And true to form, Jesus doesn’t answer the question. He leaves it hanging there, still to be wrestled with 2,000 years later.
In the world of church, truth matters. A lot. We try to decipher it so we then can proclaim it.
And the chilling thing is this: some things are true whether you believe them or not.
Or even more to the point: some thing are true whether you want them to be or not. There are a number of contentious issues about which I long to cater to conventional wisdom, changing social mores, and even peer pressure and say, “OK, you’re right; I’m changing my mind & falling in with the (apparent) majority!”
But then due to a combination of the bible’s witness, church history, and even personal experience (veering precariously close to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral!), I reconsider and land again on the side of certain truths that, while uncomfortable, are still . . . true.
So here they are: five things that a large part of me wishes weren’t true, but I believe they are.
5. Infant baptism is a doctrine built on a “maybe.” The household baptisms of Acts 16:15 and 16:33 may have included small children and infants, so we build a doctrine around it. More than that, the denominational doctrine we’ve built in the UMC has grown increasingly inflexible. In contrast to the “maybe” of Acts 16, witness the “definitely” of believer baptisms in Acts 2, Acts 9, Acts 10, Acts 19, and Romans 6 among others.
4. While Hinduism has many elements that appeal to Westerners who value spirituality over religion, its net effect on the people of India is the elevation of the elite and the subjugation of the masses. Given our church’s connection to the people of Odisha, India, I have more than a passing interest in the subject. And according to one Russian pop singer, Hinduism is “the epitome of spirituality.” Well . . . . tell that to young girls born into the “prostitute caste” — a life to which they are assigned at birth and from which they cannot escape. Or to boys born into the “brick maker caste” — a similarly hopeless and predetermined position for life. While many Hindus are people of peace and serenity, the result of the religion on Indian society has been to create entrenched categories of masters and servants.
3. Hell. Yes. While people I respect greatly disagree, the church’s historic stand that regards hell as a place of everlasting regret and separation remains the most faithful to the whole of Scripture.
2. I hope I keep my ordination credentials on this one, but . . . celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in heterosexual marriage is God’s design for human sexuality. Hebrews 13:4 is a beautiful summary statement — not a proof text — of everything else the NT says on the subject: let the marriage bed be undefiled.
1. You combine the poetry of Psalm 139:13-16 and the science of the ultrasound and the implication is clear: that is a baby.
There are 12 comments
Thank you for this post.
I think there are a fair number of people who wish certain things were not true that they nonetheless believe are. It’s easier not to rock the boat, after all, by going against the zeitgeist.
On infant baptism, I’ve always found it telling that the first argument against the practice that a modern anti-pedobaptist would find theologically acceptable (Tertullian’s argument against it was based on an assumption that if you sinned after baptism, you were damned irretrievably–thus you should wait until your deathbed to be baptised) didn’t occur until the rise of Baptists in the 16th century.
So did the church get it wrong for 1500 years? I mean, we have favorable references to it as early as the 2nd century, in Saint Irenaeus’s writings.
NT Wright said he believes he is wrong about 1/3 of the time on any of his beliefs. I believe in 100% of what the Bible says,and know I am not wrong 1/3 of the time on what it professes.
GREAT POST! Also, #3. HEHEHE.
Love ya TD!
I would also like for it to be noted that my captcha verification word for posting this comment was FASHION! It’s like…it KNOWS me! 😀
Couldn’t you likewise say that doctrine that excludes under-age people from baptism is also built on a maybe??
Br. Talbot,
This will be a strange comment coming from a former Baptist who was baptized at 12 years old. (the age of accountability :)) I have actually moved the opposite way from you on this issue. Looking back at my own baptism I can’t tell you I was ready or even if I believed all the right things. I didn’t know fully what baptism mean’t or why I was doing it. I just know that all my friends were doing it and it seemed like a big deal. You go to a class, the pastor meets with you, you answer the right questions, and boom you are baptized. Unfortunately for me I left the church when I went to college. No problem for those who come back to the baptist church they will baptize you again, and again, and again…well you get my point.
But I wound up in the Methodist church, broken and starting over. My pastor talked to me about baptism and shared something that transformed my life. He told me even if I didn’t know what I was doing, did it for the wrong reasons, messed up…God didn’t. So even in those dark times of my life, God still claimed me as a child.
I guess this is what deepened my own affirmation of infant baptism. That if God still claims me, then God can surely claim Holly’s son and Annette’s daughter.
I think that infant baptism is based on church sacrament, not necessarily acts 16. While you are correct there may or may not be infants in the family. One thing we do witness consistently in the New Testament and especially the early church is that Baptism is the entrance into the new way of Christ, not the culmination of having the way all figured out. The rise of “believers baptism” is a relatively new occurrence in Christianity. Church tradition for most of history has been infant baptism.
I do agree that if you believe Baptism is a culmination of our life with God then by all means you should not baptize infants. I am baptizing three new believers this weekend who have been through confirmation with our other kids who were baptized as infants.
I wonder what do you think of sacraments? Do you believe in rebaptism? Is the Eucharist just a memorial meal?
Rob Shutes —
No. A doctrine that excludes under age people from baptism would be built on a clear biblical pattern of baptism following commitment. That’s history; not a maybe.
Stephen –
I’m not a proponent of rebaptism which is a main reason why we allow infant dedication here.
I read recently, however, that if God can forgive a thief on the cross who was never baptized he can surely forgive any who do it twice.
Finally, Acts 19 records a case of re-baptism and the earth continued to rotate on its axis and Paul continued to be in ministry.
This is a refreshingly honest little article, and one with whose conclusions I largely resonate. I wish we were neighbors; the extended conversations could be enriching.
A few observations/questions:
#5
We can acknowledge that either model for the right age for baptism is based on some kind of “maybe” and still prefer one. The “maybe” factor should keep both sides humble, though, about presuming a monopoly on faithfulness in the matter.
#2 Why worry about keeping your ordination credentials if your view about marriage lines up with our denominational stance?
#1 If it really is a baby, do we really wish it weren’t?
Joe,
Thanks for your note.
#5 — Good insights. I’d only balance that with the fact that there is no biblical “maybe” for believer baptism, just biblical history.
#2 — You could probably tell I was being facetious there. It is a sad turn of events in many sections of our denomination, however, that you can be DENIED ordination because you support current Book Of Discipline standards on human sexuality.
#1 — Part of me wishes I could be pro-choice. It would be so much easier. I wish I could call it a fetus and line up with my friends and loved ones who are pro-choice. But I can’t.
Not sure I made myself clear. In interpreting the “household” passage as justifying infant baptism, you are correct that there is something of an assumption there – assuming that the baptism of the believer and his household includes children too young to be called believers.
To interpret this passage as justifying believers-only baptism, you also have to read something into the passage. You have to read into it that each of the other members of the household were not only “of age,” (that extra-biblical doctrine of a supposed “age of accountability”) but that they also had the opportunity to have the gospel interpreted to them and that each of them made their individual profession of faith (never documented, just assumed).
Certainly I wasn’t implying that there is no biblical justification for believers’ baptism. Sorry if I gave that impression!
Really do appreciate your blog, and your willingness to put it all out there!
This is cool!