, Archbishop Kolini asked the Anglican Mission in America to seek a way to embrace all those priests and deacons, male and female, canonically resident in Rwanda, but living and ministering in the U.S. and Canada (now and in the future). The current structure of the Anglican Mission in the Americas, discussed and planned over the last 18 months, was created in response to Archbishop Kolini’s request and represents an expansion of our missionary outreach – a widening of Anglican Mission’s tent.
“The Anglican Mission in the Americas embraces two countries (the U.S. and Canada) as well as two positions on the ordination of women,” the fact sheet continues. “ACiC and ACiA ordain women to the priesthood, as does the Province of Rwanda, while AMiA maintains its policy of ordaining women only to the diaconate. [The] Anglican Mission in the Americas provides a way to maintain the integrity of those with differing opinions and policies on women’s ordination.”
“The three entities – ACiC, AMiA and ACiA – are equal, are in communion with one another and are under the authority of the Province of Rwanda through its missionary outreach – the Anglican Mission in the Americas.
“Bishop Chuck Murphy serves as chairman of Anglican Mission in the Americas, and the National Mission Resource Center will assist and facilitate ministry for the ACiC, AMiA and ACiA.”
The issue of “integrity,” however, seemed to loom large in this matter from the viewpoint of those distressed by the change, who were said to include a number of AMiA clergy, though whether they would raise their concerns with their body’s leadership was not clear at this writing. (The AMiA has no diocesan or synodical governmental bodies but rather appears to operate by consultation among Rwandan and AMiA leaders.)
One non-AMiA cleric willing to go on the record was the Rev. Dr. Peter Toon, President of the Prayer Book Society of the USA, who during the Winter Conference helped lead a standing-room-only workshop focusing on a new rendering of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer in contemporary language. Dr. Toon asserted that the new Anglican Mission in the Americas is “not a genuine fellowship”; there is going to be “impaired or broken communion” between parts of the AMiA and the new coalition sooner or later, he said. He thought the new configuration represented “a complete undermining of the doctrinal and practical position of the AMiA and will probably lead to doctrinal confusion and to schism in the long run.”
In a separate commentary, however, Dr. Toon specifically maintained that Rwanda went against the Communion’s doctrine of reception on women’s ordination by failing to appoint one or more bishops solely for the ACiA and ACiC, in order to maintain what the Communion recognizes as the “two integrities” on the ordination question.
“The present policy as determined by Rwanda has one set of bishops…in the AMiA,” all of whom “are committed by oath, annually taken, to the doctrinal basis of AMiA,” Toon wrote. “This includes [a] commitment not to ordain or promote women as priests and means that they belong squarely within one integrity.”
He added that: “It is impossible on principle for a bishop, who does not ordain women in one diocese or province or network, to cross over into another place and there act and speak as if the ministry of women priests is fine. That is, a bishop cannot as a man of principle belong to two integrities simultaneously. This mocks truth and sets aside the Anglican doctrine of reception.”
Toon contended that this conflict is not present in Rwanda, which has decided that women may be ordained, but in accordance with the doctrine of reception does not require a bishop who does not accept the innovation to ordain or license women within his jurisdiction. He noted that the “Mother” Church of England has also provided separately for orthodox parishes through its provincial episcopal visitors (“flying bishops”). “The aim here is to maintain two integrities while the process of reception is continuing,” Dr. Toon wrote.
But for AMiA bishops, “who are committed to one integrity, that of maintaining historic catholic order” in the presbyterate and episcopate, “to move into another (which is what the ACiC and ACiA contain) and function there, as if they were also of that integrity, is clearly contrary to right reason and to good ecclesial practice. It is to conflate two integrities into one,” he stated.
“I suggest that to put matters right Rwanda should provide immediately a bishop who belongs to the new integrity” to minister to the ACiC and ACiA, Dr. Toon concluded. “And, as part of the pain of the modern Anglican situation, let it be understood that [that] bishop will not be able to minister within the AMiA, once he has ordained a woman as a priest.”
Countering the idea that the creation of ACiA represents a significant change, however, new AMiA Communications Director Cynthia Brust noted that the Anglican Mission “was already under the authority of a province that ordains women.”
Bishop Murphy also commented on the changes in question in a January 20 interview with David Virtue of VirtueOnline:
Mr. Virtue: You have had a corporate name change since last year. You now call yourself the Anglican Mission in the Americas, no longer simply the AMiA. Would you tell us what this is about and what it all means?
Bishop Murphy: The Province of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda has canonical letters from three different groups. From Canada we now have the Anglican Coalition in Canada. This was done to justify women’s ordination in that country. Then we formed the Anglican Coalition in America, where we believe the ordination of women should only be to the level of the diaconate (though he evidently means priesthood – Ed.). Thirdly, we still have the original Anglican Mission in America – the largest group of canonical letters – priests that do not accept the ordination of women to the priesthood.
Virtue: So you have not changed your fundamental position on women’s ordination?
Murphy: No, we have not. The charge from the Province of Rwanda was to create a structure that could embrace all three groups and maintain the integrity and conscience of each of the three groups. The AMiA consists of two nations, Canada and the U.S. and two positions on the appropriate biblical response with the women’s ordination question. Since we are in a province that has women’s ordination and since we are in a period of reception to discern the mind of Christ, our response is, being under authority, we created an umbrella with two countries and two positions while maintaining the integrity and conscience of both. I am the chairman of it all and Rwanda gives oversight. We remain under authority and in full communion with our Archbishop in Rwanda, even in our differences.
Virtue: Some of your priests I spoke with were quite upset, with several using words like “betrayal,” “backtracking,” “caving in,” “disaster” – to the point that they said it would have grave consequences [for] the church’s ability to grow and more. A number of your North American priests believe women’s ordination is a nose in the tent, a slippery slope to spiritual anarchy. How would you allay their fears? Are you concerned that it could ultimately divide you?
Murphy: The nose in the tent is that we are in the Province of Rwanda. This province believes in women’s ordination (and is growing as a church) and they have assured us that they respect our decision and our position with respect to women’s ordination to the diaconate only. I believe them. We are encompassing two nations and two positions. This is not a new development. We are giving leadership to all who are part of the Province of Rwanda. It is simply a new charge to give leadership to all the canonical letters.”
Circulation of the foregoing electronically is permitted, provided that there are no changes in the headings or text. To learn more about THE CHRISTIAN CHALLENGE, the only independent hardcopy publication providing such a broad scope of news for orthodox Anglicans, please go to www.challengeonline.org
The Christian Challenge
www.challengeonline.org
January 23, 2007
Is the booming Anglican Mission in America effectively re-embracing its original policy of accepting women priests?
Some may claim it is – and some distraught AMiA clergy certainly fear it is – following a change announced with little fanfare at the AMiA’s seventh annual Winter Conference, which opened with a Eucharist attended by some 1,600 persons January 17 and concluded January 20 in Jacksonville, Florida. The Anglican Mission, it seems, is now to be part of a larger international structure, overseen by a single AMiA bishop, that includes a second American wing that has female priests.
The AMiA is of course the U.S initiative backed by the Anglican Communion province of Rwanda, but not recognized by the U.S. Episcopal Church. It started controversially, with the surprise consecrations in 2000 of two Episcopal clerics, Dr. John Rodgers and Chuck Murphy, at the hands of Rwandan Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini and now-retired South East Asian Bishop Moses Tay (both of whom attended the Winter Conference). But now AMiA represents a significant and expanding piece of the Anglican realignment currently underway in response to deviations from historic faith and morals in some northern Anglican provinces. While the Anglican Mission began by accepting ordained women into its ranks, a careful and highly praised study undertaken by Bishop Rodgers led it to conclude in 2003 “that the most faithful response to the witness of Scripture and its teaching on headship would dictate that women be ordained only to the diaconate,” in the words of Bishop Murphy. “While recognizing that the Church is presently seeking further clarity in this matter through a period of discernment and `reception,’ the important concept of `headship’ proved to be the most critical issue for us as we developed our policy on the issue of women’s ordination.” That determination brought AMiA significantly into line with historic Anglicanism and the wider Universal Church.
Signs of an opposing trend actually began to emerge last year, however. In early 2006, AMiA’s overseer, Archbishop Kolini (whose province allows female clergy but has few of them) agreed that the Anglican Coalition in Canada (ACiC), comprised of some 20 faithful congregations and also accepting of women priests, should form a separate wing of AMiA. To that end, Kolini established on an ongoing basis what had been the temporary episcopal care of the Canadians by AMiA’s Bishop T.J. Johnston. At the time, Bishop Murphy, AMiA’s Chairman, denied that this represented a change in or violation of Anglican Mission policy. He said that all AMiA bishops are part of the Rwandan Church’s House of Bishops and “subject to the authority of Archbishop Kolini,” and added that Rwanda gave the ACiC “the same opportunity that AMiA had been given to express its preference on women’s ordination.” More to the point, Murphy noted that two viewpoints on women’s ordination are officially recognized by the Anglican Communion, of which AMiA claims to be a part, due to its link to Rwanda. To belong to that Communion “is to be in communion with those who are not of one mind on the issue of women’s ordination,” he said.
In this, he spotlighted the difficulties for some orthodox groups attempting to remain in the Communion, and one reason some extramural Anglicans have little interest in being brought back into it: the Communion as a whole no longer has a common view of holy orders or believes that the full interchangeability of ministers is necessary to true communion (as it is in other apostolic bodies); the Communion is content to say, officially, that women’s ordination is still being tested (in the aforementioned process of “reception”) and is therefore “provisional,” which is to say that the sacramental ministrations of ordained women might or might not be a valid and efficacious lifeline for the faithful, and might or might not be finally and fully accepted!
It is a state of affairs that AMiA leaders had already accepted to a significant degree, but one that they now appear willing or under pressure from Rwanda to live with in a closer and more commingled way than might have been expected. In remarks to the gathering January 18, Bishop Murphy indicated that the AMiA is now to be put under the umbrella of the new, Rwandan-backed “Anglican Mission in the Americas ” alongside the ACiC, and a new entity, the Anglican Coalition in America (ACiA), which, unlike AMiA, will accept women priests. All three entities will be under Murphy as chairman of the super-structure and “in communion” with each other.
Reportedly, the new American coalition was requested by Archbishop Kolini. A “fact sheet” distributed by the new umbrella structure stated that:
“In May 2005, Archbishop Kolini asked the Anglican Mission in America to seek a way to embrace all those priests and deacons, male and female, canonically resident in Rwanda, but living and ministering in the U.S. and Canada (now and in the future). The current structure of the Anglican Mission in the Americas, discussed and planned over the last 18 months, was created in response to Archbishop Kolini’s request and represents an expansion of our missionary outreach – a widening of Anglican Mission’s tent.
“The Anglican Mission in the Americas embraces two countries (the U.S. and Canada) as well as two positions on the ordination of women,” the fact sheet continues. “ACiC and ACiA ordain women to the priesthood, as does the Province of Rwanda, while AMiA maintains its policy of ordaining women only to the diaconate. [The] Anglican Mission in the Americas provides a way to maintain the integrity of those with differing opinions and policies on women’s ordination.”
“The three entities – ACiC, AMiA and ACiA – are equal, are in communion with one another and are under the authority of the Province of Rwanda through its missionary outreach – the Anglican Mission in the Americas.
“Bishop Chuck Murphy serves as chairman of Anglican Mission in the Americas, and the National Mission Resource Center will assist and facilitate ministry for the ACiC, AMiA and ACiA.”
The issue of “integrity,” however, seemed to loom large in this matter from the viewpoint of those distressed by the change, who were said to include a number of AMiA clergy, though whether they would raise their concerns with their body’s leadership was not clear at this writing. (The AMiA has no diocesan or synodical governmental bodies but rather appears to operate by consultation among Rwandan and AMiA leaders.)
One non-AMiA cleric willing to go on the record was the Rev. Dr. Peter Toon, President of the Prayer Book Society of the USA, who during the Winter Conference helped lead a standing-room-only workshop focusing on a new rendering of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer in contemporary language. Dr. Toon asserted that the new Anglican Mission in the Americas is “not a genuine fellowship”; there is going to be “impaired or broken communion” between parts of the AMiA and the new coalition sooner or later, he said. He thought the new configuration represented “a complete undermining of the doctrinal and practical position of the AMiA and will probably lead to doctrinal confusion and to schism in the long run.”
In a separate commentary, however, Dr. Toon specifically maintained that Rwanda went against the Communion’s doctrine of reception on women’s ordination by failing to appoint one or more bishops solely for the ACiA and ACiC, in order to maintain what the Communion recognizes as the “two integrities” on the ordination question.
“The present policy as determined by Rwanda has one set of bishops…in the AMiA,” all of whom “are committed by oath, annually taken, to the doctrinal basis of AMiA,” Toon wrote. “This includes [a] commitment not to ordain or promote women as priests and means that they belong squarely within one integrity.”
