Wednesday 26 October 2016

Infant Baptism: An Anglican Model for Same Sex Blessings?

No babies were harmed in the making of this blogpost
As I looked out over the crowded church, something struck me.

I was saying, to a 100 non-churchgoers who had gathered to celebrate little baby X,  that in the Church of England we baptise tiny babies because it shows that our acceptability to God doesn't depend on anything we achieve.

What struck me anew on Sunday, was that it might be able to help us through our current debates about same sex blessings. Why?

Baptising infants has long been a contested practice. Indeed, my own church here in Durham before I arrived had a policy of only baptising the children of churchgoers. Those denominations which believe in only baptising adults or those old enough to answer for themselves - 'believer's baptism' - have a great deal of sense on their side. Baptism makes you a member of the Church, so doesn't it make sense to wait until someone can say whether that's what they want? But the main churches of the Reformation - Calvinists, Lutherans, Anglicans - have always held fast to the principle that babies can indeed be baptised. Partly this is because these 'magisterial' denominations have always been partially concerned about civic cohesion as well as right belief, but partly it is due to the fundamental theological principle that we are saved by God's grace, not by our own 'works'.

That's a theological principle that was the bedrock of the Reformation - but it predates it by a long way. It was core to Augustine's understanding of Christianity, for example. The idea that we could, by working hard enough at being a good Christian, contribute to our own salvation was condemned as the Pelagian heresy by the early church councils.

So infant baptism quickly becomes a test case, almost a thought experiment, in whether we actually believe this or not. Do we actually believe that God's grace is enough, or do we think that we have to do something towards our own salvation? For the early reformers such as Luther, that was anathema. Infant baptism became a cause celebre because it was seen as proof that a church really believed, or didn't really believe, that God's grace was all-sufficient for our salvation.

I think this is still the case. Baptising babies in a church full of non-churchgoers, however much preparation you have done with the parents and godparents in advance, always feels like an act of pure faith in God's power to do something amazing with the tiny resources we offer.

Not doing so - insisting on the ability to make a coherent statement of faith, or insisting on a show of commitment from parents and family first - in many ways is more obvious. It is common sense. It is logical. Baptising a baby with none of this, just the bare minimum of parents and godparents being prepared to come to church and say or mumble some simple words of faith, feels risky. It feels transgressive. It is a powerful symbol of the Church's trust in God's power to save, regardless of how good or bad the individuals' faith or practice might be or seem.

So I wonder whether this Anglican heritage of infant baptism provides a fresh lens through which to examine the question of blessing same sex partnerships?

The problem we have come up against repeatedly in our debates so far is the seemingly intractable one of whether same sex (sexually active) relationships are inherently sinful or not. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't see our different views on that particularly fraught question being resolved anytime soon. And at the moment, our debates have been stuck there, with one side wanting blessings to prove that they aren't sinful, and the other side determined not to be seen to be blessing sin.

But what if we take the infant baptism approach, and ask instead  whether our practice in this matter reveals a theology of salvation by works, or by grace? Hard cases make bad law, we are told: yet in the case of infant baptism, that is exactly the approach that we have taken. Baptising babies is a 'hard case' in testing out whether we really believe that God can save regardless of any effort on our part.

At the risk of offending same sex couples who may feel hurt at being described as a hard case (I know I hated women being discussed as a problem, so I'm sorry), I suggest that a fruitful way forward in our current impasse may be to take this approach to blessing same sex relationships. That is, you might not think they are a good idea. You might think that they are sinful. You might think that they are not God's plan. In which case, blessing them or not is a good test of whether you really believe that our salvation depends on God's grace alone.

Personally, you see, I really think it does. I really think, and preach, that our salvation comes from what Jesus has done for us, not on what we earn for ourselves.

Believing that, it seems to me that baptising babies and blessing relationships that many in the church think are dodgy are both great ways of demonstrating that our belief as a Church is that God's blessing doesn't depend on our works-righteousness but on His grace alone.

Our statement that we were prepared to do these blessings as a Church could say explicitly that people remain divided about whether same sex relationships are sinful, but that we are taking this opportunity to make the point that it doesn't matter whether they are or not. Every one of us is complicit in sin, some we recognise, some we don't even see as sin, some we are ashamed of, some we are perversely proud of. We preach as a Church that God is greater than all this, and that what Jesus has done for us is sufficient for our salvation. Do we really believe that?

