Posted by Eliza on: 01.04.2007 /
I have to confess, I did not go to this class. On the same night this class was held, December 21, I went to the solstice service at my local UU church; that was much more enjoyable for me than this class would have been! But I did read this chapter of the text and have included it here, with comments from yours truly, in case anyone is interested in the reactions of an unchurched atheist (who bathes, but has never been baptized, and doesn’t plan to be).
In other class sessions, the pastor always refers to John the Baptist as “John the Baptizer.” It jars the ear a bit, and clearly is purposeful. (I’ve asked questions about “John the Baptist” and he always answers using “John the Baptizer.”) Makes me wonder whether he’s trying to separate John, the Baptist from Denomination, the Baptist. Anyone know if that’s the reason, or is there another explanation?
Remember, the format for this text is: pose a question, give scriptural quotes (under “The Bible says”), then conclude with the teaching points (under “From this we learn”). I’ve left out a few short parts (to shorten it a bit); the boldface in the text portions is just as the text has it. The text tends to use KJV or RSV except where noted. My comments are interspersed, in italics, with boldface added where I wanted to put some emphasis; my citations are ESV.
1. …Who instituted Holy Baptism?
The Bible says: Matt. 28:18-20. Jesus came and said to them, “…Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…”
E’s comment: Matthew 28:18-20, the Great Commission, figures prominently in the next few question-and-answers. Seeing the same citation (or book) used repeatedly in this class tends to make me wonder whether the Biblical support for the teaching is perhaps not as widespread as one might otherwise think. Call me skeptical… ;-)
From this we learn: Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the Sacrament of Holy Baptism. (By sacrament we mean a divine ordinance in which God, through certain visible means connected with his Word, gives and seals to us the forgiveness which Christ has earned for us. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the only sacraments.)
E’s comment: Jesus wasn’t the first one to baptize…but maybe it isn’t “the Sacrament of Holy Baptism” if it’s not in His name. I can buy that. But then, there is Matthew 21:25 to consider: Jesus asks, “The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?” then leaves that question unanswered, or not obviously answered.
2. What does it mean to baptize?
The Bible says: (a) Matt. 3:11. I baptize you with water.
(b) Matt. 28:19. Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
E’s comment: The text’s use of Matthew 3:11 is very misleading here! It’s John the Baptist (aka the Baptizer) speaking, not Jesus, and the whole verse is: “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” Matthew 3:12 continues: “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” John the B. is not telling his listeners that Jesus will baptize with water, but instead with Holy Spirit and fire. (Luke 3:16, 17 is identical, Mark 1:7, 8 and Acts 11:16 are very similar, Acts 1:5 is similar.)
From this we learn, To baptize means:
(A) To apply water,
(B) In the name of the Triune God.
(God has not specified any one method by which the water is to be applied. The word “baptize” as used in the Bible means not only to immerse, but also to wash, Luke 11:38, Mark 7:4, pour, Matt. 3:11, Acts 2:17, and sprinkle, Heb. 9:10, Num. 19:17-20.)
E’s comment: Point (B) is funny imo — was there some confusion about which God people were being baptized into? (But I “get” that it’s to be done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; no shortcuts allowed.) I also like the parenthetical comment, which suggests to me that Lutherans are the sprinkle-or-wash kind of baptizers, not the total-body immersion kind of baptizers, and wanted to make it clear that their kind was OK with God. Fine, but Jesus rose up out of the water from his baptism by John the B. in Matthew 3; for him it was the total-body immersion kind of baptism. He says in Mark 10:39, “…with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized,” but I’m not sure what that’s supposed to mean. )
There are several references to baptism taking place in water, particularly in Mark 1 and Matthew 3, John 3:23, Acts 8:36, 38, Acts 10:47. But I find it interesting that there are also references to baptism that don’t seem to involve water but instead the Holy Spirit, including Peter saying in Acts 11:16 “And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, “John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’” And Acts 9:17-18, when Ananais lays his hands on Saul saying, ” “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.‘ And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized…”
Most allusions to baptism in Acts don’t mention water, and Paul’s mentions of baptism don’t refer to water, but that could simply be because water was so obviously a part of baptism (or, because it wasn’t!). The closest Paul’s letters come is in 1 Corinthians 10:1,2 “I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea…” (I do not know what he means by this, but at least he’s referring to moist things when talking about baptism.)
3. Who is to be baptized?
The Bible says, Matt. 28:19. Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them.
From this we learn: All nations, that is, all human beings, are to be baptized.
E’s comment: One would imagine you’d have to convert them first!
4. Why are also infants to be baptized?
The Bible says: (a) Matt. 28:19. Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them.
E’s comment: IMO, Matthew 28:19 is getting overused in this chapter so far. Reading the Great Commission, it’s not clear that Jesus meant children! Continuing with “The Bible Says”:
(a) Acts 2:38, 39. Be baptized every one of you…For the promise is to you and your children.