He added that: “It is impossible on principle for a bishop, who does not ordain women in one diocese or province or network, to cross over into another place and there act and speak as if the ministry of women priests is fine. That is, a bishop cannot as a man of principle belong to two integrities simultaneously. This mocks truth and sets aside the Anglican doctrine of reception.”
Toon contended that this conflict is not present in Rwanda, which has decided that women may be ordained, but in accordance with the doctrine of reception does not require a bishop who does not accept the innovation to ordain or license women within his jurisdiction. He noted that the “Mother” Church of England has also provided separately for orthodox parishes through its provincial episcopal visitors (“flying bishops”). “The aim here is to maintain two integrities while the process of reception is continuing,” Dr. Toon wrote.
But for AMiA bishops, “who are committed to one integrity, that of maintaining historic catholic order” in the presbyterate and episcopate, “to move into another (which is what the ACiC and ACiA contain) and function there, as if they were also of that integrity, is clearly contrary to right reason and to good ecclesial practice. It is to conflate two integrities into one,” he stated.
“I suggest that to put matters right Rwanda should provide immediately a bishop who belongs to the new integrity” to minister to the ACiC and ACiA, Dr. Toon concluded. “And, as part of the pain of the modern Anglican situation, let it be understood that [that] bishop will not be able to minister within the AMiA, once he has ordained a woman as a priest.”
Countering the idea that the creation of ACiA represents a significant change, however, new AMiA Communications Director Cynthia Brust noted that the Anglican Mission “was already under the authority of a province that ordains women.”
Bishop Murphy also commented on the changes in question in a January 20 interview with David Virtue of VirtueOnline:
Mr. Virtue: You have had a corporate name change since last year. You now call yourself the Anglican Mission in the Americas, no longer simply the AMiA. Would you tell us what this is about and what it all means?
Bishop Murphy: The Province of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda has canonical letters from three different groups. From Canada we now have the Anglican Coalition in Canada. This was done to justify women’s ordination in that country. Then we formed the Anglican Coalition in America, where we believe the ordination of women should only be to the level of the diaconate (though he evidently means priesthood – Ed.). Thirdly, we still have the original Anglican Mission in America – the largest group of canonical letters – priests that do not accept the ordination of women to the priesthood.
Virtue: So you have not changed your fundamental position on women’s ordination?
Murphy: No, we have not. The charge from the Province of Rwanda was to create a structure that could embrace all three groups and maintain the integrity and conscience of each of the three groups. The AMiA consists of two nations, Canada and the U.S. and two positions on the appropriate biblical response with the women’s ordination question. Since we are in a province that has women’s ordination and since we are in a period of reception to discern the mind of Christ, our response is, being under authority, we created an umbrella with two countries and two positions while maintaining the integrity and conscience of both. I am the chairman of it all and Rwanda gives oversight. We remain under authority and in full communion with our Archbishop in Rwanda, even in our differences.
Virtue: Some of your priests I spoke with were quite upset, with several using words like “betrayal,” “backtracking,” “caving in,” “disaster” – to the point that they said it would have grave consequences [for] the church’s ability to grow and more. A number of your North American priests believe women’s ordination is a nose in the tent, a slippery slope to spiritual anarchy. How would you allay their fears? Are you concerned that it could ultimately divide you?
Murphy: The nose in the tent is that we are in the Province of Rwanda. This province believes in women’s ordination (and is growing as a church) and they have assured us that they respect our decision and our position with respect to women’s ordination to the diaconate only. I believe them. We are encompassing two nations and two positions. This is not a new development. We are giving leadership to all who are part of the Province of Rwanda. It is simply a new charge to give leadership to all the canonical letters.”
Circulation of the foregoing electronically is permitted, provided that there are no changes in the headings or text. To learn more about THE CHRISTIAN CHALLENGE, the only independent hardcopy publication providing such a broad scope of news for orthodox Anglicans, please go to www.challengeonline.org
Covenant and Baptism
(Not a few people are curious and even troubled about the idea of a Baptismal Covenant especially since the TEC Bishops of the A.C. Network embraced it as a way of stating their orthodoxy to the A of Cant. Recently. Comments invited on this attempt to provide some clarification. If there is a personal covenant made in Baptism how does it specifically fit into or relate to the NEW Covenant?)
In what sense, if at all, is there a Baptismal Covenant, that is, a covenant offered or made in Baptism between God and the person baptized? In contemporary Anglicanism, especially in The Episcopal Church of the U.S.A., much is made of “the Baptismal Covenant” and this expression as a major heading occurs in the Service of Baptism in the Prayer Book of 1979.
Biblical Context
We recall that Jesus himself established what the both he and his apostles called the new covenant by his atoning sacrifice of himself on the Cross. The new covenant (the contrast is with the Mosaic or old covenant which was fulfilled at the same Cross) is made between God the Father and his Incarnate Son, with the latter acting as Representative Man, the new Adam and the new Israel. God the Father made this covenant of grace with Christ Jesus, his Incarnate Son, and therefore with all from Jews and Gentiles would be (through the preaching of the Gospel) united to Christ, that is “in Christ” as members of his Body (as St Paul states) for everlasting salvation and eternal life.
This new covenant, the covenant of grace, is the essential background for the legitimacy and efficacy of the preaching of the Gospel, the Administration of the Gospel Sacraments, and the response of repentant, believing sinners to the Gospel message. In Baptism, God the Father acts in the Name of Christ and by the Holy Spirit to regenerate sinners, that is to place them within the covenant of grace and thus name them as his children, as they begin life in and with Christ. As with the initial response to the preaching of the Gospel, so in the Sacrament that follows, God the Father graciously and freely gives his salvation, but he only gives where there is readiness to receive and a heart to be filled. And such readiness is only possible and present where, through the activity of the Holy Spirit as illuminator, inspirer and energizer, there is personal repentance for sin and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Savior.
So it may—indeed must— be said that there are conditions for entry into the covenant, the covenant which is already established and complete in itself through, in and with Christ its mediator and guarantor. And these conditions are faith in the Lord Jesus and repentance for sin. Almighty God, the heavenly Father, opens the gate of his kingdom and proceeds with adoption into his family when a person turns from sin and embraces the promises of salvation through and in Christ Jesus. However—and this is very important—divinely-required conditions for entry are not conditions which actually constitute the human side of a making or ratifying a contract or covenant between the human person and the Lord God, the Holy Trinity. The covenant is between the Father and the Incarnate Son, and we human beings, are only covenant partners in that we are made members of Christ, grafted into the True Vine, and walk with the Lord.
Further, we may and must say that the kingdom of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, exists with all its covenant blessings and that only the repentant and believing sinner is allowed to enter and, in entering, is most warmly welcomed. So by repenting and believing (or, in fact, by doing anything else to or for God) none of us is entering into, making, or closing a personal covenant with God; but rather, we are being made a member of Christ and thus in, through, and with him, we are placed in an eternal relation within the covenant of grace with the Father, through the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, by the invisible ministration of the Holy Spirit, working as the Spirit of Christ.
A personal covenant?
If all this is true, then why has there been talk of a “Baptismal Covenant” within Anglicanism for several centuries and why has this talk become very loud and confrontational in the last few decades?
Let us begin an answer by noticing comments based upon the Services of Baptism in The Book of Common Prayer (1662). And first of all we note that within the text of “The Publick Baptism of Infants” and the Service for Adults, there is no specific reference to a Covenant being on offer or being made.
However, some commentators have seen a Baptismal Covenant implicit in the text.
In The Prayer Book…., Evan Daniel writes:
2. Alfred Barry in The Teacher’s Prayer Book also sees a Covenant implicit in the Gospel and Exhortation as God’s part and then the human response in The Renunciation, the Profession of Faith, & The Vow of Obedience.
3. The Prayer Book Dictionary makes a clear statement of a covenant in its article on Baptism:
There are great spiritual dangers in thinking and teaching that there is a Baptismal Covenant between God and “the individual [person]” as the front end, as it were, of the covenantal themes of the Service of Baptism. And nowhere is this more evident than in the life of The Episcopal Church since the 1960s! We need to shout from the housetops, as it were, that God does not make a covenant with me and I do not make a covenant with God in holy Baptism. So what occurs in covenant terms in Baptism? By grace and by grace alone, I enter through Christ the Mediator into the New Covenant, which is corporate in nature and therein I am, again by grace alone, made one of the elect of God, and a child of God. In Baptism I make promises and vows to God but I do not thereby seal a covenant with God for only Christ, the God-Man, can (and has done) that! I may recall from time to time these promises and vows but in so doing I am not renewing any covenant. I am simply remembering effectually the promises and vows I made as God in Christ by the Holy Spirit regenerated me in Holy Baptism!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
In what sense, if at all, is there a Baptismal Covenant, that is, a covenant offered or made in Baptism between God and the person baptized? In contemporary Anglicanism, especially in The Episcopal Church of the U.S.A., much is made of “the Baptismal Covenant” and this expression as a major heading occurs in the Service of Baptism in the Prayer Book of 1979.
Biblical Context
We recall that Jesus himself established what the both he and his apostles called the new covenant by his atoning sacrifice of himself on the Cross. The new covenant (the contrast is with the Mosaic or old covenant which was fulfilled at the same Cross) is made between God the Father and his Incarnate Son, with the latter acting as Representative Man, the new Adam and the new Israel. God the Father made this covenant of grace with Christ Jesus, his Incarnate Son, and therefore with all from Jews and Gentiles would be (through the preaching of the Gospel) united to Christ, that is “in Christ” as members of his Body (as St Paul states) for everlasting salvation and eternal life.
This new covenant, the covenant of grace, is the essential background for the legitimacy and efficacy of the preaching of the Gospel, the Administration of the Gospel Sacraments, and the response of repentant, believing sinners to the Gospel message. In Baptism, God the Father acts in the Name of Christ and by the Holy Spirit to regenerate sinners, that is to place them within the covenant of grace and thus name them as his children, as they begin life in and with Christ. As with the initial response to the preaching of the Gospel, so in the Sacrament that follows, God the Father graciously and freely gives his salvation, but he only gives where there is readiness to receive and a heart to be filled. And such readiness is only possible and present where, through the activity of the Holy Spirit as illuminator, inspirer and energizer, there is personal repentance for sin and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Savior.
So it may—indeed must— be said that there are conditions for entry into the covenant, the covenant which is already established and complete in itself through, in and with Christ its mediator and guarantor. And these conditions are faith in the Lord Jesus and repentance for sin. Almighty God, the heavenly Father, opens the gate of his kingdom and proceeds with adoption into his family when a person turns from sin and embraces the promises of salvation through and in Christ Jesus. However—and this is very important—divinely-required conditions for entry are not conditions which actually constitute the human side of a making or ratifying a contract or covenant between the human person and the Lord God, the Holy Trinity. The covenant is between the Father and the Incarnate Son, and we human beings, are only covenant partners in that we are made members of Christ, grafted into the True Vine, and walk with the Lord.
Further, we may and must say that the kingdom of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, exists with all its covenant blessings and that only the repentant and believing sinner is allowed to enter and, in entering, is most warmly welcomed. So by repenting and believing (or, in fact, by doing anything else to or for God) none of us is entering into, making, or closing a personal covenant with God; but rather, we are being made a member of Christ and thus in, through, and with him, we are placed in an eternal relation within the covenant of grace with the Father, through the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, by the invisible ministration of the Holy Spirit, working as the Spirit of Christ.
A personal covenant?
If all this is true, then why has there been talk of a “Baptismal Covenant” within Anglicanism for several centuries and why has this talk become very loud and confrontational in the last few decades?
Let us begin an answer by noticing comments based upon the Services of Baptism in The Book of Common Prayer (1662). And first of all we note that within the text of “The Publick Baptism of Infants” and the Service for Adults, there is no specific reference to a Covenant being on offer or being made.
However, some commentators have seen a Baptismal Covenant implicit in the text.
In The Prayer Book…., Evan Daniel writes:
It will be observed that as soon as the introductory collects are ended, the Church sets forth the Baptismal Covenant into which the child is to enter. God’s part in the Covenant is declared in the Gospel and the Address; the child’s part in the promises made by the sponsors. (page 419)Then he makes a similar comment (page 437) with respect to the Services for adults.
2. Alfred Barry in The Teacher’s Prayer Book also sees a Covenant implicit in the Gospel and Exhortation as God’s part and then the human response in The Renunciation, the Profession of Faith, & The Vow of Obedience.