20 comments:

  1. Interesting! In a similar way Romans 1, in context (Chapters 1-3), is showing that all of us are equally in need of grace. Nobody stands on their own merit. So it is a sad irony when it is used to show one category of people is beyond the pale compared to 'us'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you're on to something here. I've always felt that the underlying logic of the CofE's approach to baptism is, as you've said, a trust in the grace of God despite all else. (Of course, I'm coming from a fairly low sacramental theology, so this isn't necessarily a view shared by everyone...) However, I'm not sure that it's so easy to move from the theology behind the liturgy of baptism to the theology behind the liturgy of same-sex relationships. In baptism we are asking for God's blessing on an individual, not knowing what will come of their life, in faith that despite any reservations we might have God will work in and through them. In blessing a relationship, however, we are doing more than asking for God's blessing on two individuals. We are asking for God's blessing on their decision to enter into a relationship (and generally one assumed to be open at least the possibility of being sexual). Although I would hope that all of us, irrespective of our views, would be happy to pray for God's blessing on two individuals (who we know are made and loved by God), some of us feel that the decision they are making goes against God's will for them. This is different from being uncertain about whether things will work out well (where trusting in God's grace is a legitimate thing to do).
    I do think, however, that the theology you outline would be a good basis for a liturgy for coming out, something which at present has no liturgical provision, but perhaps should have?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "some of us feel that the decision they are making goes against God's will for them"

      Have you---or anyone in the nameless "us"---never attended an *opposite-sex* wedding where you believed (or at least strongly suspected) the couple's "decision they are making goes against God's will for them"? Knowing how often marriages fail (sadly, I speak from experience), isn't blessing ANY marriage a radical act of faith (trust)? Why would it be so difficult to extend that trust just a bit further, when the pastoral need is so evident (and "some of us feel" the couples' self-giving love is obvious)? Why, oh why, must the church be so MISERLY w/ its blessings?

      Delete
    2. Be cause the church first is called to be the salt and light of the world, to be pure and holy - according to God's value, and not adopt the world's value.

      Yes, marriages have a high failure rate, I do think we need to pray for married couples - a man and woman marriage.

      It is not about being miserly with blessings, but we need to be clear about what God approves as is written in the Bible. Not what we interpret from the trend of the world.

      But it does not mean that we cannot love them. Or bless them in other areas, like pray for their eyes to be open, or pray for their healing - or do you not see that they are in need of healing? Or bless their honest jobs or bless their health.

      We just cannot bless their marriage as it is a sign of the church approval, and God's approval, even though God does not approve.

      Would you bless a prostitute's job? "Dear Lord, may this prostitute be blessed with more customers, increase the number of people who wants to sleep with her so that she will have more income. "?

      It is absurd right? We would pray for God to bless her for a way out of her situation, to give up the life of sin & be blessed with an honest job!

      This is the same context with same sex marriages, why we cannot bless it.

      And any church which does, is in error in light of what scripture says. There can be no friendship with the world.

      Delete
    3. 'There can be no friendship with the world'?! The world God made, and saw that it was good? The world Christ died to redeem?

      Delete
    4. Hi JCF,

      I'm assuming you're asking the question of me, as you've quoted my reply, so I'll take the liberty of responding (assuming that's ok Miranda).

      To answer the first part of your question, no I've never attended an opposite sex wedding where I've believed that the couple's decision was against God's will for them. I have, however, refused to marry a couple where I had doubts about whether the couple's decision was in accordance with God's will for them. In that case it was because although the couple were undoubtedly in love with each other their relationship had been the cause of the breakup of one of their previous marriages.

      I understand the point you're making, which is that God's blessing must be best understood as vast and all-embracing, and any miserliness in the church's blessing communicates something far less than this. I agree this is deeply problematic. The point I'm making is slightly different. There is a difference between blessing a decision we don't know is the right one but have no reason to believe is the wrong one and blessing a decision we believe is the wrong one, however many good things there might be about it.

      I'm not asking anyone to agree with my understanding, I'm just trying to explain it, on the basis that Miranda was trying to offer an approach to liturgy she hoped might be adopted by people on both 'sides' of this. I'm not sure it will be acceptable to both sides, and I've tried to explain why.

      Delete
  3. article quote: "IT FEELS TRANSGRESSIVE...". Say no more.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Perhaps you are on to something.

    I am in a sinful same-sex relationship with my boyfriend - and we would like to get married! Why is it sinful? Because I am often impatient, selfish, and unloving, I often unthinkingly expect to get my one way. After spending most of my life as a single person I have become accustomed to doing what I like! In short, I am a sinner - and my boyfriend is too!

    So, we can say that every human relationship is sinful. Now in a marriage commitment before God, we should all be seeking to love selflessly and asking God's assistance in doing so - in other words, wanting not to be sinful. But we will still fail.

    That some think that same-sex sexual acts are always sinful can perhaps be seen as more minor point against this understanding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a difference between human weaknesses and something which goes against God's original design.

      God never said we need to be perfect before getting married. But God definitely said that marriage consist of a man and a woman.

      Delete
  5. Thanks for this thought-provoking piece, Miranda. I have to say, though, I don't find it entirely convincing. I'm not sure it works for either 'wing'.

    From the 'left', something of an existential question: I fully agree that the big question 'is same-sex sexual activity sinful?' - it remains the great divide for us. But, if one's answer to that is 'no', why do we need to think about grace and forgiveness at all?

