Should we Baptize "with scrutiny"

[Dave-W]

OK - thanks.

 

[circuitrider]

You might keep in mind David that adult baptisms are not nearly as common in a UMC church as infant baptisms.

I think I've performed five adult baptisms in the past three years and somewhere around twenty or so infant baptisms in the past three years.

Two of those were confirmands who had not been baptized before confirmation the other three were adults two of which had not grown up in any church and were making a first time profession of faith. One had grown up in the church and had never been baptized.

We also never perform re-baptisms. So if someone has grown up in another Christian faith tradition and had been baptized as an infant and becomes a professing member of our church we do not baptize them as that has already been done.

Baptists and some other evangelical groups will re-baptize people multiple times when they change denominations or churches.

 

[KimT]

Many in our congregation chose to get baptized by immersion. We were baptized as infants but we wanted to reaffirm our faith in Jesus Christ after we were saved by grace. This year there were 24 who were baptized in the ocean on the Saturday before resurrection Sunday. It was a good witness to those who were at the beach and many of our congregation showed up in support of those who were baptized.

 

[circuitrider]

Kim, are you attending a United Methodist church?? I don't want to cast aspersions on something that was meaningful to you but, it was not baptism if you'd been previously baptized.

Why? Because our theology is that there there is only one baptism. You can rededicate your baptism, but you cannot be re-baptized because baptism is an act of God and God doesn't make mistakes. God does it right the first time. The second time you just got wet.

Also if your pastor performed re-baptisms (rather than baptismal rededications) then he committed a chargeable offense under the Book of Discipline which forbids pastors to re-baptize.

Unauthorized Conduct -

7. No pastor shall re-baptize. The practice of re-baptism does not conform with God's action in baptism and is not consistent with Wesleyan tradition and the historic teaching of the church. Therefore, the pastor should counsel any person seeking re-baptism to participate in a rite of re-affirmation of baptismal vows.

2012 Book of Discipline of the UMC Paragraph 341.7

 

[KimT]

Kim, are you attending a United Methodist church?? I don't want to cast aspersions on something that was meaningful to you but, it was not baptism if you'd been previously baptized.

Why? Because our theology is that there there is only one baptism. You can rededicate your baptism, but you cannot be re-baptized because baptism is an act of God and God doesn't make mistakes. God does it right the first time. The second time you just got wet.

Also if your pastor performed re-baptisms (rather than baptismal rededications) then he committed a chargeable offense under the Book of Discipline which forbids pastors to re-baptize.

Yes, I'm a member of a Methodist church. If I just got wet, that's fine with me. However, I believe it was a statement of my faith in Jesus that I was unable to make as an infant baptized in the Catholic church. Call it whatever is required, but baptism doesn't get you into Heaven and, prior to my conversion, I lived an ungodly life. Now I'm alive in Christ. The water is just an outward sign of an inward change that is ongoing in me. Praise God!!!!!!!!!!! God is so good!

 

[Wgw]

Kim, are you attending a United Methodist church?? I don't want to cast aspersions on something that was meaningful to you but, it was not baptism if you'd been previously baptized.

Why? Because our theology is that there there is only one baptism. You can rededicate your baptism, but you cannot be re-baptized because baptism is an act of God and God doesn't make mistakes. God does it right the first time. The second time you just got wet.

Also if your pastor performed re-baptisms (rather than baptismal rededications) then he committed a chargeable offense under the Book of Discipline which forbids pastors to re-baptize.

Indeed, the principle that there is one baptism for the remission of sins is in the Nicene Creed, which Wesley affirmed as an Anglican priest (even if he omitted it for the sake of brevity from the condensed Sunday Service Book). The Early Church Fathers fretted about what to do with those baptized by schismatics like the Donatists, but the consensus is that baptism in the Trinitarian formula by people with orthodox views of the Trinity should not repeated.

In the Orthodox Church by the way, there is a requirement for triple action; the candidate must be immersed for each person of the Trinity as a rule. A lot of Methodists have had to be rebaptized in joining stricter jurisdictions like ROCOR. I wish the ecumemical atandard therefore could be promoted as not simply "In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost" but with immersion or affusion after each Person of the Trinity is memtioned.

By the way, circuitrider, Rev. Jeremy Smith of the Hacking Christianity Blog, who I rather dislike, complained of the existence of "MethoBaptists" who ignore the BOD and baptize any adult who desires it, while limiting infant baptisms to three occasions per year to discourage them. Is there any truth to that, and is it possible one of these fellows illicitly rebaptized KimT?

 

[Celticflower]

The whole rebaptism thing is why I am not able to be a member of the church my husband decided on when we moved south (a non-denom). They refuse to accept my Methodist baptism and I refuse to go thru, what would be for me, a sham ceremony. It would have no meaning for me and would give the wrong impression to those observing. For the most part the pressure has died down for me to "convert and be baptized", but it rears its ugly head from time to time. And my non-member status didn't stop them from electing my husband as a deacon.

 

[KimT]

I refuse to let church legalism steal my joy. God knows my heart. Our pastor didn't require me to be Baptized. He didn't even suggest it. I wanted it and he agreed. I'm sorry for those of you whose churches don't give you freedom in Christ but you do have it! Celticflower.....I agree with you 100%.

