Anglican but want immersion baptism?

[seekingsister]

I feel bad that so few of you know anything about your church. I am quoting from the Church of England website and the Book of Common Prayer, not a lunatic fringe.

The length of time a policy has lasted does not have anything to do with how right it is. The Southern Baptists didn't allow worship with African Americans until a few decades ago.

Anglicanism helped me return to my relationship with God. The only issue I have is around baptism.

If none of you have issues with Anglicanism then why on Earth do I see so many of you posting complaints and issues on this forum?

Stop hanging me out to dry, I'm a new member to your group and I am here asking for advice and exchanging my thoughts.

 

[back2thebible]

I am a relatively new to Anglicanism and would love to hear thoughts from you guys.

When I was born my father was a lapsed Catholic (still is) and my mother was an Anglican. I was christened by sprinkling at a university church in a "Protestant" service that was not specifically Anglican but for any staff/student children who were from an infant baptism tradition. Before I was old enough to remember my mom joined an evangelical non-denom church in which I was raised. This church practices believer's baptism but was legalistic and corrupt in many ways - I was aware of this at a young enough age that I was never baptized and stopped attending once I left home for university.

I felt drawn back to God and have started attending a charismatic Church of England congregation which I really am grateful for and I feel myself growing spiritually for the first time in my life. But here is my issue - I feel like I need to be baptized by immersion. In church on Sunday we read Mark 1 and it is very clear that Jesus went into the river, was immersed, and rose out of the water when he heard God's voice. I think we as Christians should be emulating this unless there is a lack of water somehow.

My CofE church is more open in that it doesn't require infant baptism and allows members to just do a dedication and let the children decide when they are old enough. I know they baptize adults by immersion but I've never heard of someone who was christened as an infant doing that. I have heard there is a "renewal of baptismal vows" that can go along with an immersion, but I'm nervous asking about it if it's very unusual as I don't want to make the priest question why I'm an Anglican if I don't accept the mainstream doctrine.

And if anyone is in London do they know of CofE churches that do immersion baptism/baptismal renewals? I don't think my church even has a pool or basin to do it.

If its in your heart then be obedient, an extra dip won't hurt anyone either side of the issue

 

[Albion]

I feel bad that so few of you know anything about your church. I am quoting from the Church of England website and the Book of Common Prayer, not a lunatic fringe.

Or maybe, just maybe, some of those here who have been Anglicans for many years and are very well versed in the history and practice of their church have an understanding that beats a quick look at a few websites.

 

[back2thebible]

I feel bad that so few of you know anything about your church. I am quoting from the Church of England website and the Book of Common Prayer, not a lunatic fringe.

The length of time a policy has lasted does not have anything to do with how right it is. The Southern Baptists didn't allow worship with African Americans until a few decades ago.

Anglicanism helped me return to my relationship with God. The only issue I have is around baptism.

If none of you have issues with Anglicanism then why on Earth do I see so many of you posting complaints and issues on this forum?

Stop hanging me out to dry, I'm a new member to your group and I am here asking for advice and exchanging my thoughts.

I imagine the resistance you're facing is merely the same as those in centuries past, when full imersion believers baptism was seen as the original method straight from the pages in the bible and people bucked the errant tradition of sprinkling babies.............only difference was they killed you back then

 

[seekingsister]

I imagine the resistance you're facing is merely the same as those in centuries past, when full imersion believers baptism was seen as the original method straight from the pages in the bible and people bucked the errant tradition of sprinkling babies.............only difference was they killed you back then

I can't believe you took it there!! LOL!

 

[back2thebible]

I can't believe you took it there!! LOL!

ahhh.... watched it happen with my parents life long members of a sprinkling baptism church, decided that they wanted a little more water and to do it as believers, and boy did it ruffle some feathers!.....you think they were denying the trinity, or took part in a satanic circle

they found it was actually more biblically correct for them not to stay, were their second baptism was seen as a slap in the face, you never want to cause derision in any church no matter what people believe, its always better to leave then try to correct it from the inside

 

[Adam Warlock]

I imagine the resistance you're facing is merely the same as those in centuries past, when full imersion believers baptism was seen as the original method straight from the pages in the bible and people bucked the errant tradition of sprinkling babies.............only difference was they killed you back then

It's not an errant tradition; it is theology and practice from the beginning of the Church, based on a biblical understanding of baptism.

 

[seekingsister]

It's not an errant tradition; it is theology and practice from the beginning of the Church, based on a biblical understanding of baptism.

