Why I live under a curse

...because I am compelled to read and respond to the various papers presented by the Primate's Theological Commission.  Theology, like all intellectual disciplines, requires time.  An obvious drawback to engaging in dialogue with those who have produced this set of papers is the lack of time to adequately consider all angles of what is being said.  Nontheless, let me begin.  The order in which I am reading these papers is much like how I pick the movies I go to:  mainly based on the titles.  And for further reading, one might consider Pete Rollins' question:  who is a theologian?

Mostly I will respond according to the genre of my generation:  meandering. 

Walter Deller makes gives us some interesting "for instance" examples in his paper: Pastoral Practice and Doctrine—Two Instances of Change and Some Questions They Raise.  He uses two examples:  suicide and baptism of children born out of marriage.  I want first to look at the way he addresses the latter.  He relates the following to us:

As the synod presentation made clear it is still the practice in some parts of the Canadian Church not to baptize children who are born to parents who are not married. I am aware of clergy who have encountered in their ministry individuals who have been alienated from the church for long periods of time because of such refusals within living memory. This offers an interesting reflection point, since this instance is one where pastoral practice is in outright contradiction of doctrine.

He goes on to note that it has never been the doctrine of the church  to formally deny baptism based on the marital status of the parents.  Yet he notes that practices contrary to the teaching of the church have at least existed within the Canadian church.

There are a few problems I see with using this kind of example.  First, it must be noted that the practice was actually contrary to the teaching of the church.  As a model for implementing SSB, I find it less than persuasive.  Look at it this way:  the correction to a faulty practice is to bring it in line with the teaching of the church.  What is missing from Deller's example is the strong fact that this was not a widespread practice, and it was, by all accounts, contrary to the understanding of the sacrament itself.  So I find it rather unconvincing.  It does not prove a blanket "practices can change" principle.  It merely points out a set of clergy (how many? and for how long?) who engaged, of their own accord, in a practice which was contrary to the teaching of the church.  Seems to me that the model actually works against making a case for change...

Comments

[Leslie]

What is the Anglican view of baptism? I am a godparent for a child baptised in the Anglican church. What happened when the water landed on the forehead?