hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (02/09/90)
In article <Feb.7.03.18.31.1990.18158@athos.rutgers.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: >The situation in the Episcopal Church is twofold; there are two different >levels of openness. As far as *individuals* are concerned, anyone properly >baptized is welcome to partake. (Believing JWs, Unitarians, and Mormons >are therefore not welcome.) Well, as a practical matter most Mormons (LDS) would not want to take communion in an Episcopalian service. However as a matter of curiosity I wonder why they think the LDS baptism is improper. Is there some element in the Episcopalian (and other protestant) baptisms not in the LDS baptism? [There was a discussion of this about a year ago. As far as I know, the LDS baptism follows all the necesary forms. I would regard it as valid. Let's start with the Catholic tradition, because that defines acceptability of Baptism pretty clearly. As a result of the Donatist controversy, it was established that even baptisms conducted by heretics and schismatics are acceptable. What is necessary is (1) that it follow the proper form and (2) that the person doing it must intend to do what the Church does, i.e. that he intends it as a Christian baptism. Protestants aren't necessarily bound by church councils, but I don't know of any suggestions by the Reformers that these rules should be changed. Even during the height of Protestant/Catholic misunderstanding, we accepted each others' baptisms. So I think we can assume that the same criteria are used by most Protestants. (The exception is groups that require adult baptism and immersion. But even there as far as I know they will accept baptism by any Christian church that uses those forms. And their baptism is accepted by other churches.) So in order to avoid accepting LDS baptism, we'd have to establish either that there was something wrong with the form they used, or that they didn't intend to do what the Church does. The last time we investigated this, an LDS correspondent said that they baptize with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This seems to take care of the form, except from the Baptists perspective, and as I recall the LDS do adult baptism by immersion as well. They certainly say they intend their baptism to be Christian. The main objection I can see is that apparently (and here I'm depending upon memory of the last go-round in this group) LDS do not accept other groups' baptism. Based on this, one could certainly come up with an argument that they don't intend to do the same thing that the Church does. One way to operationalize "the same thing that the Church does" would be to ask questions like "do you intend your baptism to do the same thing that baptism done by X does?" where X ranges over a number of denominations whose baptisms we don't doubt. Presumably they would have to answer "no" to that question if they don't consider other groups' baptism to be valid. But this may be taking things too literally. It's not that they think they're doing something different than what the rest of us are doing. It's that they don't think we have the authority to do it. I believe they do accept Catholic baptisms done up to some early date, at which point they believe the Church in some sense died. In summary, the answer to Hal's question is that if you don't accept our baptisms, you shouldn't be shocked that we conclude you mean something different than we do and don't accept yours. But in practice I think we should be a bit more charitable about things. Otherwise we're going to have to start refusing to accept Baptist baptisms. I think the Baptists are making a big mistake in rejecting the one area where we still have unity in the Church, but I don't propose to make things worse by putting up the wall from my side too. --clh]
ejalbert@phoenix.princeton.edu (Edmund Jason Albert) (02/12/90)
At the Episcopal services here at Princeton, LDS members are permitted to receive communion, since baptism was administered in proper form. Jason Albert Princeton University
dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) (02/12/90)
Our Longsuffering Moderator writes: >Otherwise we're going to have to start refusing to accept Baptist >baptisms. I think the Baptists are making a big mistake in rejecting >the one area where we still have unity in the Church, but I don't >propose to make things worse by putting up the wall from my side too. > >--clh] Hmm. A couple of points here. First, to say "The Baptists say <belief>" is pretty misleading. There is no central Baptist dogma-making body, no Baptist creed, no Baptist Internal Affairs police to check on you to make sure you're teaching "Baptist Theology". (The Southern Baptist Convention seems to *want* this role, but that's another story...). Baptists are a loose collection of independent congregations, and when I say independent, I mean it with a vengeance. The two traditional focal points of belief for Baptists (that is, the ones that tend to make them want to share a label) are (1) believer's baptism by immersion, and (2) priesthood of the believer (not necessarily in that order). Priesthood of the believer means that each individual believer is free (and competent) to interpret the Scriptures for herself, and requires no intermediary (other than Christ) in dealing with God. An immediate consequence of this is the impossibility of having a central body of doctrine/dogma which all Baptists must share. This extends to the idea of baptism. The Baptist churches I grew up in all practiced adult baptism by immersion. I don't want to get into all the arguments against infant baptism, but I suppose it's possible that Baptists see baptism as meaning something different from other denominations' interpretation. Certainly, anyone who would baptise a baby can't mean what the congregations I have been in mean by it. So, to this extent, perhaps we shouldn't expect Baptists to accept other forms. However, the fact is that most Baptist congregations I have seen will accept members of other denominations as members without re-baptism. So generalizations are a bit slippery here. I'm curious to know: what are the interpretations of baptism by various groups? Does the act qua act have spiritual significance, without reference to the beliefs of the participant? Is the physical display necessary, or can it be an "internal" thing? Is water necessary? Any liquid? Who can perform a baptism? Why? So many questions... -- David M. Tate | "The logarithms of 1,2,...,10 to base 10^(1/40) dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | are conveniently close to whole numbers, which | when you think about it, is why there are 12 "A Man for all Seasonings" | semitones in an octave." -- I. J. Good. [verrryyyyy interesting. Has anyone else seen Baptist congregations accept people as members who have not been baptized as adults by immersion? In previous discussions about baptism, we've seen a variety of different things that it symbolizes for different people. Among other things, it marks the entrance into the Christian fellowship, it makes visible God's call to us to, it symbolizes our participation in Christ's death, and it formalizes our acceptance of God's call. Traditions that consider infant baptism inappropriate are emphasizing aspects of the tradition based on a reasoned response. Those who consider it appropriate are emphasizing baptism as a mark of entrance into the covenant people, and God's call to us. They may also be implying that people respond to God no matter what their age, and that there are responses other than mature, intellectual faith which are appropriate for younger people. I would prefer to think of these as different emphases within a common tradition, rather than completely separate sacraments. --clh]
nlt@romeo.cs.duke.edu (N. L. Tinkham) (03/06/90)
Our Benevolent Moderator writes, in response to David Tate: > [verrryyyyy interesting. Has anyone else seen Baptist congregations > accept people as members who have not been baptized as adults by > immersion? I know of a Baptist congregation here in Durham that will receive members from other denominations without re-baptizing them, although I think they are unusual in this. (The congregation is jointly affiliated with the Southern Baptists and the American Baptists, and it is fairly "liberal" by North Carolina standards.) The church of my childhood (a Southern Baptist congregation in Virginia) has what I believe to be the more common policy, that of recognizing only baptism of believers by immersion as valid for membership purposes. That congregation does allow Christians who have not been baptized by immersion but who desire membership (e.g., an elderly person for whom immersion would be a difficult physical ordeal, or a person baptized in infancy who is opposed on principle to being re-baptized) to enter into a sort of halfway membership, called "Watchcare"; such a person would not be able to vote at church meetings but would otherwise be thought of as belonging to the church. Since this congregation has a policy of admitting any Christian, baptized or not, to Communion, the question of "proper baptism" does not arise in the Eucharistic context. (I don't know whether Baptist churches that practice closed Communion admit Watchcare members to Communion, or indeed whether they would offer a Watchcare status at all.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "For Christ plays in ten thousand places, Nancy Tinkham Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his nlt@lear.cs.duke.edu To the Father through the features of men's faces." rutgers!mcnc!duke!nlt