I have purposely left the issue of baptism for a couple of weeks to let the dust settle and to give some of those dialogue with me to the opportunity to have a think and, where necessary, regroup.
There are a few areas we still need to consider and these cover such things as the sacramental nature of baptism (for there is more going on than the mere image before us might suggest.
There is the part that baptism plays in the single atoning and salvific act of Jesus, the Christ, on the cross.
There is the stuff that some have made it (baptism), elevating it to the point where it becomes the source of eternal life, forgiveness and much, much, more.
There is a need to try to understand whether we are restricted to something formulaic or free to just 'go, dunk and celebrate' (a quote from a colleague) as some seem to think, What makes a baptism valid and who is fit to receive it (adult, children, all - those who understand*)
The last are to finish this part of the journey is, for me, that of language. A colleague recently (proudly) proclaimed that they, 'Left out most of the words from the current service because they didn't apply.' I have to say that, generally speaking, I think they do apply and the error is not to be found in the words but in the preparation of those coming forward for baptism and the manner in which the service is enacted. The words provide a great opportunity for informing those present and since in my experience, there is no sermon in the short Sunday afternoon slot, this is a gift to the person doing the service.
The journey so far has led me to think of baptism as something that confers membership of the Church and opens the door to the person becoming a Christian - a rather loose term that implies that having that badge confers something that it doesn't. Being 'Christian' is about being a disciple and since I have met many (from ALL church groups, denominations and affiliations) who have been baptised and have never made good their baptismal calling and are certainly not easily recognised as being disciples I have to say that (using the lyrics to a favourite song) that when it comes to baptism: There must be more than this!
I fear it is arrogant, ignorant, or perhaps merely foolish, to presume that a church with those who were baptised as infants are 'unbelievers' in exactly the same way that others see them as 'saved and redeemed' when lifestyle, commitment and their own words prove them not to be. Salvation comes by hearing and doing and unless we preach Christ in and out of season and 'encourage' our members to grow in the faith and become fully-fledged, equipped and released followers of the Way then we condemn them to something less than fullness in their faith and stand condemned in our ministerial inadequacies.
You know - Justin Welby was right about 'Good Vicars' - we need to focus on bringing them in and through to baptism as the 'Go' of the Christian Monopoly board and then along the squares that confer understanding, commitment, engagement, calling (and we are all called) and through to the final square (marked 'eternity with the Boss') rather than all the really important issues that we dissipate our energies on (you know the causes, the rights and the issues I'm sure). Yes, I'm sure they are all 'really important ' and that we do need to make a stand - but we need to get out priorities right and what's the point of getting freedom for people to like (or dislike) Marmite if at the end of the day the bigger issues have been left unattended to and they are doomed because of that shortfall?
So - roll up you sleeves - be prepared to engage and dialogue and respond in a positive and challenging (for we all like to be challenged, don't we?) manner. For this is an issue we need to deal with.
And then we need to ask - what about the person from across town who comes and asks for baptism because their local church wants them to attend for three months - or the person who wants a baptism in a club because 'it will save them having to travel to and from it to the church for the service' ?
Let's play :-)
* If understanding becomes a requirement then few would be baptised or receive communion and fewer still would be baptised!
Showing posts with label infant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label infant. Show all posts
Wednesday, 5 February 2014
Tuesday, 14 January 2014
My Baptism model takes another step forward
(or should that be sideways?)
I am finding that my thinking on baptism is an amazing opportunity for polarisation (which is rather sad), fixed positions and failing to bring about any real dialogue at all thus far.
I have had a number who can see the logic and, through their own experiences, the reality of what I am playing with and stating. There are others who see in baptism something rather magical and, in my extremely limited and humble opinion, something magical that it really isn't.
A few friends have put forward the view that, 'Once you are baptised then you are a Christian!' and you know what, I think they are wrong - and here's why:
Neither engagement or wedding creates a relationship.