E’s comment: Before Acts 2:38-39, Peter has given a speech to a group of Jerusalem Jews, at (or just after) the Pentecost; it’s specified several times that these are men. He’s talking to these people in Acts 2:38-39. It’s more honest, imo, to put those lines in context, so let’s look at Acts 2:37-41. The men had just said to Peter “and the rest”, “Brothers, what shall we do?” and then Peter replies, “Repent and be baptized every one of you” [talking to the group of adult men]…”For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off…So those who received his word were baptized…” This relates the convincing, the conversion, and the baptism of about 3,000 adult men — no hint that it refers to the baptism of babies.
(b) John 3:5, 6. Unless one is born of the water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh.
E’s comment: Maybe John 3:5 refers to baptism here, in his discussion with Nicodemus, Jewish leader and Pharisee. Maybe it doesn’t. I don’t know. In John 4:10, in conversation with the Samaritan woman whom Jesus asks for a drink of water, Jesus refers to himself (or faith? or eternal life?) as “living water.” Then in John 4:13-14, in the same conversation: “Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty forever. The water that I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.’ ” In John, water is a metaphor, not just something that you drink or…use for baptism.
(bc) Mark 10:13-16. They brought children for Him to touch, and the disciples scolded them for it. But when Jesus saw this He was indignant, and said to them, “Let the children come to Me; do not try to stop them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will never enter it. And He put his arms round them, laid His hands upon them, and blessed them. (NEB) (Luke 18:15 tells us that these children were infants, babies.)
E’s comment: Luke 18:15 says “Now they were bringing even infants to him…”. It’s misleading to imply that Jesus was touching and blessing only infants! And there’s no mention of baptizing infants.
(c) Matt. 18:6. One of these little ones who believe in Me.
E’s comment: This use of Matthew 18:6 is another example of presenting a phrase as a complete thought. Shame, shame — any high school English teacher would mark this with a big red pencil. Matthew 18:5-6 reads, “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” No mention of infant baptism here, either. (The drowning doesn’t count.)
From this we learn: Infants are to be baptized
(A) Because Christ has commanded us to baptize “all nations” and infants belong to “all nations.”
(B) Because Baptism is the only means by which infants can ordinarily come to faith and enter God’s kingdom, and God’s kingdom belongs to infants.
(C) Because infants can believe. (Baptism has taken the place of circumcision which was performed on infants when they were eight days old…)
E’s comment: I’m sorry, but infants cannot believe. Children can, yes, but not infants. And this is extending the Great Commission into kind of desperate territory, imo. Not at all clear that this was what was meant by it, imo. And Mark 10:13-16 and Matthew 18:1-6 seem to be commenting on the innocent, trusting, accepting nature of kids - or am I missing the point?
5. What is the benefit of Baptism?
The Bible says:
(a) Gal. 3:36,27. Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
(a) Acts 2:38. Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.
(a) 1 Pet. 3:21. Baptism…now saves you.
(ab) Tit. 3:5. He saved us…by the washing of regeneration.
(b) John 3:5. Unless one is born of the water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
From this we learn: Baptism is a means of grace by which the Holy Spirit
(A) Offers us all that Christ earned for us: forgiveness of sins, spiritual life, and salvation;
(B) Regenerates infants, creating in them the faith which accepts these treasures, and makes them children of God and heirs of heaven.
E’s comment: (A) I’m left a bit unclear on what baptism accomplishes, but the next text question does a better job of explaining it in a way I can understand. (B) Sorry, I still do not buy the idea that baptism creates faith in infants, if faith is something that one thinks, feels, believes. Nor that it makes them children of God; seems to me we are all children of God, but then I never did pick up on that idea of original sin that was in class #3. (Guess I’m going to have to go into remedial Lutheran education….!
6. What does Baptism do for those who already have come to faith by hearing the Gospel?
The Bible says: Acts 8:35-39. Philip began with the same Scripture and [told him the Good News] about Jesus. As they rode along, they came to a small body of water, and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! Why can’t I be baptized?” “You can,” Philip answered, “if you believe with all your heart.” And the eunuch replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” He stopped the chariot, and they went down into the water and Philip baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, and the eunuch never saw him again, but went on his way rejoicing. (LNT)
E’s comment: Please note that verse 37, from “You can, Philip answered” through “Son of God”, is not found in early manuscripts.
But that’s beside the point; this is a clearly watery description of baptism.
Without verse 37, I’m intrigued that the eunuch’s question isn’t answered; he is baptized without further comment from Philip.
So then I wonder, what would happen if someone who does not believe with all his/her heart were baptized?? (I don’t find mention of that, as a blasphemy or etc…and it might apply to infants, if they weren’t approaching their baptism in the correct frame of mind.)
From this we learn: Baptism, for the person who already believes, is a divine seal by which he individually, personally, receives added assurance that he is God’s dear child and heir. At the same time, he publicly declares himself a Christian. (Christ’s command reads: “Make disciples…baptizing them…teaching them.” Matt 28:19, 20. Children are baptized, then taught. Adults are taught, then baptized.)
E’s comment: This makes sense to me — it’s a ritual that signifies grace, if I might put it that way. (But enough with Matthew 28:19-20 already!)
7. How can water do these great things?
The Bible says:
(a) Eph. 5:25,26. [Christ] cleansed her [the church] by the washing of water with the Word. (RSV)
(b) Mark 16:16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.
