Okay, wow, things have been super busy since I got back. Several different ideas rolling around in my head that will probably find their way here sooner or later.
While I was on vacation, I steadfastly refused to watch or read any news. Since I've been back, I haven't had time to. I have no idea what is going on in the world. I assume since Democrats are back in charge of Congress that everything is fine, right?
Aaaaaaaaah, it's December!
By the way, it's going to be 70 degrees in New York today. (We'll discuss global warming another time. Actually, if you want to talk global warming, I can enthusiastically refer you Future Geek.) My point is, no one knows how to dress. It's December. It's also dark and gloomy out. It looks like it should be 30-something, but it's 70. I came to work today in a t-shirt with no jacket. Did I mention it's December in the American northeast? People are walking around outside in coats and scarves, sweating and looking confused.
I'm taking a course on religion and critical thinking at my church. Last night's topic was baptism. I think I ruffled some feathers by saying I'm not convinced baptizing infants is a good idea. I was worried I might be too progressive for even this progressive congregation...and then I realized that, actually, no, my position is way old-school. Pre-Augustine, even. It was explained to me that the church believes in an ontological shift...okay, topic for another blog.
My point -- and I do have one -- is, don't you hate it when people in classes ask questions, not because they have something they want to know but because they want to impress the teacher and the class with the sophistication of their questions? Gag me.
Okay, I need to get on with my extremely busy workday. However, I did want to close by saying I'm about halfway through Barack Obama's The Audacity of Hope. Awesome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think that you are the one who is right on the subject of infant baptism. I can find no biblical statute for it. It has been argued that "Cornelius and all his household" were baptized, and thus since it says "household" that infants must be included in there. But most every other biblical reference to baptism clearly indicates that belief is required. Babies can't believe. Nor do I think that from other biblical references that babies are sinful from birth; if so, would Jesus say that we must become "as children"? What would make children any different from the rest of us if they were capable of sin or began life as sinners? Children are innocent and trusting, and those are qualities required for faith. Jesus encouraged children to come to him, but you never see a single example of his preaching to a child or telling a child to "go and sin no more." You are well-studied, Andy. And just because the church has done it for a millennium doesn't make it right.
Well, the early church did baptize adults exclusively, and of course after the Reformation, that was the whole Anabaptist thing. Somewhere along the line we picked up the idea (ermmm, thanks, Augustine) about "original sin." Now, no one in the class was about to claim that an unbaptized infant (or adult, for that matter) was automatically disqualified from salvation. And the teacher didn't imply that he necessarily disagreed with me, but he wanted to explain that the official understanding is that we are born with "original sin" (which has nothing to do with sex, simply that human nature is inherently inclined toward rebellion and sin...which, I'm not sure I believe) and that through the sacrament of baptism, there is an actual change in the spiritual condition of the infant, whether they are rational, willing participants or not. My question about whether it wouldn't be better and more meaningful for the baptizee (is that a word?) to be willing and aware was answered with the idea that through the gift of the Holy Spirit, we can come to awareness of the miracle of our baptism at a later time. I wouldn't oppose the baptism of an infant, I guess. I'm biased, though, since I made my own decision to be baptized.
Heya Andy :).
I'll save most of my responses on infant baptism "for another blog," if you do one ... but infant baptism is still controversial in the Catholic Chruch as well. I choose infant baptism.
Being able to choose one's baptism is certainly a moment of beauty which infant-baptised people (like myself) don't get (and how wonderful that you did :)! ). In the Catholic Church, the Sacrament of Confirmation is the time we (are supposed to) make the conscious choice for ourselves ... which can be a beautiful spiritual experience, or simply rote, like everything else in my so-very-established church.
And, to your point, YES, it SUX when people ask quetions just to sound erudite. Grrrrrrr.
I think it depends on what you believe to be the purpose of baptism. If you think it once-and-for-all saves you from your sins, I think it would be inappropriate for infants to be baptized. The Orthodox church doesn't believe in original sin and this is one thing I can squarely get behind my church's theology on.
I believe that baptism is a way of bringing a member into the community. I think that is a very helpful thing, a good thing. Children are full members in our church. They are not junior members. They receive communion, they don't have to wait until some magical age to take communion. If they are being brought up in a Christian family, there is no reason to treat them as non-Christians just because they haven't made a decision for themselves.
However, I think my church is lacking in a rite of passage. Though I like the fact that babies are full members, I would like there to be some ritual like confirmation or bar mitzva where adolescents could make their own decision. And I do think that those who make their own decision regarding baptism are making a valuable choice. So I don't disparage churches that wait until the child is older to baptize.
Post a Comment