In fact the marriage service does not create a marriage either (nor does the signing of the registers)
All of them recognise that a relationship exists
In the same way a 'bill of divorce' does not break up a marriage
but it recognises that the marriage has been broken (and permits a new relationship*)
Baptism does not 'make you a Christian' or 'confer eternal life' or make you a disciple'
But it does make you a member of the Church and that opens the door to becoming a disciple. Eternal life comes through Jesus, the Cross, the resurrection, and all that stuff not through baptism.
Because baptism is the joining moment - it then is up to the believer to decide to become a disciple and this is where it all starts to challenge my previous thinking around baptism. I have to admit that I have made baptism something that it is not (and don't forget there's a 'sacramental' moment within it too) and so I'm reading, challenging and being challenged.
And here's a fun bit:
SO baptism is an act of recognition of who Jesus is and what He did and all that and so
It comes about because because of faith, but whose faith is it?
And that's a good question for as a pioneering church I would expect the people who come to faith, to make that decision of being baptised, to be adults - then, as the church becomes settled I would expect that the children, as they are born to the adults who have come to faith (and I am using the words 'faith' and 'come to faith' quite loosely here) would be added to the church and that, as baptism is the obtaining of the membership card (and we could do covenantal here too of course) that says 'I belong' that this would be the means by which it was done.
But faith is a requirement for baptism!!!
So it is, but then again what is faith and how would you like to measure it? I ask this because I have met people who have come into a church I have been at and told me that they'd been baptised in 'somewhere or other' and how they never went any further. In fact some people have told me how they had been 'a scalp' and then left to their own devices in the church on more than one occasion!
The problem is that some I have met had no faith but were persuaded to be baptised because, 'It would save them from hell!!!'. Others have told me that they were baptised because of convincing arguments and yet they did not believe as some might have expected. More still have told me that they were baptised to please parents, pastors and other influential people in their life.
Baptism is great - but it is the act of discipleship, of personal belief, of 'going on with God' that rings the bell and makes the faith real - bringing with it the badge 'Christian'.
Yes indeedy ladies and gentlemen of the jury - I am having a struggle here because just as I asked whether Matthew 28 was formulaic 'in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit' or a statement of the authority (the name of those in whom we go) we do it in.
An interesting question that has been raised is perhaps the formula was that we should make disciples first and then baptise them:
Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations
Find them, teach them and when they are disciples we take them to the river and
Baptising them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit
we baptise them (in the name of or using the names?)
Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you.
But isn't teaching them to obey part of becoming a disciple?
I think I'd better think it out again :-)
*Now here's room for another battle some time soon I'm sure :-)
I am finding that my thinking on baptism is an amazing opportunity for polarisation (which is rather sad), fixed positions and failing to bring about any real dialogue at all thus far.
I have had a number who can see the logic and, through their own experiences, the reality of what I am playing with and stating. There are others who see in baptism something rather magical and, in my extremely limited and humble opinion, something magical that it really isn't.
A few friends have put forward the view that, 'Once you are baptised then you are a Christian!' and you know what, I think they are wrong - and here's why:
Neither engagement or wedding creates a relationship.
In fact the marriage service does not create a marriage either (nor does the signing of the registers)
All of them recognise that a relationship exists
In the same way a 'bill of divorce' does not break up a marriage
but it recognises that the marriage has been broken (and permits a new relationship*)
Baptism does not 'make you a Christian' or 'confer eternal life' or make you a disciple'
But it does make you a member of the Church and that opens the door to becoming a disciple. Eternal life comes through Jesus, the Cross, the resurrection, and all that stuff not through baptism.
Because baptism is the joining moment - it then is up to the believer to decide to become a disciple and this is where it all starts to challenge my previous thinking around baptism. I have to admit that I have made baptism something that it is not (and don't forget there's a 'sacramental' moment within it too) and so I'm reading, challenging and being challenged.