3. The Prayer Book Dictionary makes a clear statement of a covenant in its article on Baptism:
“Baptism involves a covenant between God and man. Man promises faith and obedience—a belief in the Christian religion, and a life in accordance with God’s commandments. God on his part covenants that, if man keeps his promises, he shall obtain everlasting life. The promises are made in response to the priest’s Questions…”4. And very recently, Ray R. Sutton, in Signed, Sealed and Delivered. A Study of Holy Baptism (2001) states the following with respect to the Service for Infants in the 1662 edition:
The baptismal covenant is a personal but not an individualistic covenant. Rather, it is acceptance of the covenant made with Christ at the Cross…The covenant is not individualistic; it is corporate with personal application. The distinction between individualistic and personal is critical. (page 256)5. Even more recently a female theologian of The Episcopal Church, Frederica H. Thompsett, gave great emphasis to a baptismal covenant in an essay entitled, “Baptismal Living: Steadfast Covenant of Hope.” In the first sentence she writes:
Baptism is deeply grounded in the generosity of God. Like all other biblical covenants, whether the Hebrew covenants of Abraham and Sarah, Moses Jeremiah, or the new covenant proclaimed by Paul and others, baptism is a response to God’s initiating love. (Anglican Theological Review, 2004)Here we seem to have three different views. The most radical is that of Thompsett who sees a covenant as an agreement between God and man where God takes the initiative. (This is essentially what is taught in “An Outline of Faith” in the Prayer Book of 1979. Then there is the old, middle of the way, English approach, which is affected by Pelagianism and Arminianism, and believes that human free will and response must be present and articulated. So it posits a personal covenant made between God the Father through Christ with each baptized person and this agreement with conditions is inside the primary covenant of grace, the “new covenant.” At the opposite end to Thomsett is Sutton who does not really see any covenant inside a covenant but rather calls the acceptance of the conditions—repentance and faith—of entry into the new covenant by the term covenant insisting that it is not individualistic (not a one on One agreement!). Sutton would have done better to avoid all reference to any covenant other than the One Covenant of Grace.
There are great spiritual dangers in thinking and teaching that there is a Baptismal Covenant between God and “the individual [person]” as the front end, as it were, of the covenantal themes of the Service of Baptism. And nowhere is this more evident than in the life of The Episcopal Church since the 1960s! We need to shout from the housetops, as it were, that God does not make a covenant with me and I do not make a covenant with God in holy Baptism. So what occurs in covenant terms in Baptism? By grace and by grace alone, I enter through Christ the Mediator into the New Covenant, which is corporate in nature and therein I am, again by grace alone, made one of the elect of God, and a child of God. In Baptism I make promises and vows to God but I do not thereby seal a covenant with God for only Christ, the God-Man, can (and has done) that! I may recall from time to time these promises and vows but in so doing I am not renewing any covenant. I am simply remembering effectually the promises and vows I made as God in Christ by the Holy Spirit regenerated me in Holy Baptism!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Sunday, January 21, 2007
The Green Book of Common Prayer (1662 but in contemporary English)
By far and away the most used Prayer Book in the Anglican Communion, and notably in Africa, is The Book of Common Prayer (edition 1662) either in its classic English language of prayer or in translation. The doctrinal foundation of most Anglican Provinces are the three Formularies which we know as this Prayer Book of 1662, together with the Ordinal and Articles of Religion normally bound up with it in its pew editions.
The doctrinal foundation of the AMiA are these Formularies but there is, regrettably and amazingly, very little use of the two sets of Liturgy (BCP & Ordinal) in this Mission. The Liturgy of 1979 which replaced the classical in The Episcopal Church and which has aided and abetted its notorious innovations in the last thirty years is the one most used! When asked why the classic is not used (in 1662 or 1928 form), the answer from clergy usually is that modern Americans do not easily make use of the traditional language of prayer and they desire the equivalent in prayer language of that which they use on the street and in the home.
So to build a bridge to the biblically-based Formularies of the Anglican Way, it was resolved to make available a contemporary equivalent of the major texts in the classic BCP & Ordinal, addressing God as YOU and using the recent English Standard Version of the Bible for biblical citations.
The initial work was done by Peter Toon. This was reviewed by a panel and then Peter Toon saw the resulting text into print as a paperback book and with a green cover. The services in it have been authorized for trial use by the House of Bishops of Rwanda and the preface to the book is signed by Bishops Murphy and Rodgers. It contains all the major services from the BCP and Ordinal with all the Collects and Prefaces. It is not a finished product but a product in trial use and to be perfected. The last point is most important—it is a start not the end of the product line.
What is does do is to bring into AMiA worship the same doctrines that have been the mainstay and foundation of the Anglican Way since the sixteenth century.
Nothing can ever replace the classic English prayer language of the BCP & KJV and the writings of seventeenth and eighteenth century divines and hymn-writers in terms of quality, style and character. All we can do is to make available a form in modern English which is acceptable and which does the work of enabling us to approach the Throne of Grace in spirit and in truth and in the beauty of holiness.
Copies of the book may be obtained from St John the Evangelist [AMiA] Church in Philadelphia (Phil Lyman rector) at 215 396 1970; or copies of the zipped file of all the services may be obtained from drpetertoon@yahoo.com
At the AMiA Conference on January 18 the green book was introduced by Phil Lyman and Peter Toon. The room was crowded and great interest shown. For a CD of this exciting session of 75 mins, contact Rhino Technologies and ask for T8 “Common Worship” – 270 753 0717. It is 7 dollars or less.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
The doctrinal foundation of the AMiA are these Formularies but there is, regrettably and amazingly, very little use of the two sets of Liturgy (BCP & Ordinal) in this Mission. The Liturgy of 1979 which replaced the classical in The Episcopal Church and which has aided and abetted its notorious innovations in the last thirty years is the one most used! When asked why the classic is not used (in 1662 or 1928 form), the answer from clergy usually is that modern Americans do not easily make use of the traditional language of prayer and they desire the equivalent in prayer language of that which they use on the street and in the home.
So to build a bridge to the biblically-based Formularies of the Anglican Way, it was resolved to make available a contemporary equivalent of the major texts in the classic BCP & Ordinal, addressing God as YOU and using the recent English Standard Version of the Bible for biblical citations.
The initial work was done by Peter Toon. This was reviewed by a panel and then Peter Toon saw the resulting text into print as a paperback book and with a green cover. The services in it have been authorized for trial use by the House of Bishops of Rwanda and the preface to the book is signed by Bishops Murphy and Rodgers. It contains all the major services from the BCP and Ordinal with all the Collects and Prefaces. It is not a finished product but a product in trial use and to be perfected. The last point is most important—it is a start not the end of the product line.
What is does do is to bring into AMiA worship the same doctrines that have been the mainstay and foundation of the Anglican Way since the sixteenth century.
Nothing can ever replace the classic English prayer language of the BCP & KJV and the writings of seventeenth and eighteenth century divines and hymn-writers in terms of quality, style and character. All we can do is to make available a form in modern English which is acceptable and which does the work of enabling us to approach the Throne of Grace in spirit and in truth and in the beauty of holiness.
Copies of the book may be obtained from St John the Evangelist [AMiA] Church in Philadelphia (Phil Lyman rector) at 215 396 1970; or copies of the zipped file of all the services may be obtained from drpetertoon@yahoo.com
At the AMiA Conference on January 18 the green book was introduced by Phil Lyman and Peter Toon. The room was crowded and great interest shown. For a CD of this exciting session of 75 mins, contact Rhino Technologies and ask for T8 “Common Worship” – 270 753 0717. It is 7 dollars or less.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
RWANDA—further innovation in missionary outreach in America?
Two Integrities rolled into One? A discussion starter
Peter Toon
To pursue its mission to and in North America, the Province of Rwanda has been, and continues to be, “led” to reject conciliar decisions taken by the Instruments of Unity of the Anglican Communion, in particular by the Lambeth Conference.
One rule of the Communion has always been that one Province does not enter into another Province except by invitation. and certainly does not enter to take over or set up parishes or do missionary work therein, except by the most express and clear invitation. And this rule is an ancient Catholic rule as well. By setting up what became known as the Anglican Mission in America, without the invitation or the permission of The Episcopal Church, or the Instruments of Unity of the Anglican Family, the Province of Rwanda broke this rule in a very clear and explicit way. In mitigation, it may be said that since The Episcopal Church has moved fast into heresy in the last decade, the action of Rwanda, which was originally widely condemned in the Communion of Churches, is now tolerated by many. However, the Anglican Mission itself is neither regarded by the Archbishop of Canterbury nor some Provinces as part of the Anglican Communion.
Yet, whatever its ecclesial status in the Communion and before the Throne of Grace it is an entity which is growing fast in America, especially so when compared with other local Anglican groups.
The Mission does not show much signs of the democratic procedures which are inbuilt in the governing and polity of American denominations. It appears from the outside to be very much run on what feminists call patriarchal and sexist principles, with the Archbishop of Rwanda as the patriarch, the House of Bishops of Rwanda as his council of advice, Bishop Chuck Murphy as the American Chief Executive Officer, and with the Mission divided into Networks (not dioceses—note the business term) each with a junior CEO. This way of functioning—from the top downwards rather than from the bottom upwards—makes for efficiency when an organization is new and expanding. It also keeps the workers on the ground busy so that they do not have too much time to reflect upon and discuss policy, which is decided at the top. And while there is a task to perform and an enemy (Episcopal progressive Liberalism) to fight then all seems well.
But sometimes the troops on the ground do begin to ask questions and mumble to each other. Further, friends outside (like me and others who were guests at the AMiA Winter Conference) begin to be extremely concerned. This anxiety is now occurring because of the setting aside by Rwanda of another important conciliar rule of the Anglican Communion of Churches—the doctrine of Reception. And it is occurring, practically speaking, through the combination of African paternalism and America pragmatism. To explain this charge, we need to read a recent press statement from the Director of Communications of the Mission, writing about the new umbrella body called (do not get confused) “The Anglican Mission in the Americas [plural]”:
Anglican Mission in the Americas, a missionary outreach of the Province of Rwanda, is large umbrella structure for three entities:
· Anglican Coalition in Canada (ACiC)
· Anglican Mission in America (AMiA)
· Anglican Coalition in America (ACiA)
In May 2005, Archbishop Kolini asked the Anglican Mission in America to seek a way to embrace all those priests and deacons, male and female, canonically resident in Rwanda, but living and ministering in the US and Canada (now and in the future). The current structure of the Anglican Mission in the Americas, discussed and planned over the last 18 months, was created in response to Archbishop Kolini’s request and represents an expansion of our missionary outreach – a widening of Anglican Mission’s tent.
The Anglican Mission in the Americas embraces two countries (the US and Canada) as well as two positions on the ordination of women. ACiC and ACiA ordain women to the priesthood, as does the Province of Rwanda, while AMiA maintains its policy of ordaining women only to the diaconate. Anglican Mission in the Americas provides a way to maintain the integrity of those with differing opinions and policies on women’s ordination.
The three entities – ACiC, AMiA and ACiA – are equal, are in communion with one another and are under the authority of the Province of Rwanda through its missionary outreach – the Anglican Mission in the Americas .
Bishop Chuck Murphy serves as chairman of Anglican Mission in the Americas , and the National Mission Resource Center will assist and facilitate ministry for the ACiC, AMiA and ACiA.
The Canadian arm came into being at the time of the Winter Conference in Birmingham Alabama, January 2006, and the new American arm was announced by Chuck Murphy at the Winter Conference in Jacksonville, Florida, in January 2007. As the Press announcement suggests, the creation of these entities did not involve getting a vote of approval neither from the AMiA churches already in existence nor from licensed clergy.
From the perspective of the Anglican Doctrine of Reception (for details see my booklet, Reforming Forwards? The process of reception…, Latimer Studies 56/57, www.latimertrust.org) what I suggest that Rwanda should have done was to appoint one or more bishops solely for the ACiC and the ACiA, in order to maintain what is referred to within the Anglican Way as “the two integrities.” The present policy as determined by Rwanda has one set of bishops and one set only who are all in the AMiA, where all of whom are committed by oath, annually taken, to the doctrinal basis of the AMiA. This includes commitment not to ordain or promote women as priests and means that they belong squarely within one integrity.
Now in the Anglican Communion, apart from this integrity, which is that of maintaining catholic order and practice, there is another integrity, one that is only a few decades in existence, and this is to ordain women as priests but within certain rules, which rules are set forth in the Anglican Doctrine of Reception (created by the Lambeth Conference of 1988 and elaborated by The Eames Commission in the 1990s). This doctrine states that the decisions of synods to ordain women is to be open to continual discernment and testing by the faithful, and that only after an indeterminate period of time will the mind of the Lord be known as to whether ordained women are to become a permanent part of the Ministry of the Church. Further, the doctrine assumes that there will be in existence the two integrities and thus bishops will belong to one integrity or another. It is impossible on principle for a bishop, who does not ordain women in one diocese of province or network, to cross over into another place and there act and speak as if the ministry of women priests is fine. That is, a bishop cannot as a man of principle belong to two integrities simultaneously. This mocks truth and sets aside the Anglican Doctrine of Reception.
The Province of Rwanda has ruled that women may be ordained in Rwanda but this ruling, because it is within the Doctrine of Reception, does not require a bishop who does not accept the innovation of women priests to ordain women or even license women to be under his pastoral care as Father-in God. In the Mother Church of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England, there are Bishops known as Provincial Episcopal Visitors who minister to parishes which do not receive the ministry of their territorial, diocesan Bishop, because he ordains women. The aim here is to maintain two integrities while the process of reception is continuing.
