Our baptismal liturgy unfortunately asks the question of the sponsors instead of the parents, although I try to explain to the parents that it is assumed they will "witness the baptism...pray for them, support them in their ongoing instruction and nurture in the Christian faith, and encourage them toward the faithful reception of the Lord's Supper." About 15 years ago, after three years of following the advice of every elder minister to baptize anyone who came forward, my conscience started to be quite grieved. Because almost none of these children were being raised in the faith in any real way. I started to read "the evil spirit will return with 7 more and the final state worse than the first (Matt 12:45)" in a much different way.
Sometimes the Romans have it right. In their canon law - 868 if you want to look - baptism requires a founded hope that the child will be raised in the faith. In my case I started simply demanding one thing, that the parents have an active church membership. And what did I mean by that? If they were in my congregation that meant a consistent month of attendance. Not a high bar. We would schedule the baptism for 6 weeks hence and it would stay on the schedule if they made 4 in a row. If it was a grandchild of someone in my congregation asking basically for grandma, they had to get a letter from the pastor of the congregation they were members of saying he was ok and had general spiritual oversight of them and the child. Now this made some grandmas rather mad. Because the kids just wouldn't do it. And that poor baby "wasn't getting done." There were a couple of people who got on the disgruntled bus and found someone less tortured in conscience at the next stop. But I think I have been telling them what they need to hear, not what they want to hear.
First, Mark, well done. Your passion to link baptism and catechesis corresponds to our Lord's commission to make disciples. Second, I have always interpreted the rubric regarding sponsors to include parents, since the scriptures make clear they have primary responsibility for discipleship. Finally, praise the Lord for holding the line. Well done.
Indeed, we have lost so much, the meanings of words, the vestiges of Christian reasoning.
Decades ago, before my brother met his wife, we tried to play matchmaker between him and an RC friend of my wife's. My wife's friend said, "Oh, it would never work, because I'm Catholic, and he's Christian." It both amused and horrified me that a Roman Catholic would cede so much territory (the entire word "Christian") to the "other side."
Of course, one of the things we have lost is the wisdom of the BCP, which would clear the young couple's problem right up: Let the "Catholics" dip the baby. Then, later, should doubts arise concerning the efficacy of Roman baptism, simply turn to page 282 (of the 1928 BCP) and perform a Conditional Baptism. Problem solved!
One last thought: Of all the slopes in the world, Baptism is about the least slippery. It grips quite well, and its slope is upward.
Am I being schooled? Trinitarian baptism is efficacious because of the Word in, with, and under the water, not because of the church or minister. Donatism light?
The "Catholic/Christian" dichotomy was certainly around when I was growing up in the late 1970s/early 80s. A friend described her parents this way--mom was "Catholic," but dad was "Christian." Not sure either of those descriptions were borne out in reality.
“Jesus, I want to do some real thinking about what it looks like for me to cling to you, to know you, to love you and to build my theology on you and not on the Scriptures.”
I’m sorry to be blunt, but that phrase can only be uttered by someone who is spiritually dull. I’m trying to be polite.
It’s like this pastor hasn’t actually read the Bible, especially the very well known parts about Jesus being the word and loving Jesus means doing his commandments.
It comes off as supposedly enlightened, but it makes me sad and mad. Hopefully he is no longer preaching! He will have much to account for.
I can only say this because I have had a beam in my eye. The pastor is blinded by the beam in his eye- he simply cannot see what he is doing in twisting the Word of God.
The answer is yes, we are the pedantic nerds who correct everybody saying, “don’t you mean Protestant and Catholic?” The truth is, a good chunk of Protestants do not think that Catholics are Christians and become very nervous when people start reading Aquinas and Augustine, and seem to think that Christianity began with Calvin. I know that the guy is a KJV only extremist, but John Chick’s Crusader Comics are filled with bizarre anti Catholic conspiracies (which interestingly enough look quite similar to the conspiracies that Syncretists/Mythicists use when denying the Jesus even existed). I remember in the early 90’s there was a big ecumenical push between Protestants and Catholics, but I don’t think everybody got the memo. And then people were also using “born again” as a category. They would ask “are you ‘a born again.’” I had just returned from the Philippines where all us good MKs knew the differences between all the denominations, so the whole thing was bewildering to me.
I remember stumbling across those Crusader comics when I was in middle school in the early to mid-80s and having the living daylights scared out of me. Those things were intense. Maybe that's why I like horror stories.
