Dean Anthony Clark agreed to Jack's baptism and recommended they opt for the later 6 p.m. service, since those who worship at that time tend to be the most "open" in the mixed conservative and liberal congregation. The evangelical Bishop of Central Florida, Gregory Brewer agreed, "Please know that I never forbade baptism to this child, nor did I instruct others to forbid his baptism. I am meeting with the parents this week to remedy this very sad situation."

Then something went wrong.

On Thursday, April 16, the Dean Clark contacted the parents regarding "a development" concerning the baptism. The Dean shared that there were members of the congregation who opposed Jack's baptism. Although he hoped to resolve the conflict, he had not yet been able to do so.

The Dean also said that the family was meeting with the bishop this week, which was confirmed by the family when Rich, the father, posted an update, "Hi Everyone, the support from so many near and far in the past day and a half has been truly inspiring and we are very appreciative. Earlier today church leadership reached out to us and we will be talking with them about Jack's baptism. So at this point, it seems as though the family is still intent on getting their son baptized and the Cathedral and diocese are working to find a resolution."

It is no secret that the Bishop of Central Florida, The Rt. Rev Greg Brewer holds conservative views. He is one of the self-identified Communion Partners, who opposed the authorization of the liturgy for blessing same-sex marriages at the last General Convention. But in their Indianapolis Statement, they didn't go so far as to propose denial of baptism to LGBT persons or their families. What they did write was: "We are committed to the gay and lesbian Christians who are members of our dioceses. Our Baptismal Covenant pledges us to "respect the dignity of every human being (BCP, p. 305), and we will continue to journey with them as together we seek to follow Jesus."

When two bishops, several theologians, and a psychologist were approached by VOL for their opinion, most believed the action taken by the dean and the bishop was not in accord with Scripture or Anglican ecclesiology or polity.

"Baptism it is a covenant ordinance and clearly the two homosexuals concerned are in contravention of a covenant relationship with God, and have also tainted his covenant of marriage. They are disqualified on every count and the baptism would be a blasphemy, a sinful application of the rite, and a repudiation of the gospel of holiness. Disobedience upon disobedience mounts up in this case. Concern for a child may be legitimately expressed in prayer and the infant certainly needs that. Baptism in this instant would not simply be invalid but an insult to God and an offense to his people. It flies in the face of the essence of Christian faith. That the church is prevaricating over this shows the extent of our loss of discernment and allegiance to the sovereignty of the Lord Jesus. Canaan invades Jerusalem," wrote Anglican priest theologian Roger Salter, a frequent contributor to VOL.

"The whole lifestyle of these men are a blasphemy when they pretend their sexual relations are not sinful and when they assert that it will not harm the child in any way. To get the Church involved deepens the blasphemy. Jesus said that it would be better if a millstone were tied around their necks and they were thrown into the midst of the sea than for a little one to be harmed ... as they intend to brainwash this little one. The parents are in big trouble with the Lord, but what about the child?" wrote Dr. Bruce Atkinson, psychologist and commentator on Anglican matters.

"It is not the child's fault that he has defective caretakers. The real question comes down to what actually happens (and what does not happen) during the baptism of infants? What does sacrament actually accomplish and what is God's will regarding such things? How important is the parents' involvement?"

Atkinson opined that unadopted orphans can be baptized, but these are not in the same category as two openly non-celibate gay men bringing their baby forward for adoption.

"The Anglican Articles point toward the grace of God operating in Holy Communion regardless of faulty clergy or others. Does this apply as well to infant baptism with an illegitimate parents, parents living in sin, and thus no marriage?"

The retired Bishop of South Carolina, the Rt. Rev. C. FitzSimons Allison said. "If they could respect the teachings of the Christian Church regarding marriage, even if they disagreed, I would ask them to find godparents who shared the Church's teachings and could say the vows for the child."

Anglican Communion Institute theologians weighed in on the issue saying that because an infant is unable to make a profession of faith, the Anglican understanding of Christian initiation requires that this profession is made on behalf of the infant by parents and godparents who thereby undertake to raise the child in the fullness of the faith--the "full stature of Christ."

But can or will two gay men living in sexual sin be capable of fulfilling that profession?

"Baptism is a rite of the church not a civil right of the individual and parents. It is certainly not some kind of medieval amulet against ill fortune for babies," say the ACI theologians.

Under the Anglican concept of "lex orandi, lex credendi" (the rule of prayer is the rule of faith), the public worship of the church is the teaching of the church. When a same sex couple (or an unmarried couple) presents their child for baptism, they are required to answer publicly the following question:

"Do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you from the love of God?

I renounce them."

This question and answer, as well as others in the baptismal covenant, unavoidably present the question of what the church's teaching on sex outside traditional marriage really is. If the same sex or unmarried couple answers this question affirmatively, they and the officiant are publicly proclaiming that the teaching of the church does not consider their relationship sinful. Under the lex orandi standard, that is the teaching of the church.

"I don't believe these parents in this highly irregular relationship can give the appropriate assurance and the infant should not be baptized; or the promises on behalf of the child must be made solely by the godparents who do accept the teaching and the responsibilities associated with it; or finally, the rite must be changed to delete any reference to church teaching," said the ACI theologians.

However the Rt. Rev. Daniel H. Martins Bishop of Springfield took a more cautious position and said this; "In light of traditional church teaching, the household structure in this case is indeed quite irregular. It is theologically and pastorally problematic to hold out a same-sex domestic relationship, even one that is a "marriage" under civil law, as on a par with a married couple who are presenting the offspring of their relationship for baptism. Yet, if one holds a Catholic understanding of the sacraments, as the Episcopal Church by its formularies does, God's grace is objectively present in the sacramental action for the benefit of the one receiving the sacrament--in this case, Jack.

"It serves no worthy end to withhold that grace from an innocent child when it is being requested by those responsible for his care. As for the ability of those presenting him to renounce sin, follow Jesus as Lord, and be faithful to the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, my suspicion is that they would be making those promises with uncrossed fingers and a clear conscience. One might surely question the conclusions to which their moral reasoning has led them, but if they have come to that place in good faith, they should receive the benefit of the doubt. There is certainly nothing to be gained by peremptorily turning them away for the sake of theological purity, and potentially much to be lost. I would baptize the child. On the baptismal certificate and in the parish register, I would list only the biological father as a parent and his partner as a godparent/sponsor. That way, the child is not penalized, but the relationship between the two who are raising him is not held out as exemplary."

END