For the Bishops of the AMiA, who are committed to one integrity, that of maintaining historic catholic order, to move into another (which is what the ACiC and ACiA contain) and function there, as if they were also of that integrity, is clearly contrary to right reason and to good ecclesial practice. It is to conflate two integrities into one. Also it contravenes the conciliar decision of the Anglican Communion in its adoption of the Doctrine of Reception. And it undermines the possibility of harmonious working relations in the long term in the Anglican Mission in the Americas (plural).
I suggest that to put matters right Rwanda should provide immediately a bishop who belongs to the new integrity so that he or she can minister to the ACiC and ACiA. And, as part of the pain of the modern Anglican situation, let it be understood that Bishop will not be able to minister within the AMiA, once he has ordained a women as a priest. As Anglicans we cannot escape the situation we have knowingly walked into—maintaining two integrities on ordination until we all agree as to the mind of the Lord—and we need to be clear that this situation cannot be treated as a problem in business which the “chairman” and “CEO” can solve by decisions from on high. It has to be solved in ecclesial ways and that is what The Eames Commission sought to describe. We may not like these ways but we have to live with them as Anglicans within the Communion of Churches.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon January 21, 2007 drpetertoon@yahoo.com
Peter Toon
To pursue its mission to and in North America, the Province of Rwanda has been, and continues to be, “led” to reject conciliar decisions taken by the Instruments of Unity of the Anglican Communion, in particular by the Lambeth Conference.
One rule of the Communion has always been that one Province does not enter into another Province except by invitation. and certainly does not enter to take over or set up parishes or do missionary work therein, except by the most express and clear invitation. And this rule is an ancient Catholic rule as well. By setting up what became known as the Anglican Mission in America, without the invitation or the permission of The Episcopal Church, or the Instruments of Unity of the Anglican Family, the Province of Rwanda broke this rule in a very clear and explicit way. In mitigation, it may be said that since The Episcopal Church has moved fast into heresy in the last decade, the action of Rwanda, which was originally widely condemned in the Communion of Churches, is now tolerated by many. However, the Anglican Mission itself is neither regarded by the Archbishop of Canterbury nor some Provinces as part of the Anglican Communion.
Yet, whatever its ecclesial status in the Communion and before the Throne of Grace it is an entity which is growing fast in America, especially so when compared with other local Anglican groups.
The Mission does not show much signs of the democratic procedures which are inbuilt in the governing and polity of American denominations. It appears from the outside to be very much run on what feminists call patriarchal and sexist principles, with the Archbishop of Rwanda as the patriarch, the House of Bishops of Rwanda as his council of advice, Bishop Chuck Murphy as the American Chief Executive Officer, and with the Mission divided into Networks (not dioceses—note the business term) each with a junior CEO. This way of functioning—from the top downwards rather than from the bottom upwards—makes for efficiency when an organization is new and expanding. It also keeps the workers on the ground busy so that they do not have too much time to reflect upon and discuss policy, which is decided at the top. And while there is a task to perform and an enemy (Episcopal progressive Liberalism) to fight then all seems well.
But sometimes the troops on the ground do begin to ask questions and mumble to each other. Further, friends outside (like me and others who were guests at the AMiA Winter Conference) begin to be extremely concerned. This anxiety is now occurring because of the setting aside by Rwanda of another important conciliar rule of the Anglican Communion of Churches—the doctrine of Reception. And it is occurring, practically speaking, through the combination of African paternalism and America pragmatism. To explain this charge, we need to read a recent press statement from the Director of Communications of the Mission, writing about the new umbrella body called (do not get confused) “The Anglican Mission in the Americas [plural]”:
Anglican Mission in the Americas, a missionary outreach of the Province of Rwanda, is large umbrella structure for three entities:
· Anglican Coalition in Canada (ACiC)
· Anglican Mission in America (AMiA)
· Anglican Coalition in America (ACiA)
In May 2005, Archbishop Kolini asked the Anglican Mission in America to seek a way to embrace all those priests and deacons, male and female, canonically resident in Rwanda, but living and ministering in the US and Canada (now and in the future). The current structure of the Anglican Mission in the Americas, discussed and planned over the last 18 months, was created in response to Archbishop Kolini’s request and represents an expansion of our missionary outreach – a widening of Anglican Mission’s tent.
The Anglican Mission in the Americas embraces two countries (the US and Canada) as well as two positions on the ordination of women. ACiC and ACiA ordain women to the priesthood, as does the Province of Rwanda, while AMiA maintains its policy of ordaining women only to the diaconate. Anglican Mission in the Americas provides a way to maintain the integrity of those with differing opinions and policies on women’s ordination.
The three entities – ACiC, AMiA and ACiA – are equal, are in communion with one another and are under the authority of the Province of Rwanda through its missionary outreach – the Anglican Mission in the Americas .
Bishop Chuck Murphy serves as chairman of Anglican Mission in the Americas , and the National Mission Resource Center will assist and facilitate ministry for the ACiC, AMiA and ACiA.
The Canadian arm came into being at the time of the Winter Conference in Birmingham Alabama, January 2006, and the new American arm was announced by Chuck Murphy at the Winter Conference in Jacksonville, Florida, in January 2007. As the Press announcement suggests, the creation of these entities did not involve getting a vote of approval neither from the AMiA churches already in existence nor from licensed clergy.
From the perspective of the Anglican Doctrine of Reception (for details see my booklet, Reforming Forwards? The process of reception…, Latimer Studies 56/57, www.latimertrust.org) what I suggest that Rwanda should have done was to appoint one or more bishops solely for the ACiC and the ACiA, in order to maintain what is referred to within the Anglican Way as “the two integrities.” The present policy as determined by Rwanda has one set of bishops and one set only who are all in the AMiA, where all of whom are committed by oath, annually taken, to the doctrinal basis of the AMiA. This includes commitment not to ordain or promote women as priests and means that they belong squarely within one integrity.
Now in the Anglican Communion, apart from this integrity, which is that of maintaining catholic order and practice, there is another integrity, one that is only a few decades in existence, and this is to ordain women as priests but within certain rules, which rules are set forth in the Anglican Doctrine of Reception (created by the Lambeth Conference of 1988 and elaborated by The Eames Commission in the 1990s). This doctrine states that the decisions of synods to ordain women is to be open to continual discernment and testing by the faithful, and that only after an indeterminate period of time will the mind of the Lord be known as to whether ordained women are to become a permanent part of the Ministry of the Church. Further, the doctrine assumes that there will be in existence the two integrities and thus bishops will belong to one integrity or another. It is impossible on principle for a bishop, who does not ordain women in one diocese of province or network, to cross over into another place and there act and speak as if the ministry of women priests is fine. That is, a bishop cannot as a man of principle belong to two integrities simultaneously. This mocks truth and sets aside the Anglican Doctrine of Reception.
The Province of Rwanda has ruled that women may be ordained in Rwanda but this ruling, because it is within the Doctrine of Reception, does not require a bishop who does not accept the innovation of women priests to ordain women or even license women to be under his pastoral care as Father-in God. In the Mother Church of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England, there are Bishops known as Provincial Episcopal Visitors who minister to parishes which do not receive the ministry of their territorial, diocesan Bishop, because he ordains women. The aim here is to maintain two integrities while the process of reception is continuing.
For the Bishops of the AMiA, who are committed to one integrity, that of maintaining historic catholic order, to move into another (which is what the ACiC and ACiA contain) and function there, as if they were also of that integrity, is clearly contrary to right reason and to good ecclesial practice. It is to conflate two integrities into one. Also it contravenes the conciliar decision of the Anglican Communion in its adoption of the Doctrine of Reception. And it undermines the possibility of harmonious working relations in the long term in the Anglican Mission in the Americas (plural).
I suggest that to put matters right Rwanda should provide immediately a bishop who belongs to the new integrity so that he or she can minister to the ACiC and ACiA. And, as part of the pain of the modern Anglican situation, let it be understood that Bishop will not be able to minister within the AMiA, once he has ordained a women as a priest. As Anglicans we cannot escape the situation we have knowingly walked into—maintaining two integrities on ordination until we all agree as to the mind of the Lord—and we need to be clear that this situation cannot be treated as a problem in business which the “chairman” and “CEO” can solve by decisions from on high. It has to be solved in ecclesial ways and that is what The Eames Commission sought to describe. We may not like these ways but we have to live with them as Anglicans within the Communion of Churches.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon January 21, 2007 drpetertoon@yahoo.com
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Lina Joy: Crucial test on religious freedom
Elisia Yeo Jan 12, 07 2:22pm
MALAYSIA's status as a moderate Muslim country is being put to the test in a milestone court decision that may allow Muslims to renounce their faith, a move considered one of Islam's greatest sins.
The nation's highest court is to rule on an appeal by Lina Joy, a convert from Islam to Christianity who for a decade has been locked in a battle with the government to have her decision legally recognised.
The appeal brings to a head passionate arguments about whether Muslims can renounce Islam at will and, ultimately, whether Malaysia is a secular country or is morphing into a conservative Islamic state under religious Sharia law.
"Our country is at a crossroads pending the outcome of this landmark case," Joy's counsel, Benjamin Dawson, told AFP.
"This decision is pivotal to the direction the country will take."
The 42-year-old woman at the centre of the case is a member of Malaysia's majority ethnic Malay community, who make up 60 percent of the population of more than 26 million.
Born a Muslim and called Azlina Jailani, she says her introduction to Christianity in 1990 changed her life for the better.
READ MORE
MALAYSIA's status as a moderate Muslim country is being put to the test in a milestone court decision that may allow Muslims to renounce their faith, a move considered one of Islam's greatest sins.
The nation's highest court is to rule on an appeal by Lina Joy, a convert from Islam to Christianity who for a decade has been locked in a battle with the government to have her decision legally recognised.
The appeal brings to a head passionate arguments about whether Muslims can renounce Islam at will and, ultimately, whether Malaysia is a secular country or is morphing into a conservative Islamic state under religious Sharia law.
"Our country is at a crossroads pending the outcome of this landmark case," Joy's counsel, Benjamin Dawson, told AFP.
"This decision is pivotal to the direction the country will take."
The 42-year-old woman at the centre of the case is a member of Malaysia's majority ethnic Malay community, who make up 60 percent of the population of more than 26 million.
Born a Muslim and called Azlina Jailani, she says her introduction to Christianity in 1990 changed her life for the better.
READ MORE
Friday, January 12, 2007
Baptism of the Infants of Baptized Christians according to the mind and institution of Christ
Peter Toon
The only hint in the Anglican Formularies that the practice of Infant Baptism was being rejected by anyone in the mid-sixteenth century is the sentence at the end of Article XXVII. This states: “The Baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.” In the earlier version of this Article the wording was: “The custom of the Church to christen young children is to be commended, and in any wise retained in the Church.” This sentence appeared because of the existence of a very small group of radical reformers called “Anabaptists,” who insisted on re-baptizing those already baptized as infants, because they held that baptizing infants, who did not profess faith, was wrong.
Everywhere else in the Formularies the practice and custom of baptizing infants is taken for granted, especially in specific services for baptizing children in church and, in emergency, in houses. So let us place ourselves in the sixteenth century, within the mindset of the English Reformers, and ask how it was that they could say that Infant Baptism is “most agreeable with the institution of Christ,” that is, his commission in Matthew 28:19-20 to make disciples, baptize and teach.
What to hold in mind
The first thing that we need to bear in mind is that they looked at the Bible as One Canon in Two Testaments, not as two separate Testaments joined into one Canon. Today where we start from is different. In a University Faculty or Seminary there is a department of Old and another of New Testament Studies, usually with little contact between them, and each looks to its own professional groupings and societies. Thus modern reading of the Bible tends to move from treating the Testaments separately and then perhaps seeing connections between the two.
So while the distinction between the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament was very clear to the Reformers, their first thought was not the difference and distinction but the unity of the two, because both are inspired by God—“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). The first homily in the First Book of Homilies (1547) of the Church of England, “A Fruitful Exhortation to the Reading of Holy Scripture,” moves from Old to New Testament and back again with a freedom that moderns would find hard to emulate.
The second thing to bear in mind is that they understood the unity of Scripture, not only in that each part and the whole are inspired by the Holy Spirit, but also in that both Testaments declare and explain the one covenant of grace, established and given to mankind by the Holy Trinity. This covenant was made known originally to Abraham (see Genesis 17) and, as St Paul explained in his Epistle to Galatia, was then focused via the Mosaic covenant between God and the tribes of Israel until the birth of the Messiah, and then it reached its primary expression in the “new covenant” established by the Lord Jesus Christ (see the Epistle to the Hebrews). Jesus came to fulfill not to destroy the Law and the Prophets of the Mosaic Covenant. So in the Lectionary the Reformers read and meditated upon the One Bible, using both the Old and New Testaments at both Morning and Evening Prayer and they did so on the old doctrine that “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is by the New revealed.” So, for example, the “Man” of Psalm 1 is in the first place the righteous, godly Hebrew husband and father, but in the whole scope of Scripture, he is the new Adam, the Son of Man, the Messiah, who, for all men, Jew and Gentile, obeyed the law of the Lord and made atonement for mankind’s sin.
The third thing to bear in mind is that the Reformers were very much influenced by the Fathers of the Early Church in the way they read the Old Testament and this meant that they used what we call typology naturally and often. One only has to read the two Books of Homilies to be made aware of how much they read and depended upon the commentaries and sermons on the Bible by the Fathers, notably Chrysostom and Augustine. And one only has to look at the Service of Public Baptism for Infants in The Book of Common Prayer to see their commitment to typology as a way of reading the whole Bible as One Canon. In the first sentence of the first prayer the Minister prays:
Almighty and everlasting God, who of thy great mercy didst save Noah and his family in the Ark from perishing by water; and also didst safely lead the children of Israel thy people through the Red Sea, figuring thereby thy holy Baptism…
“Figuring” may be rendered “representing” or “typifying.”
The fourth thing to hold in mind that what we know and experience in contemporary western society as individualism did not exist then. The American experience, especially, has been to exalt individualism (it is central to the Constitution and legal system of the U.S.A.), and having this fundamental mindset modern readers of the Bible are worlds apart from the Early Fathers and the sixteenth-century Reformers as they read the Bible. Put simply, the normal way for an American in 2007 to read the Bible is from the perspective of each human being as “an individual.” In contrast, in other societies both in the present and very much so in the past, the Bible is/was read by “a person in relation to others, to the created order and to God.” Certainly it was read and heard personally by individual persons, but those persons did not consider themselves as “individuals” with only self-chosen connections with others, but as a necessarily connected person, defined by having relatives and belonging to others. There is no individualism in the classic Anglican Formularies (The Book of Common Prayer, The Thirty-Nine Articles and The Ordinal) or in The [Two Books of] Homilies of the Church of England. In contrast, the literature, preaching and context of the emerging and growing “Baptist” churches over the last century and more in America, especially, cannot be explained without the rising presence of individualism in culture and society. The local church is a community of individuals and Baptism is the self-chosen act of an individual who claims to believe.
One effect of the conditioning factors described above is that the early Fathers and the Reformers took it for certain that Jesus, his disciples, and Gentiles who came into the Church after being Jewish proselytes, naturally thought of the infant children of both Jews and Christians as rightful heirs of God’s covenant of grace. This did not remove the duty of all human persons—man, woman and children—to be faithful servants of the LORD God, but it did declare with certainty their standing in terms of the Covenant. God had chosen them and they were to respond appropriately!
From this perspective the Baptism of infant children of those already in the covenant of grace was “most agreeable with the institution of Christ.” And it was also, from this perspective, clearly seen as assumed or presented in the whole Canon of Scripture, even though there is not a simple command anywhere which says, ‘Baptize infants,” or a simple description anywhere of the actual Baptism of an infant.
The fact of the matter is that what exactly one sees— either in the words of a document or the faces of a crowd of people— much depends on the spectacles one wears as one looks and the mindset or mental frame of reference one employs as one thinks. Using the lens of modern individualism, one can only see the baptism of the self-conscious “individual” who has decided for himself/herself to be baptized, and, on these terms, to baptize an infant is nonsense, although to dedicate an infant to God does make sense as an act of free people.
Biblical Evidence
Within the approach of the Early Fathers and Reformers to the whole Bible one sees the appropriateness, rightfulness and evidence of/for Infant Baptism in the following:
1. The death of Jesus upon the Cross at Calvary which was “a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world.” As the Second Adam, the New Man and New Israel, Jesus represented all mankind and died not for his own sins but as the Representative and Substitute of sinful mankind, including all new born infants. Thus we may say that all children belong to Christ, for he has redeemed them, and so they are, in the right context and under the right conditions, the appropriate recipients of the sign and seal of that redemption, which is Baptism.
2. Children have a divinely-given and divine-required place in the Abrahamic covenant of grace. This is made clear by the word of the Lord God heard by Abram in Genesis 17:9-14, after a series of encounters recorded in Genesis 15 and 16, where God establishes his covenant of grace with Abram and his offspring. The Lord told Abraham:
You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised… Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from my people; he has broken my covenant.
In the person of Abraham circumcision was the sign and seal of an existing faith in the Lord God (see Paul’s comment in Romans 4:11); but with respect to infant boys it is the pledge and seal of the covenant status and blessings promised to them. Though administered by man, it presents the movement of God to man, the bringing of the very young man into covenant relation. But what of the status of women and girls for whom there was in their flesh no specific sign and seal of covenant membership given? The covenant which requires male circumcision operates on the principle of the unity of the head of the household/family with its members and so the family is included in the head, which is the male, who is the husband and father. Thus females are certainly in the covenant of grace and are required, along with males, to trust, love, obey and serve the LORD God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments (see the account of the covenant ceremony in Deuteronomy 29 where the presence of children is recorded in verses 10-12). What circumcision points to, prefigures and typifies, as a sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant of grace, is Baptism in the “new covenant” administered to adults and infants, but now also both to males and females, because this final, complete and everlasting phase of the historical administration of the covenant of grace is the clearest and richest, and so the covenant blessings are made over specifically and really to all the elect of God.
In Colossians 2:11-14, St Paul makes an explicit connection between spiritual circumcision and Christian baptism. In the Old Testament circumcision had been spiritualized as circumcision of the heart and the equivalent of both repentance by man (Leviticus 26:41; Deuteronomy 10:16; Jeremiah 4:4 & 9:26; Ezekiel 44:7,9) and cleansing of the heart by God (Deuteronomy 30:6). It is the latter, God regenerating the heart of man, which texts in the New Testament link to Christian Baptism (see John 3:5 & Titus 3:5). The apostle connects spiritual circumcision and Baptism when he writes to Colossae:
In Christ you were circumcised with a circumcision without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands.
While this specific teaching of the Apostle to the Gentiles does not prove the existence of baptized infants in the Church at Colossae, it does underline the connections within the One Covenant of Grace in terms of admission and the work of God in the hearts of those admitted.
3. Before the ministry of John the Baptist, and during the period of the Ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, Gentiles who wished to become God-fearers, members of the Jewish synagogue and eventually fully-initiated Jews, began their conversion by going through a ceremony of cleansing by water, in order to wash away all the ceremonial uncleanness accrued by living as a Gentile outside the Torah. This proselyte baptism was administered to all members of the household, the father and husband, the wife and mother, and all the children of both sexes, for the simple reason that all had lived in the Gentile world and were ceremonially unclean. After Baptism only the males were circumcised. However, the existence and knowledge of these household baptisms of Gentiles may well have influenced the way in which the families of heads of households were baptized along with the head himself (see below No 6).
4. The attitude and words of Jesus in relation to children support and underline their place in the covenant of grace. In the Service of Baptism for Infants in The Book of Common Prayer, the Gospel reading is Mark 10: 13-16. We read these words of Jesus: “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.” Then we learn that “he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.” Following this Gospel-reading there is a very short exhortation upon it by the Minister. In this he declares: “Doubt ye not, therefore, but earnestly believe that Christ will likewise favorably receive this Infant; that he will embrace him with the arms of his mercy; that he will give unto him the blessing of eternal life, and make him partaker of his everlasting kingdom.” Little children are certainly capable of receiving the blessings of the covenant of grace. Perhaps it is appropriate to add that Christ’s words about, and blessing of, children do not prove that he had their Baptism in view; but it does prove that he has a unique love for little children, and it pleased him greatly that they were brought to him in every way possible during his itinerant Ministry. And, we may add, that Baptism is the unique way, and in the case of infants the only way, in which they can be visibly brought to him now for his new covenant blessings.
5. It is most likely that in one or more or all of the baptisms of the members of a household recorded in the New Testament small children were included (as they were in Baptism of Gentile families becoming Jews). There is first of all the baptism of the God-fearer Cornelius in Acts 10: 12, 46-48 & 11.14. Then in Acts 16: 14-15 is the record of the Baptism of Lydia and her household, and in verses 25-34 is the account of the jailor in Philippi being baptized, “he and all his family.” Acts 18:8 refers to the Jew Crispus and his family being baptized and St Paul states: “I baptized the household of Stephanus” (1 Corinthians 1:16). With the head of the household are baptized all its members. It is difficult to believe that there was not one small child in their number! And it is difficult to image the infants and small children left in their cradles while everyone else, servants and all, were baptized.
6. The way that St Paul writes to children in his Epistles assumes that they are members of the household of God, “in Christ” and thus baptized. In Colossians 3:20-21 he addresses both children and their parents, presuming both are in church membership. “Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.” Then in Ephesians 6:1-4 he writes: “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother (this is the first commandment with a promise), that you may live long in the land. Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”
Those who want absolutely clear proof of “beyond all reasonable doubt”, that is, of the kind needed in a modern American court in a criminal trial, that Infant Baptism took place in the apostolic age, will never find it. For such proof they need to wait until the late second century, when specific references to it begin to appear. Then, for example, we find Tertullian (160-225) of Carthage in North Africa testifying to Infant Baptism as a well established practice (On Baptism, 18 & On the Soul, chap.39) in the Church he knew. And from circa 200 onwards there is abundant proof of the administration of Infant Baptism in the Church of East and West. However, it should be sufficient for us that the Early Church did baptize infants from Christian homes and did so because the Bible they read daily proclaimed to them loud and clear that to such belongs the kingdom of God, not by right but by sovereign grace.
[For serious discussion of the evidence from the Early Church see Joachim Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries (1960), the response by Kurt Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants (1963) and the reply from Jeremias, The Origins of Infant Baptism (1965).]
Please respond to Peter Toon at drpetertoon@yahoo.com with any comments or helpful criticism. thanks
The only hint in the Anglican Formularies that the practice of Infant Baptism was being rejected by anyone in the mid-sixteenth century is the sentence at the end of Article XXVII. This states: “The Baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.” In the earlier version of this Article the wording was: “The custom of the Church to christen young children is to be commended, and in any wise retained in the Church.” This sentence appeared because of the existence of a very small group of radical reformers called “Anabaptists,” who insisted on re-baptizing those already baptized as infants, because they held that baptizing infants, who did not profess faith, was wrong.
Everywhere else in the Formularies the practice and custom of baptizing infants is taken for granted, especially in specific services for baptizing children in church and, in emergency, in houses. So let us place ourselves in the sixteenth century, within the mindset of the English Reformers, and ask how it was that they could say that Infant Baptism is “most agreeable with the institution of Christ,” that is, his commission in Matthew 28:19-20 to make disciples, baptize and teach.
What to hold in mind
The first thing that we need to bear in mind is that they looked at the Bible as One Canon in Two Testaments, not as two separate Testaments joined into one Canon. Today where we start from is different. In a University Faculty or Seminary there is a department of Old and another of New Testament Studies, usually with little contact between them, and each looks to its own professional groupings and societies. Thus modern reading of the Bible tends to move from treating the Testaments separately and then perhaps seeing connections between the two.
So while the distinction between the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament was very clear to the Reformers, their first thought was not the difference and distinction but the unity of the two, because both are inspired by God—“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). The first homily in the First Book of Homilies (1547) of the Church of England, “A Fruitful Exhortation to the Reading of Holy Scripture,” moves from Old to New Testament and back again with a freedom that moderns would find hard to emulate.
The second thing to bear in mind is that they understood the unity of Scripture, not only in that each part and the whole are inspired by the Holy Spirit, but also in that both Testaments declare and explain the one covenant of grace, established and given to mankind by the Holy Trinity. This covenant was made known originally to Abraham (see Genesis 17) and, as St Paul explained in his Epistle to Galatia, was then focused via the Mosaic covenant between God and the tribes of Israel until the birth of the Messiah, and then it reached its primary expression in the “new covenant” established by the Lord Jesus Christ (see the Epistle to the Hebrews). Jesus came to fulfill not to destroy the Law and the Prophets of the Mosaic Covenant. So in the Lectionary the Reformers read and meditated upon the One Bible, using both the Old and New Testaments at both Morning and Evening Prayer and they did so on the old doctrine that “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is by the New revealed.” So, for example, the “Man” of Psalm 1 is in the first place the righteous, godly Hebrew husband and father, but in the whole scope of Scripture, he is the new Adam, the Son of Man, the Messiah, who, for all men, Jew and Gentile, obeyed the law of the Lord and made atonement for mankind’s sin.
