Methodist baptism question

[FireDragon76]

I was baptized by Methodists in the mid 70's. I do not know the method of my baptism. I may have also been conditionally baptized in my mid teenage years at a UMC parish. I remember water being sprinkled on my head by the minister. I had to undergo some kind of rite and I may have been conditionally baptized . I believe there were questions about my confirmation too (maybe I was received into the congregation?). I don't remember all the issues. My family was military and we moved around a lot. I remember as a teenager I may have had some concerns about my baptism- I may have personally rejected infant baptism as a belief and been conditionally baptized and the minister may have done it out of a desire to be accommodating, I don't remember for sure; I went through a weird religious phase where I was a fundamentalist of a sort, having interacted with Baptists when I was overseas as that was about all that was available (my parents did not take me to an Anglican church even though I was very interested in it).

So, I am wondering what method was used in my baptism, if that can even be guessed at? It was in southern California, in Riverside, that's all I know, and I never asked my mother about it. The local Episcopalians prefer affusion whenever possible, and Roman Catholics require that a generous amount of water is used so that water run down to the skin. I am sort of curious as I attend an Episcopalian church and I was thinking of joining, and I would have to be confirmed.

I actually looked up some UMC baptisms on Youtube and it was a little shocking how little water was used in some of them, and how tiny the fonts were. One baptism in particular was just a minister making the sign of the cross on a child's forehead with a wet finger.

 

[Celticflower]

I think each minister has their own "style" and I can only speak of those I know. One used a shell and pour water over an infant's head three times then used a finger to trace a cross on the forehead. Other's I've known (including the one who baptized me) would cup their hand to dip water from the font and over the head. I've only encountered one who just traced a wet cross - in a church I was visiting - so don't really know if that was the norm there or not.

 

[circuitrider]

FireDragon,

Probably you were baptized by sprinkling or pouring. You'd probably remember if you were immersed. Those are the three methods used by United Methodists. Most infant baptisms are by sprinkling which is really the pastor putting her/his hand in the water and placing their hand on the baby's head. The shell spoken about above could be considered pouring.

The amount of water in baptism isn't important as it is a symbol. It is the presence of the Holy Spirit that is important in baptism.

If you were baptized in a United Methodist Church the Episcopal Church would accept your baptism. United Methodists and Episcopalians both oppose rebaptism.

 

[FireDragon76]

Any ideas what other rites were done to me, especially those as a teenager using water? They may or may not have been conditional baptism. Were they confirmation?

I asked my mom this yesterday evening and she said the minister cupped water in his hand and placed/poured it on my head: I got wet. I was about two at the time- it's something I don't remember at all.

I inquired from a knowledgeable Catholic about the issue of baptism, and they said that the issue is one of licitness (legality), not validity. So sprinkling with minimal water is still considered a real baptism, it is just not lawful or permissible for Roman Catholics to perform a baptism in that manner, because it weakens the symbolism of washing. But it doesn't alter the validity. Most Episcopalians seem to agree.

I honestly considered going back to the Methodist church but the Methodist congregations down here in Florida are very different from the ones I remember up north. There are things now that I do believe in: baptismal regeneration and the real presence in the Lord's Supper, in a moderate realist way (the sign delivers the thing signified), and I'm not sure how compatible those are with Methodist practice. Growing up I was told the Lord's Supper was a symbol/memorial (dispensed in plastic cups usually), which may or may not be accurate Methodist teaching.

 

[circuitrider]

It is possible you received a conditional baptism. I've heard of that being done and could have been done if you were not sure you had been baptized at confirmation.

The United Methodist Church also teaches the real presence of Christ in Holy Communion. United Methodists do not teach that the supper is a memorial. That is a more Baptist view. We believe it is a sacrament and a means of grace.

United Methodists take communion a lot of different ways. My congregation takes communion by intinction. That is dipping bread in a chalice. But some UMC churches use the small cups as well.

 

[Qyöt27]

This is PDF of a bulletin insert for a UMC in Georgia for Confirmation that I found from searching Google. It might help jog your memory about the rite you mentioned going through as a teenager.

When we were growing up, the only way we ever took Communion was kneeling at the rail with individual glass or plastic cups, and cubes of bread. It wasn't until I was 16 or 17 and the Contemporary service was introduced that any other method was used (in which it was usually intinction, or on one occasion, passed down the pew), although the Traditional mostly stuck to the rail even while the Contemporary and Casual/Chancel services used intinction.

 

[FireDragon76]

Thanks for the link. Sadly it doesn't jog my memory at all, just too long ago to remember. I do remember being confirmed at age 10, I went through those classes. I wish I could say I picked up some kind of commitment to Christian faith, but mostly I did it to make my parents happy because they were bugging me about getting confirmed with all the other kids.