E’s comment: Yet more partial quotations presented as complete sentences; argh that drives me crazy! The meaning is a bit different in context in these 2 citatations, but not dramatically so (as far as I can tell):
(a) Ephesians 25-27 reads: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish [or: holy and blameless].”
(b) Mark 16:16 actually reads: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Not: whoever is not baptized will not be saved.
From this we learn: Water, of itself, cannot perform such miracles, but
(A) The Word of God which is connected with the water (”In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”) places forgiveness, life, and salvation, into Baptism; and
(B) Faith, which trusts this Word, accepts the treasures and makes them our own. (Can anyone be saved without Baptism? Faith saves; unbelief condemns. Mark 16:16. A believer who, like the thief on the cross, dies before Baptism, is saved — by his faith. Luke 23:39-43. The unbeliever, who despises Baptism, is lost — because of his unbelief. Luke 7:30. — The Bible says nothing about the fate of infants who die without Baptism. We leave them in God’s hands of love, comforting ourselves with the thought that, while He has bound us to the use of the means of grace, He has not bound himself. Needless to say, Christian parents will not unduly postpone the Baptism of their children.)
E’s comment: After my son was born an older family member asked when we were going to baptize him. We said we weren’t. She said something like, “Not even just in case…?” I remember thinking “Just in case …God and heaven and hell really exist?” but knew that she meant “Just in case…he dies young.”) No, I can see that infant baptism could be comforting for parents and family, sort of like afterlife-insurance for your child. But if “He has not bound himself” and He didn’t specifically say that children needed to be baptized, can’t He decide? What if baptizing children before they could choose it themselves were anathema to Him??
8. What daily use should the Christian make of his Baptism?
The Bible says: (a) Gal. 3:26, 27. Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
(a) Is. 54:10. The mountains may depart and the hills may be removed, but My steadfast love shall not depart from you, and My covenant of peace shall not be removed, says the Lord, who has compassion on you.
(b) Rom. 6:4. By our Baptism, we were buried with Him and shared His death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from death by the glorious power of the Father, so also we might live a new life. (GN)
From this we learn: I am baptized —
(A) This should be the Christian’s daily comfort. God is my Father; I am His child. Come what will — sin, sickness, sorrow, death — nothing can separate me from His steadfast love in Christ, my Savior.
(B) This should be the Christian’s daily incentive. I am God’s child. Now let me live up to my high name and station, striving in all things, out of sheer love, to do my Father’s will.
E’s comment: I do “get” that having been baptized can be a comforting reminder. No quarrels here; this is the text explaining their beliefs, not trying to teach/convince me.
The mention here of a daily “use” of baptism reminds me: I do want to ask, how often are people baptized? I’d been thinking it was a once-in-a-lifetime deal, but this text talks about infant baptism and adult baptism, and I have read here (actually on Church-Rater and the Discussion Board, I think) about people who have been baptized anew in every church they’ve belonged to, each one apparently thinking that the prior ones weren’t adequate. Which seems kind of funny; Jesus didn’t say, in the Great Commission, “…baptizing them in the correct denomination…”
Does being baptized several times in adulthood give it a different meaning or importance than if you are baptized only once?
The text continues with a parenthetical comment:
(At Baptism, infants, through their sponsors, renounce the devil and all his works and all his ways, and confess their faith in the Triune God. Later, as children or adults, they renew the covenant entered into in Baptism, and promise to be faithful until death to their Savior and His church. At the same time, they are admitted to the Lord’s Table. This we call Confirmation. Confirmation is not a divine institution, but a God-pleasing rite of the church. The instruction in Christian doctrine which precedes Confirmation is most important.)
E’s comment: I’m sorry, but infants renouncing the devil and confessing their faith in God? Come on! Infants are infants; let them be so.
I do like the description of confirmation as a “God-pleasing rite of the church,” begging the question of which rites of the church are instead “God-displeasing“!
The “Work Sheet” at the end of this chapter asks:
1. (a) How many sacraments are there? (b) Which are they?
2. Why is immersion not the only correct way to baptize?
3. In urgent cases, in the absence of the pastor, any Christian may administer Baptism. Directions are given on the last page of the Lutheran hymnal. Which two things are essential for a valid Baptism?
4. How do the words of Christ in Mark 10:13-16 show that infants can believe?
5. Gal. 3:26-27 tells us that in Baptism we “put on Christ.” What does that mean?
6. Why is it of vital importance that we not only have our children baptized, but that we also give them a thorough Christian education?
7. Luther once cheered up a depressed friend by asking him, “Don’t you know that you’ve been baptized?” Why was that excellent Christian psychology?
E’s comment: I don’t believe that Mark 10:13-16 shows that infants can believe. No other comment here.
We have 5 more class sessions, though I think the last one is a “Welcome to the Lutheran Church!” for those who have decided to join. The next one is “The Lord’s Supper”; I plan to go.
Comment by: joe
1I’m ashamed to say that my brain-locked halfway down so I scrolled through the rest. Of all Christian theology, baptism arguable causes the most grief and argument.
