Infant baptism v. Christening

[chuckd]

I'm new to Presbyterianism and learning a lot. I have a new born daughter and was wondering if there was a difference between baptism and christening. Or are they the same?

Also, are there any objections to dressing her in a gown and having a celebration with family and church members after her baptism?

 

[VictorBravo]

I'm new to Presbyterianism and learning a lot. I have a new born daughter and was wondering if there was a difference between baptism and christening. Or are they the same?

Long ago, Calvin wrote a letter that, in passing, decried a Roman Catholic practice of anointing children's eyes with oil at baptism. He spoke of it as a superstitious addition to the simple and plain rite of baptism.

Nowadays, from what I understand, the RCs don't do that, but the word "christen" means "to annoint." I suspect that somewhere along the line "christen" became synonymous with "baptize," but it also has the connotation of naming a child at baptism. The idea is that the child has been identified as a Christian. I note that modern English dictionaries say that "christen" means "to make Christian."

Being somewhat old-fashioned and reactionary, I tend to think the word "christen" is not appropriate for the sacrament of Baptism, but it may just be a curmudgeon's objection.

I know Anglicans christen, or at least used to. I don't know about Presbyterians. In my Reformed Baptist circles, of course, it would never come up because presumably someone has a name long before they are baptized.

As for the gown and celebration, I leave that to my fellow Presbyterians.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

There was a old, old time when the child was gowned regardless of its gender. I think you should dress your little girl up as you please.

Rejoicing is appropriate on happy occasions. But maybe you can just ask your church if they mind if you folks bring a bit of cake for everyone afterward.

I don't believe Presbyterians commonly use the language "christen." Maybe it's come into fashion in circles I don't run in. I think "baptize" is just more straight-up biblical terminology.

Vic has laid out the meaning/origins of the other term. In some ways, the two words are synonyms; for other connotations, perhaps not.

 

[Pilgrim]

For what it's worth, I'm not familiar with usage of the term "christening" in Presbyterian circles. As Rev. Buchanan notes, some do use the term interchangeably, but in my experience this is most often seen among Roman Catholics and maybe High Church Anglicans.

 

[jwithnell]

I've known quite a few who have made (or had made or inherited) tiny white gowns for baptism with the idea that it would be passed down in the family with children's names added by embroidery. I made one for my boys. I'm not sure of the origin, but at least in my circles it is done with thanksgiving for a means of grace within the covenant community and our particular family. Here's my Uriah in ours.

 

[Jake]

I've heard christen used for infant baptism within a mainline Presbyterian (PCUSA) context once, and that is it.

 

[Jack K]

If I hear a Presbyterian speak of a "christening," I assume they come from a high church or Catholic background and haven't yet caught on to standard Presbyterian lingo. Presbyterians tend to just speak of a "baptism." That keeps the emphasis where it should be, I think, though I don't wrinkle my nose at people who were brought up with different jargon.

Gowns and celebrations are fine so long as they don't upstage the spiritual significance of the event. At the end of the day, it'd be nice if people talk about what was said in the service rather than how adorable the kid looked in a gown or what a sweet party they had afterwards.

 

[jwithnell]

Said and done. Afterward, holding my babies and seeing their wet heads is something I will carry with me into eternity. The gowns take on significance over time. If you've ever seen one that has been used for several generations, it brings a visible reminder that God will be a God to you and to your children.

 

[clark thompson]

Baptism is for those who come to faith which babies have not but having a see to dedication to the Lord is good way for them to one day come to faith.

 

[SeanAnderson]

The Old English verb 'cristnian' (which gives us 'christen') originally meant 'to Christianise' or 'to catechise'.

I always use the word 'baptism', even when others refer to Christenings - it seems 'Christening' is especially used for infant baptism in Britain, though I see no reason to distinguish paedobaptism from credobaptism being a Presbyterian.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Baptism is for those who come to faith which babies have not but having a see to dedication to the Lord is good way for them to one day come to faith.

The OP refers to Presbyterianism, which not only accepts but compels the baptism of covenant infants; thus, an "infant baptism is wrong" argument is perhaps not appropriate in this thread.

 

[hammondjones]

I am reminded of my father-in-law and like cases, where people are born with a tribal name but given a 'Christian name' at their RC christening. That practice is right at home with ex opere operato, where the baptism itself makes-Christian the recipient.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

As this was placed in the general Baptism forum, there is no restriction on Baptists' opining against Presbyterian principles. However it is clear the thread author is not opening up the general practice of infant baptism for review; so please honor the thread topic and not derail it, which this kind of exchange invariably will do. If need be the thread can be moved to the Paedo-baptism safe zone; but is that really necessary? If someone is raring to go on the general topic, feel free to start a new thread, but be careful of the resulting flying fur.

I am reminded of my father-in-law and like cases, where people are born with a tribal name, but given a 'Christian name' at their RC christening. That practice is right at home with ex opere operato, where the baptism itself makes-Christian the recipient.

which babies have not

How could you know this?

Baptism is for those who come to faith which babies have not but having a see to dedication to the Lord is good way for them to one day come to faith.

The OP refers to Presbyterianism, which not only accepts but compels the baptism of covenant infants; thus, an "infant baptism is wrong" argument is perhaps not appropriate in this thread.

Baptism is for those who come to faith which babies have not but having a see to dedication to the Lord is good way for them to one day come to faith.

 

[Pilgrim]

I'm certainly open to correction, but my guess is that the percentage of those who put the infant in a white gown who believe in some form of baptismal regeneration (and who also fear infant damnation should the baby die unbaptized) is pretty high. This kind of mentality dies hard and is all too prevalent today even in churches that do not teach baptismal regeneration.

 

[chuckd]

I'm certainly open to correction, but my guess is that the percentage of those who put the infant in a white gown who believe in some form of baptismal regeneration (and who also fear infant damnation should the baby die unbaptized) is pretty high. This kind of mentality dies hard and is all too prevalent today even in churches that do not teach baptismal regeneration.

I agree. I corrected my wife on this point when discussing our newborn's baptism. If our pastor attends the celebration, I was thinking he could say something along the lines of why we do and do not baptize so our family (who is Episcopalian on my wife's side and credobaptist on my side) does not get the wrong idea from either point of view.

Thank you all for the history on "christen" and gowns (with pics ).

 

[hammondjones]

My son was baptized wearing this underneath his outfit:

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Our guest room is decorated with 5 frames for each of our children. The frames contain a picture of the child at birth, a cast footprint, and the outfits in which each was baptized.