Baptism
and Welcoming the “Differently Churched”
How
a question about validity points to conversation, discernment and blessing
L.
Celeste Gardner
The following question was recently
posted to the listserv of APLM Members:
“Do any of you know whether Mormons
baptize by water and in the name of the Trinity? I have a colleague trying to
discern whether a Mormon becoming Episcopal should have baptism or conditional
baptism. He was too young to recall any of the details.”
Responses to the question quickly
pointed out that Mormons do baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy
Ghost, but they mean something different than “our understanding” of the
Trinity (caveat - no we don’t really understand the Trinity). In the
conversation that followed, APLM members considered several questions including:
Can there be true meaning outside of intended meaning? What weight does human
understanding hold in these matters? Does the intention of the community that
enacted the rite affect the validity of the baptism to effect incorporation into the body of Christ? Is there a difference
between incorporation into the body of Christ and incorporation into the Church
catholic? What about pastoral dimensions?
For my part, this brought up issues
related to my own baptism in the Evangelical Free Church. When I joined the
Episcopal Church, my baptism was accepted as valid without question or
conversation other than to ask for some documentation so that I could be
confirmed. But like Mormon baptism, there were questions about the purpose and
actual effect of baptism that might have been explored. Did baptism make me a
Christian? Did it “incorporate me into the body of Christ” and the Church writ
large? Was the primary purpose of baptism public proclamation, personal
devotion, or something else? And don’t even get me started on the purpose of
confirmation…
Pastorally, the acceptance of my
earlier baptism was comforting in that it recognized continuity in my life of
faith, assuring me that I was already acceptable as a Christian. Yet there was
an important measure of discontinuity that I was left to figure out myself. While
my confirmation classes taught me much about church polity, the creed and other
points of theological understanding, a conversation that engaged me by
exploring with me my past ritual life rather than accepting it without question
would have helped me carry the good gifts of my evangelical upbringing more
fully into my new community of faith.
The community accepted my baptism as
valid, and though it did not really make sense, I accepted their acceptance and
the mandate to be confirmed. But casual acceptance is really not acceptance at
all. As one APLM member pointed out, “…unless the
candidate actually begins (at least) the process of constructing meaning for
herself out of the received scripture, tradition, etc., the process has failed,
becoming only indoctrination.” It took many years, many conversations, and countless
instances of renewing baptismal vows that I had never originally taken, for me to make any sense of my ritual experience
– both my baptism as an evangelical and my confirmation as an Episcopalian.
I hasten to add, however, that
attention to the individual is not justified because faith is an individual
matter. Engaging the individuals who walk through our church doors by giving their
spiritual journeys more than a simple
litmus test to determine validity opens up the possibility that we who are “in”
might be blessed by those coming to us. What aspects of baptism and the life of
faith has our denomination minimized in comparison to those hailing from other
traditions?
So to the question of Mormon baptism, I
don’t think the answer is either to simply accept or reject it based on a
standard (water and the Trinity). Rather, the standards should be the framework
in which the community engages each other in conversation and discernment. We
are always enacting meaning dynamically, and Mormon converts, no less than
anyone else, come to us with joys and sorrows. As one APLM member pointed out, “My husband, in the first few years after he left the LDS church, would
stay in his seat at communion during his visit to other churches, because he
was not sure if his baptism was recognized. Mormons are all too aware that other
groups do not consider them ‘real’ Christians. Let's try not to expose our
half-informed prejudices, making it more difficult than it already is for
anyone who happens to show up in our parishes; these people have likely fairly
recently made a break with their families and communities that is so radical
that my husband has referred to it as ‘dying to everyone you know.’”
What might the communities the former
LDS man visited have learned from his new understanding of baptism and the cost
of following Christ faithfully? The
dynamic of blessing includes allowing the “other” to be a blessing. Such a
dynamic is much deeper than inclusivity and is the key to discerning how to
incorporate not only the un-churched, but the differently churched.
Celeste
Gardner is Treasurer of The Associated Parishes for Liturgy and Mission. Her interest
focuses on the performative aspects of ritual.
No comments:
Post a Comment