The third thing to bear in mind is that the Reformers were very much influenced by the Fathers of the Early Church in the way they read the Old Testament and this meant that they used what we call typology naturally and often. One only has to read the two Books of Homilies to be made aware of how much they read and depended upon the commentaries and sermons on the Bible by the Fathers, notably Chrysostom and Augustine. And one only has to look at the Service of Public Baptism for Infants in The Book of Common Prayer to see their commitment to typology as a way of reading the whole Bible as One Canon. In the first sentence of the first prayer the Minister prays:
Almighty and everlasting God, who of thy great mercy didst save Noah and his family in the Ark from perishing by water; and also didst safely lead the children of Israel thy people through the Red Sea, figuring thereby thy holy Baptism…
“Figuring” may be rendered “representing” or “typifying.”
The fourth thing to hold in mind that what we know and experience in contemporary western society as individualism did not exist then. The American experience, especially, has been to exalt individualism (it is central to the Constitution and legal system of the U.S.A.), and having this fundamental mindset modern readers of the Bible are worlds apart from the Early Fathers and the sixteenth-century Reformers as they read the Bible. Put simply, the normal way for an American in 2007 to read the Bible is from the perspective of each human being as “an individual.” In contrast, in other societies both in the present and very much so in the past, the Bible is/was read by “a person in relation to others, to the created order and to God.” Certainly it was read and heard personally by individual persons, but those persons did not consider themselves as “individuals” with only self-chosen connections with others, but as a necessarily connected person, defined by having relatives and belonging to others. There is no individualism in the classic Anglican Formularies (The Book of Common Prayer, The Thirty-Nine Articles and The Ordinal) or in The [Two Books of] Homilies of the Church of England. In contrast, the literature, preaching and context of the emerging and growing “Baptist” churches over the last century and more in America, especially, cannot be explained without the rising presence of individualism in culture and society. The local church is a community of individuals and Baptism is the self-chosen act of an individual who claims to believe.
One effect of the conditioning factors described above is that the early Fathers and the Reformers took it for certain that Jesus, his disciples, and Gentiles who came into the Church after being Jewish proselytes, naturally thought of the infant children of both Jews and Christians as rightful heirs of God’s covenant of grace. This did not remove the duty of all human persons—man, woman and children—to be faithful servants of the LORD God, but it did declare with certainty their standing in terms of the Covenant. God had chosen them and they were to respond appropriately!
From this perspective the Baptism of infant children of those already in the covenant of grace was “most agreeable with the institution of Christ.” And it was also, from this perspective, clearly seen as assumed or presented in the whole Canon of Scripture, even though there is not a simple command anywhere which says, ‘Baptize infants,” or a simple description anywhere of the actual Baptism of an infant.
The fact of the matter is that what exactly one sees— either in the words of a document or the faces of a crowd of people— much depends on the spectacles one wears as one looks and the mindset or mental frame of reference one employs as one thinks. Using the lens of modern individualism, one can only see the baptism of the self-conscious “individual” who has decided for himself/herself to be baptized, and, on these terms, to baptize an infant is nonsense, although to dedicate an infant to God does make sense as an act of free people.
Biblical Evidence
Within the approach of the Early Fathers and Reformers to the whole Bible one sees the appropriateness, rightfulness and evidence of/for Infant Baptism in the following:
1. The death of Jesus upon the Cross at Calvary which was “a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world.” As the Second Adam, the New Man and New Israel, Jesus represented all mankind and died not for his own sins but as the Representative and Substitute of sinful mankind, including all new born infants. Thus we may say that all children belong to Christ, for he has redeemed them, and so they are, in the right context and under the right conditions, the appropriate recipients of the sign and seal of that redemption, which is Baptism.
2. Children have a divinely-given and divine-required place in the Abrahamic covenant of grace. This is made clear by the word of the Lord God heard by Abram in Genesis 17:9-14, after a series of encounters recorded in Genesis 15 and 16, where God establishes his covenant of grace with Abram and his offspring. The Lord told Abraham:
You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised… Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from my people; he has broken my covenant.
In the person of Abraham circumcision was the sign and seal of an existing faith in the Lord God (see Paul’s comment in Romans 4:11); but with respect to infant boys it is the pledge and seal of the covenant status and blessings promised to them. Though administered by man, it presents the movement of God to man, the bringing of the very young man into covenant relation. But what of the status of women and girls for whom there was in their flesh no specific sign and seal of covenant membership given? The covenant which requires male circumcision operates on the principle of the unity of the head of the household/family with its members and so the family is included in the head, which is the male, who is the husband and father. Thus females are certainly in the covenant of grace and are required, along with males, to trust, love, obey and serve the LORD God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments (see the account of the covenant ceremony in Deuteronomy 29 where the presence of children is recorded in verses 10-12). What circumcision points to, prefigures and typifies, as a sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant of grace, is Baptism in the “new covenant” administered to adults and infants, but now also both to males and females, because this final, complete and everlasting phase of the historical administration of the covenant of grace is the clearest and richest, and so the covenant blessings are made over specifically and really to all the elect of God.
In Colossians 2:11-14, St Paul makes an explicit connection between spiritual circumcision and Christian baptism. In the Old Testament circumcision had been spiritualized as circumcision of the heart and the equivalent of both repentance by man (Leviticus 26:41; Deuteronomy 10:16; Jeremiah 4:4 & 9:26; Ezekiel 44:7,9) and cleansing of the heart by God (Deuteronomy 30:6). It is the latter, God regenerating the heart of man, which texts in the New Testament link to Christian Baptism (see John 3:5 & Titus 3:5). The apostle connects spiritual circumcision and Baptism when he writes to Colossae:
In Christ you were circumcised with a circumcision without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands.
While this specific teaching of the Apostle to the Gentiles does not prove the existence of baptized infants in the Church at Colossae, it does underline the connections within the One Covenant of Grace in terms of admission and the work of God in the hearts of those admitted.
3. Before the ministry of John the Baptist, and during the period of the Ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, Gentiles who wished to become God-fearers, members of the Jewish synagogue and eventually fully-initiated Jews, began their conversion by going through a ceremony of cleansing by water, in order to wash away all the ceremonial uncleanness accrued by living as a Gentile outside the Torah. This proselyte baptism was administered to all members of the household, the father and husband, the wife and mother, and all the children of both sexes, for the simple reason that all had lived in the Gentile world and were ceremonially unclean. After Baptism only the males were circumcised. However, the existence and knowledge of these household baptisms of Gentiles may well have influenced the way in which the families of heads of households were baptized along with the head himself (see below No 6).
4. The attitude and words of Jesus in relation to children support and underline their place in the covenant of grace. In the Service of Baptism for Infants in The Book of Common Prayer, the Gospel reading is Mark 10: 13-16. We read these words of Jesus: “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.” Then we learn that “he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.” Following this Gospel-reading there is a very short exhortation upon it by the Minister. In this he declares: “Doubt ye not, therefore, but earnestly believe that Christ will likewise favorably receive this Infant; that he will embrace him with the arms of his mercy; that he will give unto him the blessing of eternal life, and make him partaker of his everlasting kingdom.” Little children are certainly capable of receiving the blessings of the covenant of grace. Perhaps it is appropriate to add that Christ’s words about, and blessing of, children do not prove that he had their Baptism in view; but it does prove that he has a unique love for little children, and it pleased him greatly that they were brought to him in every way possible during his itinerant Ministry. And, we may add, that Baptism is the unique way, and in the case of infants the only way, in which they can be visibly brought to him now for his new covenant blessings.
5. It is most likely that in one or more or all of the baptisms of the members of a household recorded in the New Testament small children were included (as they were in Baptism of Gentile families becoming Jews). There is first of all the baptism of the God-fearer Cornelius in Acts 10: 12, 46-48 & 11.14. Then in Acts 16: 14-15 is the record of the Baptism of Lydia and her household, and in verses 25-34 is the account of the jailor in Philippi being baptized, “he and all his family.” Acts 18:8 refers to the Jew Crispus and his family being baptized and St Paul states: “I baptized the household of Stephanus” (1 Corinthians 1:16). With the head of the household are baptized all its members. It is difficult to believe that there was not one small child in their number! And it is difficult to image the infants and small children left in their cradles while everyone else, servants and all, were baptized.
6. The way that St Paul writes to children in his Epistles assumes that they are members of the household of God, “in Christ” and thus baptized. In Colossians 3:20-21 he addresses both children and their parents, presuming both are in church membership. “Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.” Then in Ephesians 6:1-4 he writes: “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother (this is the first commandment with a promise), that you may live long in the land. Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”
Those who want absolutely clear proof of “beyond all reasonable doubt”, that is, of the kind needed in a modern American court in a criminal trial, that Infant Baptism took place in the apostolic age, will never find it. For such proof they need to wait until the late second century, when specific references to it begin to appear. Then, for example, we find Tertullian (160-225) of Carthage in North Africa testifying to Infant Baptism as a well established practice (On Baptism, 18 & On the Soul, chap.39) in the Church he knew. And from circa 200 onwards there is abundant proof of the administration of Infant Baptism in the Church of East and West. However, it should be sufficient for us that the Early Church did baptize infants from Christian homes and did so because the Bible they read daily proclaimed to them loud and clear that to such belongs the kingdom of God, not by right but by sovereign grace.
[For serious discussion of the evidence from the Early Church see Joachim Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries (1960), the response by Kurt Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants (1963) and the reply from Jeremias, The Origins of Infant Baptism (1965).]
Please respond to Peter Toon at drpetertoon@yahoo.com with any comments or helpful criticism. thanks
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Baptism—Regeneration. How related? A meditation starter!
What is very clear to any student of The Book of Common Prayer in any of its official English editions is that it assumes, presents and teaches a most intimate relation of Baptism (Infant and Adult) and Regeneration. That is God works the spiritual miracle of regeneration in, at, or closely related to Water Baptism, so that Baptism becomes Baptism in Water and the Spirit of the Lord. In this assumption and teaching, it is at one with the Baptismal Rites of East and West that we have from the Early Church and also with the Baptismal Texts from the New Testament.
When modern American or Western Protestant Christians are told, or learn of, this intimate relation of Baptism and Regeneration, they are usually shocked by, or disbelieving of, it. The usual reason for their reaction is because it is so contrary to what they have learned from the general ethos of Evangelical teaching and practice which more often than not tend to equate “being born again” with “conversion to Jesus Christ” or “making a decision for Christ.” They do not make a conceptual or practical distinction between birth—an entry and a beginning—and the growing and maturing of new life. For them “new birth” is the U-turn itself not the origin or start of the U-turn. Thus regeneration is both new birth and renovation, both the beginning and the turn to go in the new direction; and, significantly, it has nothing much to do with Baptism, except perhaps that Adult Believers Baptism can offer in it the human witness and testimony to being already born again.
One thing that has fed the Protestant Evangelical rejection of the intimate relation of Baptism and Regeneration in Scripture and Tradition has been a strong reaction to the doctrine of “Baptismal Regeneration” as taught by Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics. This teaching claims that if the Rite itself is properly conducted, and if the infant or older person offers no internal resistance, the act of Baptism itself will be the sure means used by God the Father through the presence of the Holy Spirit, to make the baptized person into a child of God, really and truly, with a new nature, and thus made into a Christian who is placed in the process of being made righteous. Here repentance and faith, though not denied, are not prominent.
What Protestants have reacted unfavorably against in this sacramental approach is (a) the apparent lack of any direct connection between Baptism and saving faith in the recipient, and (b) the idea that the administering of the Sacrament, in and of itself, achieves regeneration of the recipient.
Regrettably, many of these same evangelical Protestants have assumed that the Services of Baptism in The Book of Common Prayer teach the same doctrine of “Baptismal Regeneration” as they think is taught by Catholics (see the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent and the recent Catholic Catechism). And, worse still, not a few who belong to The Anglican Way assume that Baptismal Regeneration as taught in the Anglican Formularies is a “Catholic” bad thing and to be avoided.
I suggest that concerning the Services of Baptism within The Book of Common Prayer, the following needs to be understood:
END
The Revd Dr Peter Toon January 11, 2007
When modern American or Western Protestant Christians are told, or learn of, this intimate relation of Baptism and Regeneration, they are usually shocked by, or disbelieving of, it. The usual reason for their reaction is because it is so contrary to what they have learned from the general ethos of Evangelical teaching and practice which more often than not tend to equate “being born again” with “conversion to Jesus Christ” or “making a decision for Christ.” They do not make a conceptual or practical distinction between birth—an entry and a beginning—and the growing and maturing of new life. For them “new birth” is the U-turn itself not the origin or start of the U-turn. Thus regeneration is both new birth and renovation, both the beginning and the turn to go in the new direction; and, significantly, it has nothing much to do with Baptism, except perhaps that Adult Believers Baptism can offer in it the human witness and testimony to being already born again.
One thing that has fed the Protestant Evangelical rejection of the intimate relation of Baptism and Regeneration in Scripture and Tradition has been a strong reaction to the doctrine of “Baptismal Regeneration” as taught by Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics. This teaching claims that if the Rite itself is properly conducted, and if the infant or older person offers no internal resistance, the act of Baptism itself will be the sure means used by God the Father through the presence of the Holy Spirit, to make the baptized person into a child of God, really and truly, with a new nature, and thus made into a Christian who is placed in the process of being made righteous. Here repentance and faith, though not denied, are not prominent.
