Church of Scotland 'to introduce online baptism'

Church of Scotland 'to introduce online baptism' in bid to boost membership (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/17/church-of-scotland-to-introduce-online-baptism-in-bid-to-boost-m/).

The further, and sad, retreat of ecumenism. One of the simplest and strongest statements of ecumenism which Christians have been able to make is that we all share the same Baptism, and thus at the most basic level share an identity as Christians.

But as more and more communities move further away from formerly shared understanding, with things like this proposal, that will become less and less true as time goes on (i.e. sacramental and incarnational Churches, like Catholics and Orthodox, will never accept as valid virtual sacraments).

Perhaps they will lose some members to the much smaller Free Church of Scotland as happened with their decision to admit an avowed practising homosexual to a ministry in Aberdeen.

For me I think it neglects the community side of baptism. Baptism is not just like registering your name as a member of an organisation; rather it is becoming a member of a community through a public sacramental act with the community.

>3 John5918:

To be fair, online communities can be real and meaningful communities.

And for a non-sacramental community, it is hard to argue they can't have the most important aspects of a faith community from their POV, like the sharing of God's word etc.

>4 hf22: To be fair, online communities can be real and meaningful communities.

A little bit like LT?

>4 hf22:, >5 Taphophile13:

Fair comment, but I'm not sure that the Church of Scotland is an online community like LT!

What does baptism do?

I'm disappointed to see the sad retreat of ecumenism appears to have reached the point of repeating uncritically any old nonsense from the British press that appears to show another church in a poor light.

The Church of Scotland have quickly published a press release rebutting the Telegraph's claims: Church dismisses media reports of 'online baptism'.

The Legal Questions Comittee report which the Telegraph cites can be found online here - the relevant section is headed "9. Proxy Voting, Remote Attendance at Meetings and the Implications for Membership of 'Online Attendance'"

>6 John5918:

Not yet. But clearly the proponents of this proposal accept in principle that it could include or be such a community.

>8 rwb24:

That does not really rebut the claim. It confirms they are discussing it, which is all the media reports suggested in the body of their articles. The headline was of course over egged (to introduce etc), but that could be seen by the text of the articles themselves.

>7 richardbsmith:

A number of things. But relevantly here is it is the sacramental bond of the unity of Christians.

Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, they are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."

>10 hf22:

Quoting the Telegraph headline without qualification, and discussing 'the most extreme interpretation of what may be discussed' as though it were a concrete proposal, does not do the CofS justice.

The specific Telegraph article linked shows that their own correspondent is perfectly well aware the claim is spurious (and even incorporates quotes from the rebuttal); but they're happy to repeat it for clicks and controversy. Other press reports have been more naive: eg.

BAPTISM is set to go online for the first time as the Church of Scotland attempts to bring the digital age to its worshippers.

Online baptism is just one of the plans due to be presented to delegates at the Kirk’s annual gathering on The Mound in Edinburgh next week. Other proposals (sic) include allowing “access to the sacraments while not being physically present in the congregation”.

>12 rwb24:

Quoting the Telegraph headline without qualification

That is just how I generally link things - By Quoting the headline. No endorsement of the headline is intended.

Discussing 'the most extreme interpretation of what may be discussed' as though it were a concrete proposal, does not do the CofS justice.

Not really. It is to be discussed. That is news. Once they decide to actually adopt something, that may also be news.

It has also been pointed out elsewhere by an actual proponent of such things, the author Teresa Berger, that (not a member of the CofS BTW):

This is not new, to begin with. The first (self-proclaimed) online baptism was posted on YouTube a good many years ago — and it is quite a remarkable, multi-layered event… Of course it raises a multitude of questions. No doubt about that. But so do claims about ecclesial “belonging” and physical proximity that seem unable to acknowledge how profoundly these givens have been reconfigured in digital realms.

So it can't be pretended people don't seriously want these kind things, because they most certainly do, and are already discussing it in various places. Even if the desire and discussion is rather vacuous.

Is the sacramental bond of baptism restricted to the water. Or could a sacramental bond exist just from a decision to share a bond.

Do we have to pour water?

>13 hf22:

That is just how I generally link things

And the thread title?

It is to be discussed. That is news.

Some catholic liturgists apparently think there may be merit in online baptisms (if you have correctly understood Prof. Berger). That doesn't need to be telegraphed around the world by press agencies. Probably some presbyterians (and I suspect at least one on the CofS Legal Questions Committee) think there may be merit in housebound parishioners being invited to join in with webstreamed communion services. Neither of these views is that of their respective church, nor likely to be endorsed as such within the foreseeable future. No assembly is being asked to debate them.