And here's a fun bit:
SO baptism is an act of recognition of who Jesus is and what He did and all that and so
It comes about because because of faith, but whose faith is it?
And that's a good question for as a pioneering church I would expect the people who come to faith, to make that decision of being baptised, to be adults - then, as the church becomes settled I would expect that the children, as they are born to the adults who have come to faith (and I am using the words 'faith' and 'come to faith' quite loosely here) would be added to the church and that, as baptism is the obtaining of the membership card (and we could do covenantal here too of course) that says 'I belong' that this would be the means by which it was done.
But faith is a requirement for baptism!!!
So it is, but then again what is faith and how would you like to measure it? I ask this because I have met people who have come into a church I have been at and told me that they'd been baptised in 'somewhere or other' and how they never went any further. In fact some people have told me how they had been 'a scalp' and then left to their own devices in the church on more than one occasion!
The problem is that some I have met had no faith but were persuaded to be baptised because, 'It would save them from hell!!!'. Others have told me that they were baptised because of convincing arguments and yet they did not believe as some might have expected. More still have told me that they were baptised to please parents, pastors and other influential people in their life.
Baptism is great - but it is the act of discipleship, of personal belief, of 'going on with God' that rings the bell and makes the faith real - bringing with it the badge 'Christian'.
Yes indeedy ladies and gentlemen of the jury - I am having a struggle here because just as I asked whether Matthew 28 was formulaic 'in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit' or a statement of the authority (the name of those in whom we go) we do it in.
An interesting question that has been raised is perhaps the formula was that we should make disciples first and then baptise them:
Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations
Find them, teach them and when they are disciples we take them to the river and
Baptising them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit
we baptise them (in the name of or using the names?)
Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you.
But isn't teaching them to obey part of becoming a disciple?
I think I'd better think it out again :-)
*Now here's room for another battle some time soon I'm sure :-)
Thursday, 9 January 2014
Baptism and Liturgy - some simple answers (No.2a)
Well I never thought I'd be struggling to restrict what I thought I was going to write into three posts, but I am. A friend has thrown me a couple of extra balls (one was a real curveball and the second was a googly) of epic proportion in that they have drawn me deeper into thinking around the issue before me.
But I will try and be a good chap and this attempt sees me split response the second into a couple of elements (alpha and bravo) - so let us begin:
The second conversation raised the question, 'Surely the time has come to drop paedobaptism and get your liturgy and practice Biblical in turning to the only credible baptismal practice?'
Goodness gracious me, what a thought and how many assumptions are being made (which I might find ending up in response number three at this rate). But I'll have a go (as they did regarding my 1600 AD 'believer's baptism' error comment!). As I understand it the Biblical and early Church practice, for we wouldn't expect those in the days when the Apostle's were alive to be bringing about conflict now would we? The question is whether we can trust them (and Have have endured many lectures of the patristic errors - ante-Nicene, Nicene and post-Nicene [90 - 600 AD] - looking to the death of John, the last living Apostle before everyone rushed out and got down and heretical*).
I have to say that I am fairly confident that the practice of infant baptism was widespread and consistent during, and throughout, the early Church and that it is Biblical (see 2b when I get it posted)! But as much as the other person in the conversation might like me to embrace 'believer's baptism' as a sole practice, it just isn't going to happen. In fact I can see an extremely good reason for embracing both practices - let's hope you can:
In the early days of Christianity we find reference made to 'whole households being baptised' and there are parallels that some would draw us to in the 'covenantal' act of circumcision and the parallel to this for the Christian sect of Judaism (which eschewed circumcision of the flesh for the circumcision of the heart) who retained a covenantal initiation rite in baptism. This can be a compelling path for both acts (Baptism and Circumcision) are a 'one time only' affair! This does not sit well with those of the Anabaptist fraternity of course ;-)
I recall sitting in the Laing lecture theatre many years ago and hearing a compelling lecture on the fact that baptism appeared to be very much households rather than individuals and how we, in our practice today where we go to a meeting, make a decision and become Christians, had developed a mindset that led to our thinking: 'hear, decide, be baptised.' Of course the reality was that it was hear, decide, repent, learn and get baptised at Easter (or whenever) after you'd learnt the Apostle's creed and made the tenets of the faith your own. This, as a Pentecostal type, caused me some discomfort as I'd been conditioned to assume that it was only believer's baptism that was valid and that they did it like we do now - and this was my 'now' to the early Church's 'then'.
