Baptism and the process of Christian initiation

Ecumenical Review, The, Jan-June, 2002 by Paul S. Fiddes

A notable feature of the Toronto report was a concern for Christian growth and nurture, expressed in the recovery of the ancient practice of the catechumenate. The report proposes that the actual term "catechumenate" should be reserved for candidates who are as yet unbaptized and who are preparing for baptism as believers. Those already baptized as infants who are engaged in the making of a personal confession of faith for themselves, or the renewing of baptismal vows, should not be regarded as catechumens, but as participating in a "catechumenal process" (3.13-15). This latter term can be used for any pattern of Christian formation, and so the baptized and unbaptized can share together to a certain extent in the same process, while taking seriously the baptismal status of the candidates. The Toronto report is emphatic that "baptism is the full and complete rite of initiation into the church", and so it follows that no further rites are needed before admission to communion (4.2). However, it also recognizes that "the journey of the baptized in their exploration of the life of faith is a process punctuated by failure and forgiveness, repentance and renewal" and that such moments may be marked by "other rites of commitment" (3.19, 40). If persons have "continued within the life of the church without a deep personal grasp of the reality signified in baptism" then "an opportunity for them to renew their baptismal commitment may be provided through a rite of confirmation or reaffirmation of faith (2.10)". The report suggests that this rite does not have to be the traditional form of confirmation. It could be any form of reaffirmation of faith, and it might be repeated several times during life as needed; it might well coincide with a rite marking the entrance to adulthood, but it might not.

We see here a language of process for Christian nurture ("catechumenal process") employing terms of growth and development, and allowing for various ritual expressions of the journey of faith. But--except for the one reference to the eucharist noted above--there seems a deliberate avoidance of the notion of a "process of initiation". Initiation is located in the moment of baptism, followed by a process. Here it is in full accord with the earlier report on Christian initiation (the Ely report) of 1971, which is perhaps the first Anglican document of modern times to affirm baptism as "the one and complete sacrament of Christian initiation". While the whole of life is a "progressive realization of what baptism effectively declares in a single sacramental moment", the report insists that "there can be no place for any further degrees of initiation, since nothing can be added to baptism". (20)

In between these two reports, however, a different Anglican tone sounds in the response of the Church of England to BEM. It approves "the insistence on the process of initiation", and determines "to deepen our understanding of the different stages in the initiation process". (21) Confirmation is characterized as "marking a stage in the process of growth in the Christian family" as a Christian "moves into conscious and personally appropriated faith". But is confirmation, then, a part of initiation? The question is not clearly answered in the equivocal statement that "baptism, followed after some years by confirmation is, we believe, a feasible approach to sacramental initiation". (22) Ambiguity is deepened by the following statement that "seen in this light, confirmation is not elevated to the dignity of being utterly necessary for salvation, but is a true means of grace ..." This prompts such questions as: Is "utterly necessary" different from "necessary"? Is any sacramental act "utterly necessary" for salvation? And if the particular act of confirmation is not necessary for initiation, is there a necessity for some moment of owning faith for oneself? In my concluding section I shall try to explore these basic issues in the context of a theology of process.

 

BNET TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
Click Here
advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement

Content provided in partnership with Thompson Gale