Why Southwell & Nottingham Diocesan Chancellor prevent the use of a portable baptistery

The vicar and churchwardens of St Mary’s, Radcliffe-on-Trent, have been denied a faculty by the Consistory Court of the diocese of Southwell & Nottingham to purchase and store a ‘portable immersion baptistery’ for use in ‘single baptism services’. This equipment could be assembled to form an oval pool with a capacity of 940 litres of water.

“The water used in the portable immersion baptistery would be pumped onto consecrated ground after use, and the pool disassembled and hidden away. The petition stated: ‘The need is to provide adult immersion for a small but increasing number of people coming to faith following Alpha, or who have not been baptised as infants.

There has been a universal demand for immersion baptism, which has necessitated borrowing portable baptisteries from other churches. The Worshipful Judge Mark Ockelton, known as the Diocesan Chancellor, noted that the presence of a font in the church led to questions about the use of a portable baptistery in the parish’s intended manner and whether such borrowed items could be used.

“Canon F1 required that ‘every Church or Chapel where baptism is to be administered shall provide a decent font with a cover to maintain its cleanliness’. He explained that ‘going down into’ water did not inherently mean immersion, rather than standing in water while the officiant poured water over the candidate, as seen almost universally in artistic representations of Christ’s baptism.

“In churches across the Middle Ages, fonts were used to demonstrate the prevalent practice of baptism by methods other than immersion, including for both adults and babies. According to him, most fonts were not meant for immersion, and the doctrine equating baptism by affusion with immersion was frequently linked to a canon from the Second Council of Ravenna in 1134.

“The prescribed rite was! I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” with triple aspersion, meaning the candidate’s head was sprinkled with water, or immersion was used. Neither aspersion nor immersion was suggested to be preferable.

The entire western Church, including the Church of England, has always regarded baptism by sprinkling or pouring without immersion as canonical and effective, a view reinforced by the Book of Common Prayer’s rubric for the ‘Baptism of those who are of riper years’.

The Anglican Church never required baptism to occur through immersion if other lawful methods were provided. Describing it as a ‘pastoral need’ made no difference to the parish. If there was a pastoral need, the Chancellor indicated it could involve teaching that different baptismal methods are equally effective.

He stated, ‘The doctrine and practice of the Church is not determined by those about to join it,’ emphasizing that baptism by immersion was not necessary . In the House of Bishops’ Guidance on Fonts, there was authoritative advice specifically tailored for the Church of England, addressing a growing desire for adult baptisms by immersion.

The guidance declared that it was inappropriate to have a second font in a church for such ceremonies, as the Chancellor remarked that it was ‘not right’ for the sacrament of grace acquisition through baptism to resemble worldly consumer choices.

Immersion would lead to a significant increase in water usage and result in unnecessary water waste, which would be drained off after the baptism. He emphasized that it was the Church’s responsibility to take the lead in the stewardship of natural resources.