My next bump in the road came when I started to realise that if it was whole households then this was children as well as adults. As I discovered more about 'non persona' and how slaves, women and children were admitted into the Church I discovered also that this meant infants, those outside of the 'age of cognition' were coming in back then. This was a problem because you had to know before you could make a decision, didn't you? If this wasn't true then where, and how, did this sit with believer's baptism?
The crunch came for me with a lecture that put it into a perspective that gave me some peace regarding the paedobaptism vs Believer's Baptism conflict:
When the Church got going people came to faith and were baptised. Not as individuals but as families (or households), for Christianity was (and still should be) an issue of ethnicity. Christian wasn't (and still isn't) an issue of what you did - it was who you were! So they baptised families and as children were born, it appears to me that they too were brought into the Church of Christ too. The concept of 'whole families' -the household 'oikos' bit - is quite important because it speaks of all who were part of the family not just, as some I have heard teach on this, those who were adults or male.
At one lecture, during the Q&A bit, one lecturer stated that he chose to believe that only adults were baptised and that these were men and women. When asked why, their response was because that fitted with their belief. get in there! I love the 'it is because I want it to be!' approach to things - works so well for so many of us :-)
So I realised that there did appear to be warrant for baptism of babies in the Bible (or should we discount even more of it to support our views I wondered?) and, even though it didn't sit comfortably with me, realised that both paedobaptism and believer's baptism were valid and to be used when the situation arose. I would also have to say that whilst oikos baptism was valid, the practice of a missionary Church as the ground it covered expanded and the way that it reached out developed methodology and shape, that believer's baptism was indeed one of the primary routes for individuals to come into the Church - but then, until the 1600's perhaps, even when an adult had made the decision, the family were still drawn into baptism and those who were added through birth were definitely added when they appeared rather than wait until cognition or age made their profession possible.
What is clear - and here some will kick me - there is but one baptism and this, if done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is valid. Take a look see, the only support for an Anabaptist experience I can find is when the baptism was not done in Jesus' name (Acts 19). Moving on, many have taught me that what is valid in the way we engage in baptising people comes from Jesus Himself in the (Matthew 28) 'Great Commission'. This, I am told, teaches us that we go:
'And make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.'
Just a thought of course - is this formulaic (and many tell me that it is) or a statement of whose name and authority we baptise in. If it's the former then any baptism done in the name of the trinity is therefore valid (for we have made for ourselves perhaps some little confidence in the infant bit so can now consider just baptism) and if it's not then with the authority we have, and the warrant of Acts 19, we know that as long as it's done in the name of Jesus, then it is valid. Either, any and all ways though - rebaptism where a valid baptism has been enacted is wrong and contrary to Scripture.
Unless of course you think that your baptism is more scriptural, worthy and efficacious - and then we have to talk about division, arrogance and unbiblical stuff, don't we?
So - bottom line:
Which is valid - Infant or Adult, Babe or Believer - when it comes to baptism?
And I have to answer both in the right place and way (and where's that? That is surely something for another day as it is tomorrow already and there's still office and stuff to do before Zzzzzzzs).
But before I do - an great quote from History of the Christian Church - Vol 2 (Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, 1910, p.258).
'By answering "While the church was still a missionary institution in the midst of a heathen world, infant baptism was overshadowed by the baptism of adult proselytes; as, in the following periods, upon the union of church and state, the order was reversed"'
I have to agree with the first clause, for growth of the Church came about by winning adults into it and this meant Adult, proselyte baptism was indeed the preeminent method of initiation.