What Protestants have reacted unfavorably against in this sacramental approach is (a) the apparent lack of any direct connection between Baptism and saving faith in the recipient, and (b) the idea that the administering of the Sacrament, in and of itself, achieves regeneration of the recipient.
Regrettably, many of these same evangelical Protestants have assumed that the Services of Baptism in The Book of Common Prayer teach the same doctrine of “Baptismal Regeneration” as they think is taught by Catholics (see the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent and the recent Catholic Catechism). And, worse still, not a few who belong to The Anglican Way assume that Baptismal Regeneration as taught in the Anglican Formularies is a “Catholic” bad thing and to be avoided.
I suggest that concerning the Services of Baptism within The Book of Common Prayer, the following needs to be understood:
- They were created by devout and learned Reformers—Thomas Cranmer and Martin Bucer, for example—who knew what they were doing, as they sought to be true to Scripture, learn from the Early Church and reform the Baptismal Liturgies from the medieval Church.
- These Reformers thought of the Bible as One Canon with Two Testaments, not as we tend to do, Two Testaments making One Canon. This meant that they took the Old Testament both more seriously and differently than we do.
- Also these Reformers—as their contemporaries—know nothing of “expressive individualism” that is so common in the West today; but they thought of the individual human being as “a person in relation to God and relatives;” further, they had a strong sense of the One Covenant of Grace, with its two different administrations, the Mosaic and the New Covenant in Christ, and so they held that the children of covenant members were also by divine appointment also to be considered covenant members as well. [Thus while we look for specific examples of infant baptism in the Text of the New Testament, they assumed that infants were in the Covenant and thus baptized in households.]
- They thought of Sacraments as primarily God’s work and gift administered in God’s name by a Minister of Christ. Only in a very secondary way were Sacraments actions of men offered to God. Nevertheless, the action of God was not seen as unrelated to the state of human beings; rather God acted in blessing when there was a measure of repentance and faith in the recipient.
- Infant children of baptized Christians were themselves baptized because God had required Abraham to circumcise infant boys as a sign of their being admitted as members of the Covenant of grace – and also Gentiles, males and females, old and young, became Jewish converts/proselytes by being “washed” (baptized). And had not Jesus welcomed children warmly and substantially into his arms, Mark 10?
- In Infant Baptism, repentance and faith are operative (not as yet in the Infant himself) but in those who stand in God’s Name in his place, the Godmothers and Godfathers. Their duty before God and in the church is to make sure that the Infant actually comes to personal consciousness of his relation to Jesus Christ and thus repents personally of sin and believes in his Name.
- Baptismal regeneration is the act of God in the Sacrament where the Father, for the sake of the Son and by the Holy Spirit, makes the baptized person a member of the covenant of grace, causes him to be born into the kingdom of God, and adopts him as a child into his Family and Household. It is thus the very beginning of the possibility of true Christian life within the fellowship of the Church and the warmth of the Family of God. Necessarily it also includes the forgiveness of original sin and actual sin.
- Baptism in Water is the outward and visible sign and seal of God’s gracious work of causing new birth/regeneration in the person baptized. By it, his relation to Christ is declared and his status before God is made known.
- In the case of Infants, they are to be raised and treated as Christians and given every possible help to make their own the Faith which is theirs by membership of the Covenant; in the case of Adults they are to be encouraged to live daily as baptized Christians, mortifying sin and practicing righteousness, and embodying the grace of the Covenant in their lives.
- The Baptismal Service for Infants is NOT a service of dedication of an infant to God (man addressing God) but is a Sacrament (God addressing man).
END
The Revd Dr Peter Toon January 11, 2007
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Infant Baptism in The Catechism of The Book of Common Prayer (1662)
The admittance of the child of baptized Christians into the full communion of the Church has four steps—Baptism, nurture and instruction, Confirmation and First Communion. Baptism is by the local Priest; the nurture is provided by Godparents, parents and the local church, while instruction, given in home and church, is summarized in The Catechism; Confirmation is by the Bishop and First Communion follows this.
Let us focus on The Catechism to see what it assumes and teaches about Infant Baptism.
The first question asks the catechumen for his Name and the second asks who gave it to him/her. Here is the answer to the second:
My Godfathers and Godmothers in my Baptism; wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.
The meaning here seems reasonably clear. “I was made” points to action by someone other than the infant and that Someone is obviously (from the whole context) God the Father, though the words do not actually clearly say so. To be “a member of Christ” is to be in “The Body of Christ;” to be “the child of God” is to be adopted by God the Father into his Family and Household; and to be “an inheritor of the kingdom of God” is to have the promise of everlasting life and be present in the heavenly Jerusalem.
The natural meaning of “I was made” here is that which is found in such a statement as, “I was made a Captain” pointing to a new rank, status and membership. So it points to the Infant being given a new status, that of an adopted child of God through Jesus Christ. It could also be taken to mean “I was made anew” as a child of God.
However, in Anglican expositions of baptismal doctrine the expression, “I was made,” has been understood, generally speaking, in three ways.
(1) “I became” suggesting, “I did not resist and God infused into my soul his grace by his Spirit and I was born again really and truly then and there into the kingdom of God even though I could not exercise repentance for sin and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; and I shall remain regenerate.”
(2) “I was considered” suggesting, “Since the conditions of repentance and faith were present (through my Godparents) and since Baptism conveys the gift of God, God began to reckon me as his Child and, as soon as I am mature and able, I must personally repent and believe the Gospel promises, in order for the gifts and grace of God truly to be mine for ever.”
(3) “I was put into a new relation to Jesus Christ” suggesting, “Since the conditions of repentance and faith were present (through my Godparents) I was born into the new sphere of God’s covenant of grace and thus into the beginnings of the enjoyment of all the blessings of the covenant.”
Of these the content of numbers 2 and 3 seem to be more in line with the other place in The Catechism where the Sacraments are defined and the necessity of faith in relation to them by the receiver is emphasized. Baptismal Regeneration was not an expression used by the first Reformed Catholics but they did accept that regeneration occurred at Baptism, but only because of the Gospel from God received by the faith of the sinner. For them the Rite rightly performed did not in and of itself automatically produce spiritual regeneration (as in the medieval opus operatum theory and as in (1) above); rather the Rite/Sacrament as God’s ordinance caused regeneration where there was active repentance for sin and belief in the Gospel as in adults, or subsitutionary repentance and faith as for infants until they can exercise these personally and consciously. [Note that since the nineteenth century “baptismal regeneration” has carried the Roman Catholic and strong Anglo-Catholic meaning that Baptism rightly performed automatically causes regeneration, unless the recipient actively resists it. In contrast to this, the Reformed Catholic understanding of “baptismal regeneration” is emphatically related God’s action and gift in Baptism on the one side, and man’s reception by faith on the other.]
The third question asks what the Godparents did for the Infant at his Baptism. The answer is clear:
They did promise and vow three things in my name.
First, that I should renounce the devil the devil and all his works, the pomps and vanity of this wicked world, and all the sinful lusts of the flesh.
Secondly, that I should believe all the articles of the Christian faith.
And thirdly, that I should keep God’s holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days of my life.
So in and on behalf of the child, who is not yet able to act for himself, the Godparents solemnly promised to God (a) renunciation of the devil, evil world and sinful desires; (b) belief of the doctrines in the Creed, and (c) living daily in faithful obedience to God. The form and tense of the verb used of the commitment to be made by the infant is important—“that I should renounce…believe…keep…” The “I should” is just the grammatically correct subjunctive in speech reporting a promise. The subjunctive was/is ordinarily used for uncertainties, but not here. Perhaps the nearest equivalent in modern English would be "must". The “should” points to a promise leading to obligation and duty, and as coming into effect from the very first moment in the future when the child is able to respond to God as his Father through Jesus Christ—a response which is his duty and privilege as a baptized person, by divine promise and covenant.
So, from the moment of his Baptism, the infant child of Christian parents is reckoned to be, and is to be treated as, a child of God, with all appropriate nurture, instruction and discipline, so that what God has made over to him he comes to see is his only by grace through faith. This places great responsibility upon the parents, Godparents and local church as the ministers of heaven to this growing child, even as it also celebrates the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ revealed in the covenant of grace in its New Testament administration through this Sacrament, instituted by Jesus the Christ.
Note on Covenant
In what sense, if at all, is there a Baptismal Covenant, that is, a covenant offered or made in Baptism between God and the person baptized?
We recall that Jesus himself established the new covenant by his atoning sacrifice on the Cross. “In my place condemned he stood, sealed my pardon with his blood.” The new covenant (contrast is with the Mosaic or old covenant) is made between God the Father and his Incarnate Son, with the latter acting as Representative Man, the new Adam, and thus God the Father made it with Christ on behalf of all who were (in Israel) and would be (through the preaching of the Gospel) united to Christ, “in Christ,” for everlasting salvation and life.
This new covenant, the covenant of grace, is the essential background for the preaching of the Gospel, the Administration of the Gospel Sacraments, and the response of repentant, believing sinners to the Gospel message. In Baptism, God the Father acts in the Name of Christ and by the Holy Spirit to regenerate sinners, that is to place them within the covenant of grace and thus name them as his children. As with the response to the preaching of the Gospel, so in the Sacrament, the covenant Lord God graciously and freely gives his salvation, but he only gives where there is readiness to receive, and such readiness is only possible and present where there is repentance for sin and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Saviour.
So it may be said that there are conditions for entry into the covenant, the covenant which is already established and complete in itself through, in and with Christ its mediator and guarantor. And these conditions are faith and repentance. However, divinely-required conditions for entry are not conditions which actually constitute the human side of a contract or covenant between the human person and the Lord God. We may say that the kingdom of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, exists with all its covenant blessings and that only the repentant and believing sinner is allowed to enter and, in entering, is warmly welcomed. So by repenting and believing (or by doing anything else) none of us are entering into, making or closing a personal covenant with God, but rather we are being made a member of Christ and thus in, through and with him we are placed in an eternal relation within the covenant of grace with the Father, energized by the Holy Spirit.
There are great spiritual dangers in thinking and teaching that there is a Baptismal Covenant which is different from the New Covenant itself. (And nowhere is this more evident in the life of The Episcopal Church since the 1960s!) God does not make a covenant with me and I do not make a covenant with God in holy Baptism. By grace and by grace alone, I enter through Christ the Mediator into the New Covenant, which is corporate in nature and therein I am, again by grace alone, one of the elect of God, and a child of God. In Baptism I make promises and vows to God but I do not thereby seal a covenant with God for only Christ, the God-Man, can (and has done) that! I may recall from time to time these promises and vows but in so doing I am not renewing any covenant. I am simply remembering the promises and vows I made as God in Christ by the Holy Spirit regenerated me!
January 10, 2007
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Let us focus on The Catechism to see what it assumes and teaches about Infant Baptism.
The first question asks the catechumen for his Name and the second asks who gave it to him/her. Here is the answer to the second:
My Godfathers and Godmothers in my Baptism; wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.
The meaning here seems reasonably clear. “I was made” points to action by someone other than the infant and that Someone is obviously (from the whole context) God the Father, though the words do not actually clearly say so. To be “a member of Christ” is to be in “The Body of Christ;” to be “the child of God” is to be adopted by God the Father into his Family and Household; and to be “an inheritor of the kingdom of God” is to have the promise of everlasting life and be present in the heavenly Jerusalem.
The natural meaning of “I was made” here is that which is found in such a statement as, “I was made a Captain” pointing to a new rank, status and membership. So it points to the Infant being given a new status, that of an adopted child of God through Jesus Christ. It could also be taken to mean “I was made anew” as a child of God.
However, in Anglican expositions of baptismal doctrine the expression, “I was made,” has been understood, generally speaking, in three ways.
(1) “I became” suggesting, “I did not resist and God infused into my soul his grace by his Spirit and I was born again really and truly then and there into the kingdom of God even though I could not exercise repentance for sin and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; and I shall remain regenerate.”
(2) “I was considered” suggesting, “Since the conditions of repentance and faith were present (through my Godparents) and since Baptism conveys the gift of God, God began to reckon me as his Child and, as soon as I am mature and able, I must personally repent and believe the Gospel promises, in order for the gifts and grace of God truly to be mine for ever.”
(3) “I was put into a new relation to Jesus Christ” suggesting, “Since the conditions of repentance and faith were present (through my Godparents) I was born into the new sphere of God’s covenant of grace and thus into the beginnings of the enjoyment of all the blessings of the covenant.”
Of these the content of numbers 2 and 3 seem to be more in line with the other place in The Catechism where the Sacraments are defined and the necessity of faith in relation to them by the receiver is emphasized. Baptismal Regeneration was not an expression used by the first Reformed Catholics but they did accept that regeneration occurred at Baptism, but only because of the Gospel from God received by the faith of the sinner. For them the Rite rightly performed did not in and of itself automatically produce spiritual regeneration (as in the medieval opus operatum theory and as in (1) above); rather the Rite/Sacrament as God’s ordinance caused regeneration where there was active repentance for sin and belief in the Gospel as in adults, or subsitutionary repentance and faith as for infants until they can exercise these personally and consciously. [Note that since the nineteenth century “baptismal regeneration” has carried the Roman Catholic and strong Anglo-Catholic meaning that Baptism rightly performed automatically causes regeneration, unless the recipient actively resists it. In contrast to this, the Reformed Catholic understanding of “baptismal regeneration” is emphatically related God’s action and gift in Baptism on the one side, and man’s reception by faith on the other.]
The third question asks what the Godparents did for the Infant at his Baptism. The answer is clear:
They did promise and vow three things in my name.
First, that I should renounce the devil the devil and all his works, the pomps and vanity of this wicked world, and all the sinful lusts of the flesh.
Secondly, that I should believe all the articles of the Christian faith.
And thirdly, that I should keep God’s holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days of my life.
So in and on behalf of the child, who is not yet able to act for himself, the Godparents solemnly promised to God (a) renunciation of the devil, evil world and sinful desires; (b) belief of the doctrines in the Creed, and (c) living daily in faithful obedience to God. The form and tense of the verb used of the commitment to be made by the infant is important—“that I should renounce…believe…keep…” The “I should” is just the grammatically correct subjunctive in speech reporting a promise. The subjunctive was/is ordinarily used for uncertainties, but not here. Perhaps the nearest equivalent in modern English would be "must". The “should” points to a promise leading to obligation and duty, and as coming into effect from the very first moment in the future when the child is able to respond to God as his Father through Jesus Christ—a response which is his duty and privilege as a baptized person, by divine promise and covenant.
So, from the moment of his Baptism, the infant child of Christian parents is reckoned to be, and is to be treated as, a child of God, with all appropriate nurture, instruction and discipline, so that what God has made over to him he comes to see is his only by grace through faith. This places great responsibility upon the parents, Godparents and local church as the ministers of heaven to this growing child, even as it also celebrates the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ revealed in the covenant of grace in its New Testament administration through this Sacrament, instituted by Jesus the Christ.
Note on Covenant
In what sense, if at all, is there a Baptismal Covenant, that is, a covenant offered or made in Baptism between God and the person baptized?
We recall that Jesus himself established the new covenant by his atoning sacrifice on the Cross. “In my place condemned he stood, sealed my pardon with his blood.” The new covenant (contrast is with the Mosaic or old covenant) is made between God the Father and his Incarnate Son, with the latter acting as Representative Man, the new Adam, and thus God the Father made it with Christ on behalf of all who were (in Israel) and would be (through the preaching of the Gospel) united to Christ, “in Christ,” for everlasting salvation and life.
This new covenant, the covenant of grace, is the essential background for the preaching of the Gospel, the Administration of the Gospel Sacraments, and the response of repentant, believing sinners to the Gospel message. In Baptism, God the Father acts in the Name of Christ and by the Holy Spirit to regenerate sinners, that is to place them within the covenant of grace and thus name them as his children. As with the response to the preaching of the Gospel, so in the Sacrament, the covenant Lord God graciously and freely gives his salvation, but he only gives where there is readiness to receive, and such readiness is only possible and present where there is repentance for sin and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Saviour.
So it may be said that there are conditions for entry into the covenant, the covenant which is already established and complete in itself through, in and with Christ its mediator and guarantor. And these conditions are faith and repentance. However, divinely-required conditions for entry are not conditions which actually constitute the human side of a contract or covenant between the human person and the Lord God. We may say that the kingdom of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, exists with all its covenant blessings and that only the repentant and believing sinner is allowed to enter and, in entering, is warmly welcomed. So by repenting and believing (or by doing anything else) none of us are entering into, making or closing a personal covenant with God, but rather we are being made a member of Christ and thus in, through and with him we are placed in an eternal relation within the covenant of grace with the Father, energized by the Holy Spirit.
There are great spiritual dangers in thinking and teaching that there is a Baptismal Covenant which is different from the New Covenant itself. (And nowhere is this more evident in the life of The Episcopal Church since the 1960s!) God does not make a covenant with me and I do not make a covenant with God in holy Baptism. By grace and by grace alone, I enter through Christ the Mediator into the New Covenant, which is corporate in nature and therein I am, again by grace alone, one of the elect of God, and a child of God. In Baptism I make promises and vows to God but I do not thereby seal a covenant with God for only Christ, the God-Man, can (and has done) that! I may recall from time to time these promises and vows but in so doing I am not renewing any covenant. I am simply remembering the promises and vows I made as God in Christ by the Holy Spirit regenerated me!
January 10, 2007
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Explaining INFANT BAPTISM through the legal analogy of ESCROW
Lawyers use the word escrow often and many of us are not sure what they mean. Escrow is a noun (from escroe, a scroll) meaning a bond, deed or deposit gifted by one party to another and kept in the custody of a third party, taking effect and made available only when specified condition has been fulfilled (e.g., a person conveys a million dollars to another person and requires that before that person receives it he be 2 years of age).
Now to Baptism.
An adult who is baptized is one who is repenting of his sin and believing the Gospel of the Father concerning the Lord Jesus Christ. Without repentance and faith, a person is not a proper subject of Christian Baptism, which is the Sacrament of Regeneration (that is, being born into the family of God and made a child of God and inheritor of the kingdom of heaven of the age to come). An infant is baptized not because of his own repentance and faith but because those who stand with him and in his place (godparents) show repentance and faith and are intent on caring for the infant in God’s Name until he also shows repentance for sin and faith in the Lord Jesus, and thus personally and consciously embraces the reality and benefits of Regeneration.
Here is one way of explaining Infant Baptism by means of the analogy of escrow from the pen of Dr. H.C.G. Moule, Bishop of Durham (1899-1922), a brilliant scholar and a leading Evangelical Churchman of his time:
Advantages of this kind of explanation include (a) that the words of the Service of Infant Baptism in The Book of Common Prayer can be taken seriously and literally; (b) that Baptism of Infants as the work of God is made to appear reasonable and meaningful; (c) that the Service of Confirmation of young persons who have made the Faith their own, makes good sense, and (d) that a means of explanation is at hand to explain why some persons, baptized as infants, do not become practicing Christians—they choose not to take up the title and benefits.
Disadvantages include (a) some may find the concept of escrow odd or difficult to grasp; (b) the benefits for the “period of escrow” (from Baptism to conscious, personal faith) can be seen to be primarily external—the moral and spiritual influences of family, God-parents and church worship; and (c) there is, it appears, in this approach a very heavy and continued responsibility of the family, God-parents and church as to whether or not the child comes to personal faith; it seems to be too much dependent upon their constancy and faithfulness—in that their example may harm and hinder the baptized child (i.e., very much more responsibility than the third party in escrow!).
This explanation, with its strengths and weaknesses, was advanced by Dr. Moule because as a NT scholar and a faithful Bishop he knew that the Gospel of salvation calls for repentance and faith in the human being as a sinner, and so he had to find a way of keeping repentance and faith in the story and doctrine of Infant Baptism. And in this motivation he was surely right for without faith it is impossible to please God, the God of the covenant of grace.
Dr Moule’s approach may be preferred to the notion seemingly held by many of the existence of a personal, baptismal covenant wherein God makes over his covenanted blessings to the infant, who is then expected in due time to fulfill his terms of the covenant, which may take a long of short time. If he does not then the covenant is not operative and the blessings of the New Covenant are not made over to him. This idea of a covenant can be read in terms of a Senior partner and a junior partner in contractual arrangements, which is impossible to square with the Biblical presentation of the covenant of grace as being wholly established by God the Holy Trinity himself, with Christ Jesus, the Incarnate Son of the Father, wholly fulfilling the human side. The Baptismal Services in The Book of Common Prayer do not use the word covenant of the baptismal relation of God to the baptized and do not suggest a personalized covenant.
END
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Now to Baptism.
An adult who is baptized is one who is repenting of his sin and believing the Gospel of the Father concerning the Lord Jesus Christ. Without repentance and faith, a person is not a proper subject of Christian Baptism, which is the Sacrament of Regeneration (that is, being born into the family of God and made a child of God and inheritor of the kingdom of heaven of the age to come). An infant is baptized not because of his own repentance and faith but because those who stand with him and in his place (godparents) show repentance and faith and are intent on caring for the infant in God’s Name until he also shows repentance for sin and faith in the Lord Jesus, and thus personally and consciously embraces the reality and benefits of Regeneration.
Here is one way of explaining Infant Baptism by means of the analogy of escrow from the pen of Dr. H.C.G. Moule, Bishop of Durham (1899-1922), a brilliant scholar and a leading Evangelical Churchman of his time:
“Christian Baptism is an ordinance of the New Covenant. It is an ordinance of entrance into Covenant. It initiates the receiver of it into the new, better, and everlasting Covenant. It does this after the manner of a rite. It does it formally—ceremonially. It gives new birth, new life, forgiveness, the Spirit, grace and glory. But it gives as a deed gives—not as an electric wire gives. It gives a title. It conveys to the right recipient such possession as now after conveyance only demands his actual entering in and using to be complete.This explanation proclaims that in the Sacrament God has freely given everything needful for both eternal salvation and sanctification to the Infant Child of Christian believers; it also assumes that (a) Godparents will do their holy work of making sure that the growing child is given Christian nurture and instruction; (b) the child is surrounded by the worship, prayer and means of grace of the Church of God; and (c) the maturing child, as a young person, will personally embrace the Gospel in repentance and faith and enjoy that which has been his by divine gift from the beginning. It also assumes that the baptized person would be most foolish to reject what is rightly his but in trust; yet it does actually allow for him to reject or not take up what is truly his by divine gift.
There are legal documents called escrows. These are deeds of conveyance which speak in the present tense, and do a present act of gift and transfer, but they carry with them a condition to be fulfilled before the effect is actualized. Till than condition is fulfilled the present giving does not become actual possession. The receiver of the title-deed does not actually enter on the property given in it. He has it in title, but he has it not yet in act and use. He has something at once. He received a beneficial title, right and pledge, the possession of which conceivably at once entitles him to special care, attention, and privileges.
So Baptism, at once and literally, in the sense of title, makes an infant a member of the Church—a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven. In the sense of title, he is at once regenerate. He receives at once in that respect the acceptance of an adopted child of God in Christ, and the new life, which is wrought in man by the Holy Ghost. But in the ordinary law of God’s working revealed in His Word, these precious things, in their possession, await the humble claim of repentance and faith. So the infant who in Sacramental title is born again, still needs to be born again. He is baptismally regenerated, but he needs subsequently to be actually regenerated by Faith and Repentance.”
Advantages of this kind of explanation include (a) that the words of the Service of Infant Baptism in The Book of Common Prayer can be taken seriously and literally; (b) that Baptism of Infants as the work of God is made to appear reasonable and meaningful; (c) that the Service of Confirmation of young persons who have made the Faith their own, makes good sense, and (d) that a means of explanation is at hand to explain why some persons, baptized as infants, do not become practicing Christians—they choose not to take up the title and benefits.
Disadvantages include (a) some may find the concept of escrow odd or difficult to grasp; (b) the benefits for the “period of escrow” (from Baptism to conscious, personal faith) can be seen to be primarily external—the moral and spiritual influences of family, God-parents and church worship; and (c) there is, it appears, in this approach a very heavy and continued responsibility of the family, God-parents and church as to whether or not the child comes to personal faith; it seems to be too much dependent upon their constancy and faithfulness—in that their example may harm and hinder the baptized child (i.e., very much more responsibility than the third party in escrow!).
This explanation, with its strengths and weaknesses, was advanced by Dr. Moule because as a NT scholar and a faithful Bishop he knew that the Gospel of salvation calls for repentance and faith in the human being as a sinner, and so he had to find a way of keeping repentance and faith in the story and doctrine of Infant Baptism. And in this motivation he was surely right for without faith it is impossible to please God, the God of the covenant of grace.
Dr Moule’s approach may be preferred to the notion seemingly held by many of the existence of a personal, baptismal covenant wherein God makes over his covenanted blessings to the infant, who is then expected in due time to fulfill his terms of the covenant, which may take a long of short time. If he does not then the covenant is not operative and the blessings of the New Covenant are not made over to him. This idea of a covenant can be read in terms of a Senior partner and a junior partner in contractual arrangements, which is impossible to square with the Biblical presentation of the covenant of grace as being wholly established by God the Holy Trinity himself, with Christ Jesus, the Incarnate Son of the Father, wholly fulfilling the human side. The Baptismal Services in The Book of Common Prayer do not use the word covenant of the baptismal relation of God to the baptized and do not suggest a personalized covenant.
END
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)