What's amazing is that I got a less negative reaction in another thread when I said that the Episcopal Church in my hometown allows non-Christians in leadership and is praying to "our mother in heaven."

Are we Christians first or an Anglicans?

 

[Albion]

ahhh.... watched it happen with my parents life long members of a sprinkling baptism church, decided that they wanted a little more water and to do it as believers, and boy did it ruffle some feathers!.....you think they were denying the trinity, or took part in a satanic circle

they found it was actually more biblically correct for them not to stay, were their second baptism was seen as a slap in the face, you never want to cause derision in any church no matter what people believe, its always better to leave then try to correct it from the inside

Because it is impossible for anyone to have a second baptism, I would guess that people would be somewhat distressed at this, yes.

So now you've made your point and it's over.

 

[Adam Warlock]

What's amazing is that I got a less negative reaction in another thread when I said that the Episcopal Church in my hometown allows non-Christians in leadership and is praying to "our mother in heaven."

Are we Christians first or an Anglicans?

What can I say? We're unpredictable

 

[MKJ]

I feel bad that so few of you know anything about your church. I am quoting from the Church of England website and the Book of Common Prayer, not a lunatic fringe.

The length of time a policy has lasted does not have anything to do with how right it is. The Southern Baptists didn't allow worship with African Americans until a few decades ago.

Anglicanism helped me return to my relationship with God. The only issue I have is around baptism.

If none of you have issues with Anglicanism then why on Earth do I see so many of you posting complaints and issues on this forum?

Stop hanging me out to dry, I'm a new member to your group and I am here asking for advice and exchanging my thoughts.

Exchanging thoughts is fine and good.

If you are feeling worried that you were baptized as an infant, use it as a moment to practice your faith. God holds up his end of the bargin, it isn't about what you do.

But many people here have been in the Anglican church for many years, and quite a few have a fairly extensive understanding of Anglican teaching and theology. It could be that we have a little more perspective on where these kinds of theological changes fit in to the whole picture than you do.

The CofE has no authority to change baptismal theology. (It could be argued, in fact, that no one does, and if you don't understand why some would say that you need to learn more about Anglican theology.) The change you are supporting is one which is outside what they ought to be teaching. THis sort of thing has become common and is a serious problem in the Anglican Communion. I think it is fair to say it is as serious a change as the American's unilateral decisions about marriage, just not controversial enough to get media attention.

It is really nice that you found a home in an Anglican parish. But it is an unfortunate reality of Anglicanism at the moment that what is being taught in many parishes, and indeed even in whole diocese and national churches, is confusing and contradictory. It stinks for new members who are confused and for long-time ones who are ticked off.

 

[seekingsister]

I see your point. It's not my problem, of course, but I understand the frustration. I'm just joining now and these are the rules that I see.

I think the change has come as a result of societal changes. Most of the clergy at my church grew up in non-Christian families and came to Christ as teenagers or young adults. Their stories are quite inspiring. But as a result they all remember their baptisms and speak about how profound the experience was.

AB of York was baptized as an adult at a Baptist church - he is of course known for using water in renewals of baptismal vows and public outdoor immersions.

These new CofE leaders therefore can understand why people want their children to have their own cognizant baptism experience, because they had it themselves and it defines their faith and their life.

 

[MKJ]

I see your point. It's not my problem, of course, but I understand the frustration. I'm just joining now and these are the rules that I see.

I think the change has come as a result of societal changes. Most of the clergy at my church grew up in non-Christian families and came to Christ as teenagers or young adults. Their stories are quite inspiring. But as a result they all remember their baptisms and speak about how profound the experience was.

AB of York was baptized as an adult at a Baptist church - he is of course known for using water in renewals of baptismal vows and public outdoor immersions.

These new CofE leaders therefore can understand why people want their children to have their own cognizant baptism experience, because they had it themselves and it defines their faith and their life.

I would not be suprised if that was part of the reason. Of course that kind of formal sacramental moment is very powerful for those who understake it.

But I would not assume that because we don't remember5 being baptized as an infant that it was not a powerful experience. Babies also do not remember their care or caregivers as an infant, and yet we know those people have a powerful impact on them. Infants who don't form any bond because of abuse or neglect can even grow up to be unable to respond to human relationships in the normal way. What happens to us in infancy can be powerful.

I have wondered if part of the issue in Anglicanism is having lost the common use of the sacrament of confession. Historically adults coming into the church for the first time or returning after an absence, or any other time they had gone astray, would be brought back in formally through confession and reconciliation, followed by the Eucharist.