The second clause works for me too, but for perhaps different reasons, in that once a Church becomes settled the numbers of adults being baptised might diminishes as the number of children born into the Christian households (and being initiated into the Church) would increase.
That this is due to, rather than coincidentally occurring at the same time as, the 'union of Church and state' occurs is an extrapolation or an expectation that might and coercion were in bed to bring about the infant baptisms. (I don't recall reading this anywhere - but will go and take a look) Interestingly it moves infant baptism from Patristic error to Papist plot then (doesn't it?).
But the clock has definitely beaten me and whatever is here (and I know there will be typos - i splurge the brain onto the screen and leave the fat fingers to accompany the equally fat head!).
Blessings
* I say this because some of those who have lectured me on this have varied in much but all draw on John's death as permission for the Church to bring in dodgy stuff he might not of otherwise approved of. This has always caused me some problems and surely those believers who remained must have known what was right and wrong - or were they all stupid and gullible?
But I will try and be a good chap and this attempt sees me split response the second into a couple of elements (alpha and bravo) - so let us begin:
The second conversation raised the question, 'Surely the time has come to drop paedobaptism and get your liturgy and practice Biblical in turning to the only credible baptismal practice?'
Goodness gracious me, what a thought and how many assumptions are being made (which I might find ending up in response number three at this rate). But I'll have a go (as they did regarding my 1600 AD 'believer's baptism' error comment!). As I understand it the Biblical and early Church practice, for we wouldn't expect those in the days when the Apostle's were alive to be bringing about conflict now would we? The question is whether we can trust them (and Have have endured many lectures of the patristic errors - ante-Nicene, Nicene and post-Nicene [90 - 600 AD] - looking to the death of John, the last living Apostle before everyone rushed out and got down and heretical*).
I have to say that I am fairly confident that the practice of infant baptism was widespread and consistent during, and throughout, the early Church and that it is Biblical (see 2b when I get it posted)! But as much as the other person in the conversation might like me to embrace 'believer's baptism' as a sole practice, it just isn't going to happen. In fact I can see an extremely good reason for embracing both practices - let's hope you can:
In the early days of Christianity we find reference made to 'whole households being baptised' and there are parallels that some would draw us to in the 'covenantal' act of circumcision and the parallel to this for the Christian sect of Judaism (which eschewed circumcision of the flesh for the circumcision of the heart) who retained a covenantal initiation rite in baptism. This can be a compelling path for both acts (Baptism and Circumcision) are a 'one time only' affair! This does not sit well with those of the Anabaptist fraternity of course ;-)
I recall sitting in the Laing lecture theatre many years ago and hearing a compelling lecture on the fact that baptism appeared to be very much households rather than individuals and how we, in our practice today where we go to a meeting, make a decision and become Christians, had developed a mindset that led to our thinking: 'hear, decide, be baptised.' Of course the reality was that it was hear, decide, repent, learn and get baptised at Easter (or whenever) after you'd learnt the Apostle's creed and made the tenets of the faith your own. This, as a Pentecostal type, caused me some discomfort as I'd been conditioned to assume that it was only believer's baptism that was valid and that they did it like we do now - and this was my 'now' to the early Church's 'then'.
My next bump in the road came when I started to realise that if it was whole households then this was children as well as adults. As I discovered more about 'non persona' and how slaves, women and children were admitted into the Church I discovered also that this meant infants, those outside of the 'age of cognition' were coming in back then. This was a problem because you had to know before you could make a decision, didn't you? If this wasn't true then where, and how, did this sit with believer's baptism?