    If one's answer, though, is 'yes' then there are other complications. Baptism is a sign of grace, yes, but it's always given in the context of discipleship (cf Matt 28:19), certainly in the Anglican and I think all major paedobaptist traditions. In the Anglican tradition parents are prepared ahead of the service, and with the Godparents they take vows to bring up the child in the context of church life, and make the declarations on behalf of the child to turn from sin and towards Christ - declarations that the child can make their own at confirmation. Yes we may often be sceptical about the level of parents understanding and commitment, but that is why we do preparation. In the end the baptismal liturgy isn't 'mumbled words', it's Anglican doctrine, and in line, I believe, with the doctrine of the universal church.

    More generally, although grace is free and underserved it never gives us license to do what we want - or to ignore what others are doing. A classic text on this is Romans 6 - Paul strongly refutes the idea that grace gives us a 'free ticket to sin' - rather, it's is a doorway that brings us into union with Christ. By union with Christ, his death and resurrection, we are free not to sin but to turn away from sin in which we are otherwise mired.

    So interesting as your idea is I'm not sure it bridges the gap. To my mind, the way 'forward' - if that's the right way of describing it - has to be through a deeper doctrinal route.

    ReplyDelete
  6. (1) If you ask us to do that, why are we not also encouraged to bless **other** things that we see as sin?
    This looks like favouritism towards one particular sin that people especially want to commit with a clear conscience.

    (2) People cannot bless sin - that is, people who have a conscience cannot bring themselves to bless something they consider to be sin. If people don't have a conscience, then the only answer I can see to that is that they should get one.

    These points seem so obvious and basic that I'd certainly be grateful for a reply if possible.

    Very many thanks

    Christopher Shell.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for commenting Christopher. I think my point is not that we bless sin per se, but that we bless *people*, regardless of their sinful nature/state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We can't bless their relationship which God says is idolatrous.

      Delete
  8. I think there is a difference between baptism and blessing. Baptism speaks of spiritual regeneration, dying of the sinful self and living a new life for Christ - the old has gone and the new has come.

    Blessing in this context of same sex union suggest that God approves and even celebrates the occasion, which is not true whether it is in the old testament or the new testament. It is almost akin to imagining when the children of Israel celebrated & created the golden calf idol. Did God bless them for their idolatry, even if they attributed the golden calf to God?

    The answer is no. And in the same context, it is also no for same sex union. God cannot bless and approve something which is inherently rebellion against His nature and design.

    Does that mean He does not love the sinner? No, I believe He loves the sinner but if you are professing yourself as a disciple of Christ, then you have a responsibility to respond to God's love through obedience to His word.

    Even baptism requires a response from the participants. It is not solely an act from God. Or else everyone would have been saved right? But in reality it is not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely. This article typifies 'turning the grace of God into immorality' (Jude 1:4). One cannot justify something which God universally in his word condemns. It is saying black is white.

      Delete
  9. Please could you explain why your last few paragraphs couldn't equally say:
    At the risk of offending murderers who may feel hurt at being described as a hard case (I know I hated women being discussed as a problem, so I'm sorry), I suggest that a fruitful way forward in our current impasse may be to take this approach to blessing murder. That is, you might not think it is a good idea. You might think that it is sinful. You might think that it is not God's plan. In which case, blessing it or not is a good test of whether you really believe that our salvation depends on God's grace alone.

    Personally, you see, I really think it does. I really think, and preach, that our salvation comes from what Jesus has done for us, not on what we earn for ourselves.

    Believing that, it seems to me that baptising babies and blessing murder that many in the church think is dodgy are both great ways of demonstrating that our belief as a Church is that God's blessing doesn't depend on our works-righteousness but on His grace alone.

    Our statement that we were prepared to do these blessings as a Church could say explicitly that people remain divided about whether murder is sinful, but that we are taking this opportunity to make the point that it doesn't matter whether it is or not. Every one of us is complicit in sin, some we recognise, some we don't even see as sin, some we are ashamed of, some we are perversely proud of. We preach as a Church that God is greater than all this, and that what Jesus has done for us is sufficient for our salvation. Do we really believe that?

    I'm not trying to be offensive. I'd just like to know where you think the line is between behaviour which "may not be" part of God's plan, and behaviour which clearly isn't and requires repentance. Assuming there is a line, what's your reasoning for drawing it where you do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow! What a comparison to choose. Do you really think a same sex relationship is comparable to murder, or are you just choosing a 'hard case' to push my thinking? If the former, then there is little point us debating this here! If the latter - well, obviously I don't want to 'bless murder' but I DO want to bless murderers, yes. Isn't that why we have prison chaplains? We don't withhold chaplaincy from prisoners until they have repented, you know. But really, there is no parallel here and I wonder if you have thought about how hurtful your use of such a parallel might be to those of same sex attraction who might be reading this?

      Delete
    2. What you would not do(presumably) is bless the murderer as he prepares to perpetrate the act? and bless him as he approaches his victim? (this would render you morally & legally complicit in the crime)

      Yes - homosexual marriage is not a 'victimless crime'.

      1Cor 6:18  Flee fornication [sexual immorality]. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

      Delete
    3. (N.B. ...to follow through on the logic of the 'analogy' given above (not drawing direct parallels in the extent and nature of the two actions))

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete