I would like to correct that Mr. Aand Mrs. Crowe were married two years ago, not one.

How embarressing, that was a cheap shot about the Crowe baptism, my apologies to all, however it does raise questions about what baptism means in the absence of a public congregation.

'How embarressing, that was a cheap shot about the Crowe baptism, my apologies to all, however it does raise questions about what baptism means in the absence of a public congregation. ' P.Sellick

It just means that the private chapelle made it possible for a family to enjoy this precious moment away from nosy people and paparazzi. Anything wrong with that ?

Anne

I was quite shocked to read the comments made regarding the baptism of the son of Russell and Danielle Crowe. Mr Sellick obviously did no research before writing his article or he would have ralised that the ceremony was officiated by the very same bishop who married the couple in 2003. The original building has already been used for a wedding, and the new, larger chapel will most likely be used for other religious gatherings in the future.

The fact that it was a 'private' baptism surely does not lessen the meaning, I am not religious but are you not making a commitment God and not your neighbours? If this is the case, surely a baptism in a stream with just the parents and godparents and the officiant from whichever faith you choose should mean just as much 'in the eyes of the Lord' as it would in a cathedral full of people!

They didn't have to have their child baptised, but they CHOSE to. Surely that should be good enough for any Christian.

Mr. Peter Sellick - It is more than just unfortunate that you sank to the level of the gossip monger Jeannette Walls when you stated that the Crowe's didn't have a church representative at his son Charlie's baptism. It it thoughtless comments like yours that have tended to unfairly tarnish Mr. Crowe's reputation.

A public apology should be given.

cheers

What is your agenda Aubreii and Crowlady? Are you agents of "Mr and Mrs" Crowe? A "public apology," Crowlady!? I'm sure Russ is not so sensitive that he needs you to censure every minor criticism of him.

I can't stand this boutique christianity, whereby some people think their children should be baptised apart from the worshipping community. For infant baptism, there is a corporate responsibility for the child's development in the faith because the child cannot make his/her own commitment.

The problem with infant baptism is that few parents persevere with worship in church--so baptism is made meaningless. Also, infant baptism obscures other aspects of the rite, namely that it is a washing of sin and a partaking of Christ and the Spirit. This is precisely the 'turning away' from sinfulness and 'turning to' God which the child cannot make. All in all, then, infant baptism should be reserved for children of churchgoing folks, and others can have some sort of 'child commitment ceremony' and perhaps be baptised as young people or adults.