Sunday, April 6, 2008

So what's the deal with baptisms?

Traditionally there are two minimum prerequisites for valid baptism: it must be done in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, using water. Of course, an element of correct intention could be added, too. Pastor's children, even when the above two are fulfilled, do not baptize their Barbie-dolls or even the neighboring Pentecostals' youngest child by re-enacting last Sunday's rituals with their friends.

However, it seems that a new condition is now added in Finland: a person must be baptized into a concrete local church. This would seem to be the outcome in the baptismal battle in the Finnish evangelical-Lutheran Church.

Since this is my first post, and some readers might not be familiar with the Finnish Lutheranism, it is only appropriate that I try to give the fast, basic facts concerning the matter.

  • The Bishops in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Finland do not ordain pastors who are not willing to co-operate in sacris with female pastors.
  • The members of the church not willing to participate in divine service where women clergy are present find it increasingly hard to find any possibility to attend any service anywhere.
  • Confessional laity and pastors together formed The Finnish Luther-foundation in 1999 to organize communal worship life. This far the Foundation has been able to form 14 worshiping communities, koinonias with weekly attendance approx. 2000 members.
  • Due to its strong parochial structure, ELCF does not recognize these communities as congregations.
  • After Swedish Mission Province was founded, six Finnish theologians (me included) have been called, commissioned and ordained into the Pastoral Office to serve these emerging koinonias. Since these pastors are not ordained in the ELCF (due to our stance concerning women pastors) they are not recognized as pastors by the official church.
Well, all clear this far?

Last Fall, my colleague was asked by members of his flock to baptize their child. He did. The problem rose when the parents - who still are members in a parochial congregation - wished to register their child as a member of their congregation. The baptism, conducted by Mission-province -ordained pastor has stirred up a heated debate in Finnish ecclesiastical circles. Quite unanimously the official representatives of the church have judged our actions as schismatic, destructive and arrogant. The joy of baptismal regeneration and defeat of sin, death and devil are buried under an avalanche of resentment.

Infuriating to bishops, officials actually have no choice but to accept the baby. Since the parents are members of the congregation, it would be extremely difficult to deny their child the same membership. And no one has this far dared to suggest re-baptizing these children. However, since January, a new rhetoric has entered into debate. "Are these children 'rightly baptized' or not?"

It all started when Risto Saarinen, the professor of ecumenical studies in Helsinki University blurted in an interview that "The validity of these baptisms can be questioned." The terminology of validity is stong, usually meaning that if validity requirements are not met, then the person is not de facto baptized at all. The reason for casting this shadow is, that according to Saarinen, "It is universally held that a baptism joins a person into a concrete, local congregation."

Why was this not done, then? The answer is simple. First of all, a pastor ordained in Mission Province does not have jurisdictional authorityto join anyone to any ELCF-parochial congregations. He can only do the baptismal rite, and after that inform the right clerk in the church office about the baptism. If he would actually try anything like that, or even publicly claim that the purpose of this baptism is to join a child into this-or-that congregation, he would quite possibly be sued into secular court. One of our bishops has openly stated that in case my colleagues would try to baptize anyone, he would make it a police matter.

Saarinen's blurbs have become almost a mantra in Finnish public discussion, and are now circulated to and fro. Goebbels had it right: if a lie is repeated enough, it becomes a truth. Apparently in Finnish atmosphere of sola ignoratia (wonderful term introduced by Dr. Anssi Simojoki) the required time-span is two months.

The issue is at a stale-mate. Bishops do not dare to openly say that our baptisms are not true sacraments. They try to circle around the nucleus of the question by merely referating church order and using ambiguous expressions such as "these children were not rightly baptised". Even when confronted with the question about validity, they find ways to pass the question.

The latest step in the debate was Helsinki's bishop Eero Huovinen advising senior pastors in his diocese to not join children baptized in this way to their congregations, even if parents are members and ask that. Hopefully Huovinen's bull is meant to be just a temporary solution, since at the present he has created a limbo for these children: they can not be re-baptized, but they cannot be admitted into congregtion, either.

Through the whole debate it has become increasingly - and painstakingly! - clear that for most of our clergy (in the established church, that is) the sacrament of baptism is first and foremost a festive ritual for nothing more or less than registration of a child into church membership. This is the nucleus of Baptism - the juridical registration. Therefore, wherever you might find a pastor without the juridical power to join a child into church register, there you will find a pastor without the proper ability to baptize.

So, the quarrel and debate about ordination, church order and such is one matter. And I realize that the schismatic situation we live in is by no means ideal state ecclesiologically speaking. The way FELC deals with its own dissidents, however, has again revealed a little more about the horrible emptiness which reigns behind the facades. Bishops have not given a single serious theological attempt to resolve the matter or at least prove us wrong! Scripture is not used, the Book of Concord is not used - only sources for debate are the church order from year 1993 and these newly conjured "ecumenically confessed requirements" no one has documented.

What position people support in a debate is one thing. Another thing is the way they do it. The latter is in our ongoing quarrel more abhorring than the first.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for giving us a picture of what's going on.