It is fairly clear that the good pastor is here trying to turn you into a good Lutheran, complete with the correct quota of approved theology.
So I guess that’s is a roundabout excuse for non-contribution in this class. Can we talk about something easier?
Comment by: joe
2A class in basic grammar would probably do me a lot of good, for a start.
Comment by: Helen
3Joe, your grammar looks fine to me :)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about baptism, Eliza.
It’s a topic which the Bible says relatively little about, which explains why Christians have taken different positions on how to do it and what it signifies.
I recommend reading Wikipedia’s entry on Baptism (Wikipedia comes to the rescue again! ;-)).
I think it would be better if texts like yours admitted such things as
a) ‘Real’ Christians disagree on the method and meaning of baptism
b) Our own understanding and practice relies on tradition as much as the few Bible verses on the subject.
If they were being really honest they could go into the following sorts of things (which might be in Wikipedia - I’m not sure - and I’m probably going to mess up the details)
a) For Luther (as in, the guy from whom the Lutheran Church), baptism and patriotism were quite intertwined - which sets up a scenario in which infant baptism is to be highly preferred
b) There were some people called Anabaptists who thought baptism should involve full immersion in water rather than just sprinkling with it. Luther watched them being baptized in the river and said “If they want to go under let them go under” i.e. let’s drown them.
I guess we shouldn’t get off on how nasty Luther could be - maybe we can have a separate discussion about that sometime. Eliza, it would be interesting to know what the pastor teaching your class thinks about Luther himself. Have you read much about him? It might be a topic you want to ask him about sometime before the class series is over.
Comment by: Doreen
4Thanks Eliza. I get so much out of your careful study & questioning.
I liked learning about the Anabaptists in seminary. I figure any group equally despised by Roman Catholics and Protestants must have something going for it. Basically anyone who claimed to be a Christian who wasn’t RC, Lutheran, or Protestant was called an Anabaptist.
The Anabaptists were pacifists, as are their descendants - the Mennonites & the Amish.
Anabaptists means “re-baptizers.” They believed only in believer baptism so they baptized those who had already been baptized as infants. They did not consider this as a re-baptism or being baptized more than once since they did not believe the 1st was legitimate according to the Bible.
Being brought up RC, I was baptized as an infant. Since my conversion experience a few years ago, I’ve wondered if I should (or want to) be baptized as an adult. I haven’t come to any conclusion on this yet….
Comment by: Helen
5Doreen, I know a number of people who chose to be rebaptized as an adult. It makes sense if you come to believe baptism should be a conscious choice you make, symbolizing leaving one’s old way of life and embarking on the new way of following Jesus - as sort of ‘announcement’ in public “I have decided to follow Jesus”. It’s one way of telling your friends and family and getting them to a service at your church. I guess it might also be a way of convincing them you’ve finally flipped ;-)
Eliza, about the ‘formula’ - for some reason many Christians take the verse extremely literally which says “Baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” and insist those exact words should be used. It seems somewhat arbitrary to me which verses Christians a) take extremely literally b) take fairly literally c) take metaphorically d) ignore (for various reasons).
Comment by: Eliza
6joe wrote:
I have to say, I’m finding the class much less interesting in these later weeks, and the text has always been a chore to read through. The text is from the 1970’s and it seems to me it could use an overhaul, just to make it more readable & modern (even without changing any of the citations or teaching points).
Doreen wrote:
Doreen, does your church (or: do your churches) have any teachings on adult baptism? In my admittedly untutored reading, baptism seems to be portrayed in the NT as a volitional adult thing to do - I guess I see the Anabaptist position as making sense.
My understanding is that Quakers (most Quakers? some Quakers?) do not follow the sacraments of baptism or the lord’s supper. I read a little about this - the thinking seems to be (1) that Christian-ness isn’t determined by whether or not you’ve had holy water sprinkled on you, and/or (2) that Jesus didn’t baptize anyone (John the B. and the disciples and Paul did, but not Jesus), and they see themselves as followers of Jesus, not of those other men. (Helen, thanks for the Wikipedia link to Baptism - I’ve just skimmed it now, will read it in more detail later.)
Comment by: Eliza
7Helen wrote:
Funny you should ask - I’d thought about saying something in the class #9 writeup, but decided not to.
I did read about Luther, before starting this class, and again once since to check that I hadn’t imagined what I’d read. There hasn’t been discussion of Luther, just brief mention of new interpretations he made, which were (of course) corrections from the Catholic view back to what God’s Word tells us is correct.
There was a handout given out at class #9, but not discussed in class, about Martin Luther. (An official, Lutheran pamphlet.) It portrayed him as a highly-respected man, throughout all his days & to his end, who did no wrong. The pamphlet did not allude to some of the negative things I’d run across, for example his anti-Semitism; from Wikipedia:
This distancing of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod from Luther’s antisemitic writings is not mentioned at all in the pamphlet. It’s like it never happened.
Comment by: Helen
8Eliza wrote:
Have you read Acts 2? That includes one of the key references for baptism - Acts 2:38:
Because of this verse many Christians believe that baptism is an essential part of salvation; so, someone who isn’t baptised isn’t a Christian i.e. is still hellbound.