The crunch came for me with a lecture that put it into a perspective that gave me some peace regarding the paedobaptism vs Believer's Baptism conflict:
When the Church got going people came to faith and were baptised. Not as individuals but as families (or households), for Christianity was (and still should be) an issue of ethnicity. Christian wasn't (and still isn't) an issue of what you did - it was who you were! So they baptised families and as children were born, it appears to me that they too were brought into the Church of Christ too. The concept of 'whole families' -the household 'oikos' bit - is quite important because it speaks of all who were part of the family not just, as some I have heard teach on this, those who were adults or male.
At one lecture, during the Q&A bit, one lecturer stated that he chose to believe that only adults were baptised and that these were men and women. When asked why, their response was because that fitted with their belief. get in there! I love the 'it is because I want it to be!' approach to things - works so well for so many of us :-)
So I realised that there did appear to be warrant for baptism of babies in the Bible (or should we discount even more of it to support our views I wondered?) and, even though it didn't sit comfortably with me, realised that both paedobaptism and believer's baptism were valid and to be used when the situation arose. I would also have to say that whilst oikos baptism was valid, the practice of a missionary Church as the ground it covered expanded and the way that it reached out developed methodology and shape, that believer's baptism was indeed one of the primary routes for individuals to come into the Church - but then, until the 1600's perhaps, even when an adult had made the decision, the family were still drawn into baptism and those who were added through birth were definitely added when they appeared rather than wait until cognition or age made their profession possible.
What is clear - and here some will kick me - there is but one baptism and this, if done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is valid. Take a look see, the only support for an Anabaptist experience I can find is when the baptism was not done in Jesus' name (Acts 19). Moving on, many have taught me that what is valid in the way we engage in baptising people comes from Jesus Himself in the (Matthew 28) 'Great Commission'. This, I am told, teaches us that we go:
'And make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.'
Just a thought of course - is this formulaic (and many tell me that it is) or a statement of whose name and authority we baptise in. If it's the former then any baptism done in the name of the trinity is therefore valid (for we have made for ourselves perhaps some little confidence in the infant bit so can now consider just baptism) and if it's not then with the authority we have, and the warrant of Acts 19, we know that as long as it's done in the name of Jesus, then it is valid. Either, any and all ways though - rebaptism where a valid baptism has been enacted is wrong and contrary to Scripture.
Unless of course you think that your baptism is more scriptural, worthy and efficacious - and then we have to talk about division, arrogance and unbiblical stuff, don't we?
So - bottom line:
Which is valid - Infant or Adult, Babe or Believer - when it comes to baptism?
And I have to answer both in the right place and way (and where's that? That is surely something for another day as it is tomorrow already and there's still office and stuff to do before Zzzzzzzs).
But before I do - an great quote from History of the Christian Church - Vol 2 (Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, 1910, p.258).
'By answering "While the church was still a missionary institution in the midst of a heathen world, infant baptism was overshadowed by the baptism of adult proselytes; as, in the following periods, upon the union of church and state, the order was reversed"'
I have to agree with the first clause, for growth of the Church came about by winning adults into it and this meant Adult, proselyte baptism was indeed the preeminent method of initiation.
The second clause works for me too, but for perhaps different reasons, in that once a Church becomes settled the numbers of adults being baptised might diminishes as the number of children born into the Christian households (and being initiated into the Church) would increase.
That this is due to, rather than coincidentally occurring at the same time as, the 'union of Church and state' occurs is an extrapolation or an expectation that might and coercion were in bed to bring about the infant baptisms. (I don't recall reading this anywhere - but will go and take a look) Interestingly it moves infant baptism from Patristic error to Papist plot then (doesn't it?).
But the clock has definitely beaten me and whatever is here (and I know there will be typos - i splurge the brain onto the screen and leave the fat fingers to accompany the equally fat head!).
Blessings
* I say this because some of those who have lectured me on this have varied in much but all draw on John's death as permission for the Church to bring in dodgy stuff he might not of otherwise approved of. This has always caused me some problems and surely those believers who remained must have known what was right and wrong - or were they all stupid and gullible?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)