I really am not faulting the Methodist church, my memories of the Church are mostly very good and it was a friendly, non-threatening religious environment to grow up in. In the Episcopal church the stability of the clergy is a little perk especially if you ever go to a priest for confession or spiritual advice. On the other hand, if you have a priest you don't like, he's not going away unless he retires or moves. In the Methodist church it could be confusing to have a pastor move around for no apparent reason. I remember even my mom complained about that.

We did not have a very religious household, I was not encouraged to pray or read the Bible- I believed in God but he was very remote. My family is mostly non-spiritual type people, they always have been, even my extended family except on my mom's side. I'm the only one that seems to be at all drawn to churchgoing or prone to faith, many are frank agnostics. My dad has a bit of antipathy about religion he got from his father and he only got baptized so that he could marry my mom. He saw adult baptism as humiliating him. When I became much more interested in God and going to church, he saw it as threatening and it became one of those teenager rebellion things to differentiate myself, perhaps.

My grandpa believed in God only in a vague way. The sort of civic religion that was mandatory in his generation. I hope I was wrong about him because when he died I worried about that a little, but I realized you can't force somebody to be something they don't want to be. I was really shocked somebody from his generation would have so much antipathy to organized religion, I guess it explodes the myth that the 50's was an age of piety. My grandpa would only go to a church to be friendly and placate a neighbor.

I got a Good News Bible at my confirmation and started reading it some years later when I got curious about things. I'm still glad I got it because it was an easy Bible to read and very clear.

The Episcopal churches I go to all have communion very much like how Roman Catholics do, there's an altar rail and a shared cup and you can give the priest the Host for intinction. My family are still Methodist and a shared common cup bugs them, I just tell them it's the blood of Christ and nothing could keep me from that. I'm not sure they really believe that.

Frankly, I think little plastic cups send the wrong message. I used to be one of the biggest germophobes and it took some faith to kiss crosses and share a common cup but in the end I think it was worth it.

 

[Celticflower]

Frankly, I think little plastic cups send the wrong message. I used to be one of the biggest germophobes and it took some faith to kiss crosses and share a common cup but in the end I think it was worth it.

While I can understand and appreciate your view, I like the individual cups (the ones I grew up with were glass, not plastic) esp when communion is passed through the pews and the congregation asked to wait until all are served to consume. It always gave me a real sense of being connected to the rest of the community.

 

[circuitrider]

This is PDF of a bulletin insert for a UMC in Georgia for Confirmation that I found from searching Google. It might help jog your memory about the rite you mentioned going through as a teenager.

When we were growing up, the only way we ever took Communion was kneeling at the rail with individual glass or plastic cups, and cubes of bread. It wasn't until I was 16 or 17 and the Contemporary service was introduced that any other method was used (in which it was usually intinction, or on one occasion, passed down the pew), although the Traditional mostly stuck to the rail even while the Contemporary and Casual/Chancel services used intinction.

For more and more churches intinction is replacing the small cups etc. because that is now the recommended method for communion in the UMC recommended by the General Conference.

 

[circuitrider]

Frankly, I think little plastic cups send the wrong message. I used to be one of the biggest germophobes and it took some faith to kiss crosses and share a common cup but in the end I think it was worth it.

You might be interested to know that studies show that the individual cups are no more sanitary than the common cup and when wine is used the common cup is more sanitary.

You see someone touches all those cups when they are filled and someone may accidentally touch a cup before you do. The wine sanitizes the cup.

As to the message, I agree. One cup and one loaf are symbols of the body of Christ as one body. Individual little cups didn't come into existence until the 19th century in hopes of a more sanitary communion. But the obscures some of the important symbolism of communion.

So if I'm in a church that uses the little cups I'd still commune. I just don't think it is the best method.

 

[Qyöt27]

For more and more churches intinction is replacing the small cups etc. because that is now the recommended method for communion in the UMC recommended by the General Conference.

My only real quibble isn't about the way the elements come into contact with each other, but that I simply find being served at the rail to be more reverent, humbling, communal, etc., as it more directly invokes a sense of being physically at the Table in a way that lining up single-file and going one by one in the center aisle doesn't. Intinction as simply the act of dipping could still be done at the rail, but I haven't experienced them combined like that - it was always an all-or-nothing situation.

 

[circuitrider]

My only real quibble isn't about the way the elements come into contact with each other, but that I simply find being served at the rail to be more reverent, humbling, communal, etc., as it more directly invokes a sense of being physically at the Table in a way that lining up single-file and going one by one in the center aisle doesn't. Intinction as simply the act of dipping could still be done at the rail, but I haven't experienced them combined like that - it was always an all-or-nothing situation.

We have people who choose to go to the rail after receiving communion to pray if they so choose.

If it were up to me I'd return to the practice of common cup with wine at the rail. But it is harder to change the tradition of grape juice than the tradition of how it is served.