They have discussions about how it can be that Jesus could tell the thief on the cross next to him that he’d see him in paradise, since that person obviously would have no opportunity to be baptised before he died. (Of course those Christians have an answer but I don’t remember what it is)
Comment by: benjamin ady
9Eliza,
You made me chuckle.
It seems to me that you could reasonably be called a member of the church of reason, as described by Robert Pirsig–that is to say, the University. As someone who is mostly converted now to this church, I very much identify with your regular frustration with abuse of the Biblical text.
I just can’t stand that whole augustinian crap about original sin and infants need to be baptized or they’ll go to hell. On the other hand, I kind of like the idea of infant baptism as ritual within community which can be positive, uplifting, encouraging, and community building. A way of saying, “We welcome the infant as a member of our commnuity, we affirm the infant, we commit to do our best by this lovely new person.”
again–thankyou for your engagement and your insightful commentary.
Comment by: Stephan
10Just to throw in another tradition, my church will baptize infants, but we do not preach not believe that this is an act of salvation. It is more like a dedication and commitment that the parents and the church will pray for and support that child in Christian development throughout their life.
My wife and I had dedication services for our children when they were infants, and they were all baptized (at their request) when they were old enough to make a decision for themselves. I personally was not baptized until I was in my mid-20’s, even though I had been a Christian since early childhood.
Personally I prefer baptism after a decision is made. It seems more Biblical to me. I believe that baptism is a sign of commitment, not the act of salvation. I also believe baptism is a sacrament. By sacrament, I mean that it is a mutual act between God and a person where we obey God and he performs a supernatural act in our lives through that obedience. By that definition, I believe almost any act can be sacramental.
That said, I would not be compelled to start a new church over it (if one (or thousands) had not already been started).
Comment by: Helen
11Benjamin wrote:
I like baby-welcoming rituals too. It’s been interesting reading about people who aren’t Christians creating their own rituals for occasions like this.
Comment by: Doreen
12Eliza asked
You have an impeccable sense of timing, Eliza :)
I just joined a United Church of Christ congregation a week ago Sunday. As congregationalists, there’s no imposed doctrine or form of worship on members.
Because of that, some congregations baptize infants, children, youth and adults. Some baptize by sprinkling, some pouring, and some immersion.
My (somewhat limited) understanding is that UCCs see baptism not as the person making a decision to “be Christian,” but as a welcoming into the universal church, much like Benjamin wrote about.
As to membership, that was interesting as well. There are 3 ways to join: transfering in, reaffirmation of faith (for those who have previously been a member of any church), or affirmation of faith (for those who have never been a member of any church).
One reason I chose this congregation (as opposed to many others much closer to me geographically) is that I’ve met pagans, Wiccans, atheists, questioners, and Christians among the attenders.
Comment by: Doreen
13Eliza wrote
The Quakers are “cool” in my book (not that my book matters, lol). Most believe “God is still speaking” or continuing revelation, which is also what most UCCs believe. Most believe God is in within each self, so creeds and doctrines are not needed.
Since all of life is sacred and any meal with friends can be considered a communion, Quakers don’t have traditional baptism or communion.
When all this controversy sprung forth re: Congressman Ellison taking his oath of office on the Quran, you may have heard that our Quaker former presidents refused to “solemnly swear” but instead “solemnly affirmed.”
(BTW, I hope everyone heard about Congressman’s TOUCHE in using a Quran formerly owned by Thomas Jefferson! Brilliant!)
Comment by: Gregg Lamm
14Friends,
As a Quaker in NW Oregon (just south of Portland about 22 miles … out in “wine-country”), your comment about Quakers being “cool” made gave me an inner chuckle and an outer grin. A nice combo move.
I think I know what you’re saying — that somehow, and in some quadrants of life and faith, Quakers have been able to stay somewhat relevant in the midst of much irrelevance, and stay simple in the midst of much theological complexity.
I’ll have to admit that having inside-the-beltway Quaker advocates like Richard Foster, Elton Trueblood, Rich Mullins, and Carole Spencer doesn’t hurt any either.
When it comes to the structures and doctrines of baptism and communion (which many other Christ-followers call “ordinances”), Quakers have sought to seek, find and live into the spiritual reality behind what the symbols can merely represent … and which they often represent poorly. Because hey, if you can have the reality without desperately holding onto the symbol, why not?
For instance, if the reality behind communion is that the presence of God and the voice of God are available for people to experience — and that in experiencing God’s presence and God’s voice people are called to live lives of reconciliation and restoration, instead of allowing bitterness and unforgiveness to define their relationship with God and other people — then hey, why use the bread and the wine (the symbols), when the reality can be intimately known and experienced?
And if water baptism is a symbol that represents that God wants to “wash our sins away and teach us a new way to live as Christ-followers”, then why not avoid the trappings (i.e., the inevitable shortcomings) the symbols can impose on us while experiencing the liberating reality of new life and God-us-others-relationship that this “washing” represents?
Kind of a sidelight here and I’ll close my trap for the night and let others chime in — the word baptize is from the New Testament Greek word “baptizo”, meaning “to dip or wash”. Not knowing how to really define/translate this word, it was simply transliterated into an English word, “baptize”.