 

[Wgw]

Yes, I'm a member of a Methodist church. If I just got wet, that's fine with me. However, I believe it was a statement of my faith in Jesus that I was unable to make as an infant baptized in the Catholic church. Call it whatever is required, but baptism doesn't get you into Heaven and, prior to my conversion, I lived an ungodly life. Now I'm alive in Christ. The water is just an outward sign of an inward change that is ongoing in me. Praise God!!!!!!!!!!! God is so good!

As a positive statement of your new Methodist faith you could certainly be confirmed, or profess the creed? On Pentecost Sunday in my new Church we get liberally splashed with holy water using palm leaves, and on Epiphany, Russians will swim in freezing water cut out of the ice.

It is not legalism by the way for the United Methodist Church to expect her elders to conform with the Book of Discipline, or the ancient tradition of the Apostolic Faith. Also, your interpretation of Baptism points to a sacramental theology that is at odds with Methodism, at least if extended to the Eucharist (Wesley did not believe in Baptismal Regeneration, but I think he did believe that a real transmission of grace occurred; frankly Wesley can be hard to pin down because his theology was driven by three forces: his opposition to the lukewarm Calvinism that was predominant in the Church of England in which he served, his own mystical experiences such as the Aldersgate Incident, and a desire to follow the practices of the Apostolic church, which in his Trinitarian theology and his doctrine of Entire Sanctification (read: Theosis), he succeeded brilliantly).

The early Church could also be shockingly "legalistic." Read the Didache, the Apostolic Constitutions of St. Hippolytus (dated AD 200), the Didascalia or the Pedalion sometime (the latter includes the so called Apostolic Canons and rhe canon laws of the Seven Ecumenical Councils: it is still in force in the Eastern Orthodox Church). However, this insistence on a canon is not Pharisaical when it is animated by a spirit of love. One thing that really frightens me are the Calvinist and Baptist churches like those in 9Marks which talk endlessly of Church Discipline.

 

[JCFantasy23]

The whole rebaptism thing is why I am not able to be a member of the church my husband decided on when we moved south (a non-denom). They refuse to accept my Methodist baptism and I refuse to go thru, what would be for me, a sham ceremony. It would have no meaning for me and would give the wrong impression to those observing. For the most part the pressure has died down for me to "convert and be baptized", but it rears its ugly head from time to time. And my non-member status didn't stop them from electing my husband as a deacon.

How odd. I would think that out of all churches, non denom would have accepted your baptism of valid. Don't they preach all faiths and no restriction of denomination rules? Very strange - I don't blame you for not 'redoing it' and becoming an official member.

 

[JCFantasy23]

I refuse to let church legalism steal my joy. God knows my heart. Our pastor didn't require me to be Baptized. He didn't even suggest it. I wanted it and he agreed. I'm sorry for those of you whose churches don't give you freedom in Christ but you do have it! Celticflower.....I agree with you 100%.

My baptism was also such a wonderful day and experience, everything I hoped it would be. That feeling was such a bonding moment between God and I. I was baptised a few years ago at a Methodist church as well by my pastor. He didn't question me about my faith beforehand, but he knew about me already so this could be a reason there.

 

[circuitrider]

By the way, circuitrider, Rev. Jeremy Smith of the Hacking Christianity Blog, who I rather dislike, complained of the existence of "MethoBaptists" who ignore the BOD and baptize any adult who desires it, while limiting infant baptisms to three occasions per year to discourage them. Is there any truth to that, and is it possible one of these fellows illicitly rebaptized KimT?

I read Jeremy's blog on occasion but missed that.

I certainly hope that UMC pastors are not ignoring the doctrine they swore to uphold in their ordination vows to teach some kind of Baptist theology in a Methodist Church.

I don't doubt that KimT had a blessed experience and had an opportunity to profess her faith. Good for her! But that isn't baptism as United Methodists understand baptism. Baptism in the Methodist Church is a sacrament (meaning it is an act of God) and not a profession of faith.

Kim's pastor is doing her and her church a disservice by acting as if he is a Methodist while teaching theology that isn't Methodist and that is forbidden by Church law.

 

[KimT]

"New Methodist Faith?" Wow! Our church is Bible-based and Christ Centered. If you are a Christian, you are part of the Body of believers of which Christ is the Head. Our services are filled with the Holy Spirit, we have gifts of the Spirit, and there is much evidence of fruit of the Spirit. Yes, we are organized as a Methodist church and we report in accordance with the requirements but we recognize that we are ALL ONE CHURCH with Christ the Head.

If I had a friend who came to Christ and asked me to Baptize him or her, I would!

 

[Celticflower]

How odd. I would think that out of all churches, non denom would have accepted your baptism of valid. Don't they preach all faiths and no restriction of denomination rules? Very strange - I don't blame you for not 'redoing it' and becoming an official member.

Most of the non-denoms here only accept and practice baptism by full immersion. Anything else is not considered "valid". More and more "non-denom" is becoming a denomination of its own, and using the label "Christian" seems to make some of them think they are better than the mainline denominations. We left one church due in part to that very attitude.