When we don't do that, and sometimes even the Eucharistic theology has been watered down, it leaves people with the need to fill a hole. Rather ironically, in downplaying "unnecessary" sacraments or ceremonies, we find we want to put other ones which aren't really as appropriate, in their place. We try to cover the loss by broadening the way we use baptism.

 

[seekingsister]

I'm sure I'm asking for it bringing up this thread again, but here goes.

I spoke to a rector at the church and explained the situation.

He said I should prepare myself for the next baptism service and they will do a renewal of baptism for me with immersion.

He stood firm on the fact that there is only one baptism, and that it would be wrong for me to be baptized again. The immersion is therefore a symbolic reenactment and will have a separate order to clearly differentiate from baptism. He said that my parents' understanding of my baptism is incorrect, that I received God's grace as a child and that is why He has called me back.

It's worth noting, however, that his young child is not baptized but was dedicated.

So from the belly of the Church of England, that is your answer on that is allowed in Anglican doctrine as regards immersion. If you want it, you can have it, but officially it's not a baptism.

I hope that eases some of the worries expressed here about doctrinal integrity.

 

[mark46]

Doctrinal integrity shouldn't be an issue with regard to re-baptism. There is only one baptism, as you say. However, there is an issue with regard to understanding the meaning of the sacrament/mystery of baptism, as ordered by Jesus. We are not Baptists. We welcome our babies to the sacrament of baptism.

HOWEVER, I would run from any rector who chooses to deny the Grace of baptism to his own child. His burden is like albatross around his neck.

It's worth noting, however, that his young child is not baptized but was dedicated.

I hope that eases some of the worries expressed here about doctrinal integrity.

 

[Anna Scott]

I'm sure I'm asking for it bringing up this thread again, but here goes.

I spoke to a rector at the church and explained the situation.

He said I should prepare myself for the next baptism service and they will do a renewal of baptism for me with immersion.

He stood firm on the fact that there is only one baptism, and that it would be wrong for me to be baptized again. The immersion is therefore a symbolic reenactment and will have a separate order to clearly differentiate from baptism. He said that my parents' understanding of my baptism is incorrect, that I received God's grace as a child and that is why He has called me back.

It's worth noting, however, that his young child is not baptized but was dedicated.

So from the belly of the Church of England, that is your answer on that is allowed in Anglican doctrine as regards immersion. If you want it, you can have it, but officially it's not a baptism.

I hope that eases some of the worries expressed here about doctrinal integrity.

There is no need for a "symbolic enactment" when you've had the real thing, and that is a Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, And Holy Spirit. God imparts Grace through Baptism, such as the forgiveness of sins and entry into Covenant with God. Anglicans baptize infants so they may receive the same Graces.

As for immersion, that is acceptable for Anglicans. However, it is not necessary.

In agreeing with what Mark1 said; I would be very concerned about a Priest who would choose "dedication" over Baptism for his own children. There is something very, very wrong with that.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[seekingsister]

In agreeing with what Mark1 said; I would be very concerned about a Priest who would choose "dedication" over Baptism for his own children. There is something very, very wrong with that.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

When there are priests who don't believe in the Trinity, I think attitudes on baptism are minor in comparison.

 

[Albion]

When there are priests who don't believe in the Trinity, I think attitudes on baptism are minor in comparison.

This isn't a contest. Most priests are right on both issues.

 

[seekingsister]

This isn't a contest. Most priests are right on both issues.

I think we need to define "right" as whatever brings more people to Christ, frankly.

When you have people filing suit to be "unbaptized" because they were baptized as infants but are now atheists, we have to seriously question the indiscriminate baptism of any infant brought forward in the Church of England. It does not benefit the church, nor does it glorify God, to have millions of British people baptized when their parents had no intention of raising them in Christianity. That is the failure of the priests on baptism, in my view.

It's nice to be a cradle Anglican, but those are dwindling in number. So for the rest of us who are new or returning for the first time since our infant baptism, frankly welcoming us in as many ways as possible is what the church needs to focus on.

These correct priests you speak of - I wonder when they last fulfilled their apostolic duty of making new disciples (that were not brought to them squealing as infants). Look at the TEC and CofE numbers and then let's figure out if immersion of the unfortunately relatively few adults who return to the church is the issue here.

 

[Albion]

I think we need to define "right"

All right then. It's not hard to find a priest who believes in infant baptism by affusion, while not denying other modes, and also is a Trinitarian. The two of those represent the norm among Anglicans.