I always thought this was funny because if they hadn’t done this, then in New Testament times there probably would have been a guy walking around named John the Dipper, and now we’d have the Southern Dippers Convention, and First Dippers Church. Good night and Godspeed.
read.think.pray.live.
Gregg Lamm
http://www.stayingthecourse.blogspot.com
Comment by: Helen
15LOL :)
Thanks for your comment, Greg.
Doreen, I’m glad to hear you found a congregation you liked enough to join.
Comment by: Eliza
16Stephan wrote:
I like the idea of a ritual welcoming for infants, with the adults present committing to protection of that child. Stephan, are the words of the kind of dedication ceremony you and your wife had for your kids much different from an infant baptism in a church like the one where my class is held? (Phew, sorry, that was a long sentence!)
Comment by: Eliza
17Helen wrote:
A surprising (for me ) number of sites came up when I search “thief cross baptized”! The groups/people who write about this all seem to share the belief that people are led astray by pointing to the thief as an example of salvation without baptism (some are quite strident in their warnings about how wrong this is).
Looks like the main points people consider are:
(1) Jesus was still alive and could save people directly;
(2) Jesus had not yet died & been risen, so the thief would not have been able to believe Jesus had been raised from the dead (it hadn’t happened yet);
(3) Similar: baptism wasn’t a requirement until after Jesus died and was risen;
(4) John and Jesus’ disciples had baptized alot of people by then, so maybe the thief had been one of those people (who then lapsed into sin); and, the final “out”,
(5) We don’t know whether or not the thief was baptized (E’s comment: would have been hard to accomplish on the cross, though…)
Gregg Lamm, thanks for your comments…do Quakers educate their new members (children or adults) about why the symbolic rituals aren’t felt to be needed? That would seem to be important, imo. (My dad, raised Quaker including boarding schools and college, has told me some about Quaker beliefs, but he has never mentioned these daily-life “substitutions” for rituals that other Christians follow…could be any number of reasons for that omission!)
Comment by: Helen
18I know you asked Stephan but, by the way, both my children were ‘dedicated’. The two churches I attended in the last several years don’t baptize adults or children until they clearly have made their own choice to be baptized. However, they will ‘dedicate’ babies if parents ask. This is a simple ceremony performed during a worship service in which the pastor holds the child, the parents pledge to do their best to raise him/her in the faith and the pastor prays for the child. At Moody Church the child is given a letter for them to open when they are 16. Yes, I still have those somewhere and they haven’t been opened yet ;-). The other church I went to didn’t do that.
So, the words are quite different from what you read about, Eliza. There is no assumption that this ceremony supernaturally confers salvation on the child - or even increases the likelihood of the child being saved later. However, the pastor does pray that the child will be as part of his prayer, which is not pre-written but generally is along similar lines - we pray the child will accept Christ early in life; we pray for his/her parents raising him/her; we pray he/she will be used greatly by you etc.
Oh, there was a bit of an issue having my first child dedicated until I clarified that I wanted to stand up alone with him - that my husband, who was an atheist, had no interest in being a participant in this ceremony. The pastor would not have been comfortable having my husband publically pledge to raise the child in a faith that the pastor knew he didn’t share. Not that my husband would have lied about that but at first the pastor said no he wouldn’t do the dedication and I didn’t understand why until we talked about it.
I changed churches when my children were still quite young. They were both baptized at my next (and last, barring any major changes in my current beliefs, values and priorities) church, at around the age of 6 or 7. I didn’t exactly force it on them - but I did ask them a lot if they wanted to be. (Which I admit can be quite coercive to children that age)
That’s about as young as any children are baptized at those two churches. In general they are fairly low-key about baptism, not saying much about it except to suggest people think about it on two occasions: a) if a baptism Sunday is coming up and b) right after some people have been baptised on one of those Sundays. I’ve seen children who went there all their lives not take the step of being baptized until they are adults. I expect the children who do get baptised as children probably take that step because their family talks about it with them.
Comment by: Stephan
19Eliza asked:
Similar to what Helen said, the parents are asked to vow that they will raise the child in the Christian faith, and the congregation is asked if they will support the parents in the venture. The pastor prays for God’s blessings on the child and guidance for all involved. It’s really more an act of commitment by the parents than any symbol of salvation for the child.
My son was baptized when he was 8 and my girls when they were 7 (just a few months ago). All three of them brought up the subject on their own without any pressure from us. My dad baptized all three of them in a lake near our house. I believe all three of them were Christians before they were baptized, and all three would have gone to heaven whether or not they were baptized, but this was a public expression of their intent to follow God.
Comment by: Helen
20Stephan, that’s neat that your Dad baptized your children. Is he a pastor? (Not that I’m saying he would have to be - I’m just curious)
It was the same with my children - it was a public expression of their faith, not an act which supernaturally turned them into Christians.
Comment by: Stephan
21Helen, my dad is a licensed minister in the state on Minnesota, although he has never been a preaching pastor. He has been a church choir director most of my life. If you go into just about any Covenant church in the country (and there are many in the Chicago area) and mention the name Ken Fenton there will be people who know who he is.