 

[circuitrider]

KimT, no one is suggesting you aren't part of the body of Christ. What we are struggling with is that it appears your pastor is teaching things that are not part of the doctrine of the United Methodist Church.

When he was ordained he professed that he believed that the teachings of the United Methodist Church are in accordance with the scriptures and he promised to teach those doctrines.

Re-baptism is only one of a small handful of actions by a pastor that are specifically mentioned as being unauthorized conduct for pastors in the UMC.

That is what those of us from other UMC churches are struggling with here. According to the beliefs of the UMC re-baptism is not Biblical or supported Biblically.

I know you probably feel like I'm criticizing your pastor and your church. But as an Elder in the UMC I swore to teach and uphold the teachings of the UMC. When I see teachings that are contrary to what the the UMC teaches being taught in the UMC I am bound by my ordination to say so. It is part of my responsibility to the church.

It is also part of the responsibility of your pastor to obey the Discipline of the Church, to teach its doctrines, and to support its beliefs.

 

[Wgw]

KimT, no one is suggesting you aren't part of the body of Christ. What we are struggling with is that it appears your pastor is teaching things that are not part of the doctrine of the United Methodist Church.

When he was ordained he professed that he believed that the teachings of the United Methodist Church are in accordance with the scriptures and he promised to teach those doctrines.

Re-baptism is only one of a small handful of actions by a pastor that are specifically mentioned as being unauthorized conduct for pastors in the UMC.

That is what those of us from other UMC churches are struggling with here. According to the beliefs of the UMC re-baptism is not Biblical or supported Biblically.

I know you probably feel like I'm criticizing your pastor and your church. But as an Elder in the UMC I swore to teach and uphold the teachings of the UMC. When I see teachings that are contrary to what the the UMC teaches being taught in the UMC I am bound by my ordination to say so. It is part of my responsibility to the church.

It is also part of the responsibility of your pastor to obey the Discipline of the Church, to teach its doctrines, and to support its beliefs.

Circuitrider, if the Elder of my parish had been as comitted to the integrity of Methodism as you are, I probably would not have left.

 

[circuitrider]

Circuitrider, if the Elder of my parish had been as comitted to the integrity of Methodism as you are, I probably would not have left.

That is kind of you Wgw. I'm always surprised when I find UMC pastors that are basically teaching wrong baptismal theology.

My experience is that is is almost always someone from the southern US who has gotten influenced by Baptist evangelicalism. That is all well and good if you are a Baptist. But we aren't.

United Methodists are quite open minded theologically. But our theology of the sacraments is pretty clear and the very serious prohibition against re-baptism is quite clear. It is obviously in the Discipline because some pastor(s) have been doing it and the General Conference wanted to make it very clear that it is forbidden.

 

[Dave-W]

How odd. I would think that out of all churches, non denom would have accepted your baptism of valid. ...Very strange - I don't blame you for not 'redoing it' and becoming an official member.

Yeah - one might think that. But having been in the NON-Denom world before - I can safely say there is no consistancy. Most NDs are actually that in name only, often for political reasons. There are NDs that are identical to Assembly of God and others identical to Southern Baptist. Many are staunch 5 point Calvinists while others are Wesleyan Holiness based. Some even become personality cults.

Pretty much any denomination that has congregational autonomy can become a non-denom. Or someone dislikes something about a denominational church and goes and starts a ND that is exactly the same with the exception of whatever it was they did not like. (often trivial)

So whether they accept others' baptisms as valid or not depends a lot on the history of that particular ND.

Don't they preach all faiths and no restriction of denomination rules?

I have never seen a ND that fits that description.

 

[Celticflower]

I have never seen a ND that fits that description.

The official motto of the one we attend is "Christians only, but not the only Christians". In practice it varies from "Not the only Christians just the best ones" to "Not the only Christians ----wait, yeah we are". All depends on who you talk to on which day and how well they know you. The one thing in my favor is the current pastor has family who are very strong Methodists, so he doesn't hassle me at all.

 

[circuitrider]

Pretty much any denomination that has congregational autonomy can become a non-denom. Or someone dislikes something about a denominational church and goes and starts a ND that is exactly the same with the exception of whatever it was they did not like. (often trivial)

So whether they accept others' baptisms as valid or not depends a lot on the history of that particular ND.

Dave,

You are correct. Non-denom is often a misnomer. The church may not have a denominational affiliation but it leans towards some denomination's beliefs often based on what denomination the pastor came from or the church's early history.

Only a few Non-denom churches actually are inter-denominational or ecumenical in their outlook.

To be honest, I'm very suspicious of non-denominational churches because you never now what you are going to get until you are there. It is like drinking out of a bottle with no label. It could be anything.

Another trend is denominationally affiliated churches hiding their denominational identity by not putting it in the name of the church and even keeping it off their website's main pages. So in effect they are pretending to be non-denominational.

My personal opinion is that this problematic because it either hiding who you really are, giving the impression that you don't think your own faith history is important, or that you are some how ashamed of your denomination.