The online communion issue is far more likely to have been in mind than the - more bizarre - suggestion of 'online' self-baptisms, notwithstanding the generic reference to 'sacraments'; that is at least a question in the air. A few years ago the British Methodist church asked its Faith and Order Committee to report on whether such a form of Holy Communion is acceptable - the resulting report listed reasons to unequivocally reject such practice as so compromising the integrity of the sacrament it was not possible to recognise it as the Lord's Supper, and recommended a formal policy banning ministers from attempting such; but there are still voices in favour.

>15 rwb24:

And the thread title?

Same deal.

That doesn't need to be telegraphed around the world by press agencies.

Prof. Berger speaks for herself, and no one else. If however her suggestion was being discussed by a Pope, Vatican department or Synod, then that would be news, even if it were likely to be rejected. Refer the recent news on deaconesses for such half suggestions of study being treated as a big deal.

No assembly is being asked to debate them.

The official CofS document, and their clarification, both indicate this IS the type of thing which will be discussed. So news. News which had a clearly misleading headline, granted. But certainly news.

The online communion issue is far more likely to have been in mind than the - more bizarre - suggestion of 'online' self-baptisms

Well, online communion is no less weird to Catholics, and is only less horrifying because we already don't think things like the CofS have valid communion. But I am aware online communion has been a thing in some communities for some time - There was discussion of it with reference to the Anglican Cathedral of Second Life many years ago for example.

>14 richardbsmith:

From a Catholic POV, yes. A sacrament requires not just intention, but also matter. And the matter of baptism is water.

It is a matter of incarnational doctrine. We are not just mind or spirit, but body as well, even after the resurrection.

There is a baptism of desire of course, but this not a sacrament, but God's mercy covering for its lack in cases of impossibility.

We choose our symbols and our rituals.

If the water washes away original sin or just sin, then we need the water.

If Christ's work on the cross takes care of sin, then water is just something we made holy.

We can make something else holy.

Our choice.

>18 richardbsmith:

Well again, from a Catholic POV, we did not choose them. Christ did. He was baptised in water, he offered his body / blood as bread / wine.

And this is where Christianity, respectfully, differs from the modern world. The incarnated world is not our choice, subject to our unfettered will, but a gift of God whose givenness must be recognised. Wherein you might see how the seamless garment of our incarnational faith might equally answer sacramental questions with the same words as it answers various other hot button issues!

But lets avoid the dead horse territory.

>8 rwb24:

Thanks for clarifying that. I have to confess I never even read the article but just responded in general terms to comments in this thread. Mea culpa.

>14 richardbsmith: Do we have to pour water?

I think water is pretty universal amongst Christians as the symbol of baptism, whether it be a sprinkling or a full immersion. One would have to have a pretty good reason to depart from such a well-established symbol, and it would tend to put one at odds with the rest of the Christian church.

I don't think it's just about washing away sin. Water is a symbol of life, and baptism is new life. Also, the symbol probably originates with Jesus being baptised in the Jordan by John.

In the Catholic Church "baptism of desire" is recognised, ie someone who really wants to become a Christian but there is no possibility of being baptised, and also "baptism of blood" in the case of martyrdom.

>15 rwb24:

In light of subsequent comments it appears, in assuming people would actually read the article, I have over-estimated the audience. Accordingly I concede quoting the article headline was effectively misleading, and I will take more care going forward. Apologies.

>16 hf22:

Refer the recent news on deaconesses for such half suggestions of study being treated as a big deal.

Indeed. I view that sort of press coverage poorly too. Remember a year or two ago when Francis was reported to have declared pets now go to heaven?

The official CofS document, and their clarification, both indicate this IS the type of thing which will be discussed.

I still personally doubt - and find nothing in these documents to suggest otherwise - anyone on the committee had even dreamed of online baptism before they read it in the papers. But I'll drop this line of discussion in light of your gracious apology for unintentionally misleading use of the headline. Para 9.6 of the report does seem to have given hostages to fortune whatever its intent, and online baptism is certainly a possible (if 'extreme') interpretation of what they wrote they wanted to research; it's probably on the agenda now, even if only to rule it out.

I remember some years ago a man demanding (in UK) to be "unbaptised". He wanted it done in some formal way as if there was some sort of rite for this. Many commentators naturally took the view it was permanent and couldn't see how it was a problem as he could just forget about it rather than regard it as some sort of burden. I don't know how the issue was resolved - if it ever was. With online baptisms one could presumably change one's mind and press an "undo" button.
There was a short piece in the Times as well on the issue as well - so not just a Telegraph thing.

There are resources which offer unbaptism.

I guess a baptism out of the body, a taking off of Christ.