Comment by: Doreen
22Thanks Gregg. Your post just proves my point that Quakers are cool.
:)
Comment by: Gregg Lamm
23Eliza and others,
Yes, the Quakers I know do teach this to their children growing up — not so much as a way to “indoctrinate” them in the “one and only way to view these teachings of Christ and other parts of the Bible and life”, but more as a way to invite them into “a way of thinking” that doesn’t put God or beliefs into a box.
Many denominations like their doctrine to be “black and white” not so much because they’re anal retentive about creating doctrinal systems, but because they’re uncomfortable with paradox, ambiguity and conundrum, and they think that creating “theological word boxes” to describe God and God’s ways makes their faith safe, tame and measurable.
And yet life itself, and the life of faith specifically, is anything but tame. In fact, the life of faith is so saturated in paradox, that to not learn how to be settled with it instead of freaked out by it is a misstep of major proportions.
Learning to live within the freedom of paradox isn’t about compromising, polluting or watering down one’s faith. And neither is it “fence-sitting.” It’s about me choosing to admit upfront that there is a God, that I’m totally other than God, and that in the midst of that mystery is an invitation by God into relationship.
Learning to see the reality behind the symbolism of being a Christ-follower is an important part of how I view myself, the world, God, the Bible, and others … and I dare say, that this is also true of many of the other people who are in love with Jesus Christ, but having a holy infatuation with Quakerism. Good night and Godspeed.
read.think.pray.live.
Gregg Lamm
http://www.stayingthecourse.blogspot.com
Comment by: NCxian
24I have always found a lot to love about the Quaker philosophy and practice. I have to admit, though, that when I have considered engaging in Quaker community, it is the lack of the sacraments that bothers me. I find many Christian rituals to be very important to me personally. The only thing I can think of to compare that to is how my kids go to sleep more peacefully at night when they have their bedtime ritual. There is really nothing magical about the bath, pajamas, the teeth brushing, the bedtime story, and so on. It just seems that there is a . . . groove . . . that following the ritual puts them in that is somehow . . . right. Does that make sense? It’s pretty late on my coast!
On infant baptism, my congregation does infant dedication, as several folks have mentioned. There is quite a bit said by the congregation about supporting the child and his or her family as members of the local and greater community of Christ. I think it is mostly about community-joining with us.
Comment by: Seren
25Barclay wrote an “Apology” for quaker faith and theology in the 18th century. (Apology in the sense of “explanation,” not remorse). He explores church in-fighting over things like baptism, creed, other sacraments, and explains the quaker position as one that tries to avoid this sectarianism.
i haven’t explained it very well, but barclay does.
Comment by: Gregg Lamm
26Friends,
I can’t speak for all Quakers anymore than Eliza can speak for all Seattle Seahawk fans. But what I can say is that Seren is kind of right in writing that …
But what I would add is that “most Quakers do not follow the sacraments of baptism or the lord’s supper the same way most other Christ-followers do.”
Most Christ-followers believe that Christ gave an immoveable-mandated command to use bread and wine to commemorate the sacrifice He made by dying for sin on the cross.
But most Quakers believe that the mandate from Christ was to commemorate His dying and celebrate the forgiveness this dying accomplished — and that if one wants to use bread and wine to do this, great. But if one wants to cut to the chase, as it were, and “commune” with Christ by settling into His presence, listening to His voice and obeying His commands, then that’s perfectly acceptable. And what Jesus isn’t losing sleep over, neither should we.
Likewise, when it comes to baptism, most Quakers take this sacrament quite seriously but not literally — at least not when it comes to believing that somehow our “immersion” in water or “sprinking” with water is the prime agent of change Christ is calling us to experience in baptism. Rather, Christ invites people to be dipped, immersed into, and saturated with the character of Christ so that their thoughts become Christ’s thoughts, so that their words become Christ’s words, so that their actions become Christ’s actions — and this is the reality behind the symbol Quakers choose to embrace.
So the bottom line is that most Quakers are not “anti-sacramental.” Rather, they’ve just chosen to follow the leading of Christ in their lives with regard to their participation in the sacraments, instead of “following the herd”. This makes Quakers neither theologically dysfunctional, nor doctrinally radical. It just makes them different.
SIDELIGHT … Right now I’m waiting at Providence Hospital in Portland, Oregon while my precious bride Teresa undergoes surgery to remove a very large kidney stone. I’ve been in the waiting room for about three hours and starting to get a little antsy. Then next Thursday, 12 January, Teresa has another surgery — this one more major — which will seek to resolve the health problem that lies at the root of her kidney stone and other ongoing health concerns (it’s call “hyperparathyroidism”).
Thanks for your prayers and good thoughts for her. We’ve been hitched 24 years and seeing her suffer wasn’t exactly in the “goals and dreams” section of my Daytimer. Godspeed.
read.think.pray.live.
Gregg Lamm
http://www.stayingthecourse.blogspot.com
Comment by: joe
27I uphold the wisdom of Gregg’s words on Quakerism, although point out that many Quakers do not identify themselves as Christians. Many (here at least) have given up any attempt to have a reasoned theology. Which is a shame given the radicalness of their forebears.
