Peds and Creeds Part 1

Shortly after we started attending the local Episcopal church, there was a baptism.  A baby baptism.


Now, in Fundamentalism, baptizing babies was heresy.  Even more mainstream Baptists, ironically, refuse to baptize infants.  I was always taught that it was ridiculous, unbiblical, and the height of unorthodoxy.

However, I found the baptismal service interesting - and extremely similar to the few baby "dedication services" I remember from my Fundamentalist background. The part that made me the most uncomfortable was where the parents reply for the child, but a great deal was nearly identical to my own child's dedication service.

Recently, I've been thinking more about this issue, so I decided I needed to start reading up on infant baptism.

Imagine my surprise when, on reading the wikipedia article (hey, I figured it would be one of the least biased sources out there), I discovered that the vast majority of Christianity for the vast majority of Christian history has baptized infants.  It's quite probable that it was standard practice from the very beginning, as evidenced by New Testament head-of-household conversions being followed by baptizing the entire household - presumably including small children and infants.  There was certainly no injunction to avoid baptizing them.


Well. Infant baptism has been a longstanding widespread practice of the Church. I honestly never knew that.  And since it's a sacrament-level practice, not just a custom, I'm having a very difficult time dismissing it without exquisitely clear reasons to do so.

Continuing the historical information, how about the people who don't baptize infants?  Baptists, Pentecostals, Church of Christ, Mennonites, Amish, and a few others.  A relatively small and inconsequential segment of Christianity.  Most of whom are denominations I want nothing to do with and who seem to be particularly good at spiritual abuse.  Also many of whom are strongly Arminian - and as someone who now leans rather Reformed, that in and of itself makes me a little fussy.

Unfortunately, denominations who do baptize infants don't seem to agree much on just why it should be done and just what it means, largely because of varying views on deeper issues such as soteriology, grace, original sin, etc.  But it does seem pretty clear that it is at least acceptable to do, and it's been done for a long time - early church fathers seemed to accept it as standard practice, even desirable, and certainly nothing innovative or controversial.

So I'm still reading up on it.  I really want to read more of what the earliest church fathers had to say about it, but their complete writings are a little harder to find offhand than say, Wesley's or Luther's.   Not that I'm pooh-poohing later writers, but I figure the closer to the source, the better on something like this.

And honestly, the main reason for thinking about this so thoroughly is because I'm going to have to be really really well-versed on this issue.  Because if I choose to have the next child - or even the current child - baptized, a great deal of heck is going to be unleashed. 

(Minced oaths.  I know.  Silly. That part of me is still Fundy...  ...at least in print.)

Lent Followup

In the interest of full disclosure, I figured I should probably update how Lent finished (besides Easter, which was lovely.)

Halfway through Lent, the medical issue over meat disappeared, so I started eating meat again.  Figured the medical issue was enough to deal with. 

The prayer beads didn't stick either, though I still look at them fondly and it's still the most real praying I've done in years.  (Told you my ADD was bad.)  I think perhaps the bigggest barrier to continuing is finding more prayers to go with the beads than what I can find for free online, and I'm apparently too cheap to just buy a book of them.  Though I haven't checked the library yet...

I didn't mention one of the traditions regarding Lent is that the word "Alleluia" is not spoken during the liturgy.  "Alleluia" means "Praise God"; not that we're not praising God during Lent, but it's an indicator that  Lent is a more solemn time, a less boisterous time. 

I hadn't realized how much of the parts of the liturgy that I love contained alleluias, and missing alleluias also became a part of my Lenten fast this year.

For example: just before the bread and wine is served at Communion, we sing the following song:

The tune is beautiful and simple. When we first started attending and  I learned it, I would find myself humming it through the week and deriving a great deal of comfort from the song.  For me it's still a highlight of the service - especially because as soon as it finishes, we are told that the bread and wine are "the gifts of God for the people of God". And we all know how much I love Communion.

Outside of the Lenten season, the deacon also closes the service saying, "Alleluia, go in peace to love and serve the Lord!" - to which the congregation replies, "Thanks be to God; alleluia, alleluia!"  During Lent, basically the same exchange occurs, except the "alleluia" is omitted.

So joyful and soul-nourishing, these alleluias.  I missed them.

But on Easter, alleluias abounded, and there are more alleluias in the Easter season liturgy than even before Lent.  As proclaimed on Easter, "We are an Easter people and Alleluia is our song."  The Resurrection is our joy.  Alleluia!

First Palm Sunday Part 2

So the first difference in Palm Sunday was a truer reading of Scripture.

The second difference was the focus on how worthy Christ was of being honored in that way.  In order to illustrate that, this video clip was played:

I gotta admit, I was very uncomfortable when this first started.  All kinds of triggers from Fundyland were hitting me - the subtle Southern accent, the incessant alliteration, the way he says "glory" and "love", the hyperbole (though I blush at saying there could be hyperbole about the incomparable Christ)...  I was starting to tense up, sweat, and palpitate a bit.

Fortunately, the video lasted long enough for me to settle down. 

About halfway through, I began to see that despite all these outward cultural similarities to Fundamentalism, he actually wasn't using any guilt at all.  He simply asked if I knew this wonderful, amazing Person.  He didn't stop to press me for the answer, he was too busy telling me about the beautiful Christ.  I saw his sermon as poetry or performance art in a way - it's not intended as a deep theological treatise, it's a celebration. There's a place for that.

And I finally understood how to be happy for someone preaching Christ in a way that I didn't agree with (Philippians 1:18).  It has been so hard sometimes to describe this break from Fundamentalism, to convey the utter wasteland that Fundamentalism is. Frequently I read comments from those still in Fundamentalism saying that objectors should just be happy that Christ is being preached and stop fussing.  But there is a difference between standing against Fundamentalism and standing against something you just dislike, and I can see it better now.  This preaching style I don't personally like all that much.  Some of it is baggage from Fundamentalism, some is just my personality. I might not willingly sit under this style every week  - but I can certainly be ok with someone else who is willing.  Based on this clip, this man loves Christ.  He loves showing who Christ is.  He's not tainting the Gospel with legalism and heterodoxy.  He might be engaging in some social contrivances that I'm not a fan of, but he is preaching Christ.

And for that, I can honestly rejoice.