Sorry to hear about your wife, Gregg. I’m not good at delivering on promises but I will try to remember you at the moment.
Comment by: Helen
28Yes, Gregg, I hope everything goes well with your wife’s surgery.
Comment by: Eliza
29Gregg, hope everything goes smoothly in her surgery today and with her recovery.
P.S. I can’t speak for any Seattle Seahawks fans… ;)
Comment by: Seren
30Thanks, Gregg. that’s clear and succinct. i tried to write something longer last night, but just got muddled. i’m glad i left it.
Joe:
As a Quaker attender (not member, perhpas won’t make much sense to not-quakers) who certainly doesn’t have a reasoned theology, i’d love to hear you explain this.
i’ve always associated quaker radicalness (which, certainly in australia, is ever-present) not with their pen-and-paper ideas, but with their real and lived, mtwabp ideas.
Comment by: joeturner
31Well, George Fox was clearly a radical in the Christian anabaptist tradition. Although alternative, quakers were originally a Christ-centred organisation.
Today, quakerism is not necessarily Christian. I’m not criticising, but that is the way that it is. Many of my quaker friends have left mainstream churches to embrace a belief system where they don’t have to constantly fight about theology.
Again, I see the benefits of that, and really I am not criticising. But it is not really a christian enterprise. And I think it is sad that it has moved away from the theology of the early quakers and become an institution of its own.
That said, most quakers can teach the rest of us a thing-or-three about peacemaking.
Comment by: Gregg Lamm
32Joe Turner and others …
There are two main Quaker groups in the world today, and both claim George Fox (July 1624-January 13, 1691 | England) as their founder, and his unique/radical views regarding God, the Bible, justice, peacemaking, women, the sacraments, decision-making, and simplicity as foundational to what they believe, who they are, and how they view the world.
And yet, it is what these two groups of Quakers believe about Jesus Christ that creates the biggest divide between them.
One first, and largest group of Quakers in the world is very centered on Jesus Christ and on the teachings of Jesus Christ — and values the centrality of being both personally and corporately led by Jesus Christ, whom Quaker founder George Fox called our “Present Teacher” … saying that “He had come to teach His people Himself.”
This group believes that Jesus Christ is God, is God’s Son, and that His death on the cross and His resurrection from the dead provide forgiveness of sin and access to a life of relationship and fellowship with God.
Almost all Quakers in Central and South America, and in Africa … and about 2/3 of all Quakers in the USA find themselves in this group.
The second group of Quakers, while feeling strongly akin to George Fox’s worldview, struggles to find affinity with Fox’s views of God, Jesus Christ and the Bible, and is ultimately more theologically aligned with Unitarianism than with orthodox Christianity.
This grouping of Quakers are involved in many ministries of justice and compassion in the world … both in developing and developed countries. And they were the first worldwide religious group to have a permanent presence at the United Nations in both New York City and in Geneva.
And while this group of Quakers identifies with the many metaphors used for Jesus Christ (and even used by Jesus Christ) in the Bible, they are more often than not reluctant to embrace the claims Jesus Christ made about His divinity and that He is the only way to God.
For instance, while their books, pamphlets, conferences, workshops and worship gatherings often speak of Jesus as “The Bread of Life,” “The Living Water,” and “The Prince of Peace,” they would be less apt to quote and embrace the words of Jesus Christ when He said that He was “the way, the truth and the life, and that no one comes to God the Father except through Him” (John 14:6).
If there is any religious organization in the world that has a wider range of diversity within the ranks for those who call themselves by the same name than Quakers, I’d be at a loss to know what it is.
Although I am a pastor-teacher of a flock within this first lumping of Quakers, I find myself having regular conversations and interactions with my “cousins” both in the USA and abroad. They are not my “project”. I’m not out to “change them.” These “other Quakers” are my friends.
Thanks to those of you who have asked about my wife Teresa’s kidney stone surgery yesterday. It went well and she is recovering here at our home — and preparing for her second surgery in six days this coming Friday. Thanks for your continued prayed and good thoughts. Godspeed.
read.think.pray.live.
Gregg Lamm
http://www.stayingthecourse.blogspot.com
Comment by: Helen
33Thanks for the update on your wife, Gregg - I’m glad the surgery went well. I hope next Friday’s will also.
Comment by: Seren
34Thanks, Gregg. And i’m glad about your wife’s good news.
As a (small “f”) quaker friend in australia my understanding of quakerism is completely biased towards the type of quakerism that is common here.
australia is not a very relgious country, and i think that is reflected in the nature of our yearly meeting.
that said, on any given sunday friends with deep, personal relationships with jesus christ their saviour sit in silence beside friends who struggle with any “god language,” at all, and others who find that the suffering they help to alleviate in our world makes it very hard to make sense of the orthodox god.
Comment by: Meg
35Seren, that is so beautiful! It seems this silent, honouring, non-judgemental’sitting with’ you describe here is something my heart yearns for - to just BE, in the organic, full, unapologetic sense, myself, with other organic selves. The gift of the shame-washing. Thank you!