Regarding Christianity starting with Calvin, I recall a coworker once describing the mindset as, "There were the apostles, then 1500 years if darkness, and then Luther came."
Yeah. All part of the “satanic panic” of the mid 1980’s for sure. Chick is a classic LA story kind of person. Funny enough his comics have a cult following with more underground comic folks. And a super little known fact is that his famous Chick Tracts were designed after dirty little comics called Tijuana Bibles. All very LA story in its fullness.
Our baptismal liturgy unfortunately asks the question of the sponsors instead of the parents, although I try to explain to the parents that it is assumed they will "witness the baptism...pray for them, support them in their ongoing instruction and nurture in the Christian faith, and encourage them toward the faithful reception of the Lord's Supper." About 15 years ago, after three years of following the advice of every elder minister to baptize anyone who came forward, my conscience started to be quite grieved. Because almost none of these children were being raised in the faith in any real way. I started to read "the evil spirit will return with 7 more and the final state worse than the first (Matt 12:45)" in a much different way.
Sometimes the Romans have it right. In their canon law - 868 if you want to look - baptism requires a founded hope that the child will be raised in the faith. In my case I started simply demanding one thing, that the parents have an active church membership. And what did I mean by that? If they were in my congregation that meant a consistent month of attendance. Not a high bar. We would schedule the baptism for 6 weeks hence and it would stay on the schedule if they made 4 in a row. If it was a grandchild of someone in my congregation asking basically for grandma, they had to get a letter from the pastor of the congregation they were members of saying he was ok and had general spiritual oversight of them and the child. Now this made some grandmas rather mad. Because the kids just wouldn't do it. And that poor baby "wasn't getting done." There were a couple of people who got on the disgruntled bus and found someone less tortured in conscience at the next stop. But I think I have been telling them what they need to hear, not what they want to hear.
First, Mark, well done. Your passion to link baptism and catechesis corresponds to our Lord's commission to make disciples. Second, I have always interpreted the rubric regarding sponsors to include parents, since the scriptures make clear they have primary responsibility for discipleship. Finally, praise the Lord for holding the line. Well done.
Indeed, we have lost so much, the meanings of words, the vestiges of Christian reasoning.
Decades ago, before my brother met his wife, we tried to play matchmaker between him and an RC friend of my wife's. My wife's friend said, "Oh, it would never work, because I'm Catholic, and he's Christian." It both amused and horrified me that a Roman Catholic would cede so much territory (the entire word "Christian") to the "other side."
Of course, one of the things we have lost is the wisdom of the BCP, which would clear the young couple's problem right up: Let the "Catholics" dip the baby. Then, later, should doubts arise concerning the efficacy of Roman baptism, simply turn to page 282 (of the 1928 BCP) and perform a Conditional Baptism. Problem solved!
One last thought: Of all the slopes in the world, Baptism is about the least slippery. It grips quite well, and its slope is upward.
Am I being schooled? Trinitarian baptism is efficacious because of the Word in, with, and under the water, not because of the church or minister. Donatism light?
The "Catholic/Christian" dichotomy was certainly around when I was growing up in the late 1970s/early 80s. A friend described her parents this way--mom was "Catholic," but dad was "Christian." Not sure either of those descriptions were borne out in reality.
“Jesus, I want to do some real thinking about what it looks like for me to cling to you, to know you, to love you and to build my theology on you and not on the Scriptures.”
I’m sorry to be blunt, but that phrase can only be uttered by someone who is spiritually dull. I’m trying to be polite.
It’s like this pastor hasn’t actually read the Bible, especially the very well known parts about Jesus being the word and loving Jesus means doing his commandments.
It comes off as supposedly enlightened, but it makes me sad and mad. Hopefully he is no longer preaching! He will have much to account for.
I can only say this because I have had a beam in my eye. The pastor is blinded by the beam in his eye- he simply cannot see what he is doing in twisting the Word of God.
The answer is yes, we are the pedantic nerds who correct everybody saying, “don’t you mean Protestant and Catholic?” The truth is, a good chunk of Protestants do not think that Catholics are Christians and become very nervous when people start reading Aquinas and Augustine, and seem to think that Christianity began with Calvin. I know that the guy is a KJV only extremist, but John Chick’s Crusader Comics are filled with bizarre anti Catholic conspiracies (which interestingly enough look quite similar to the conspiracies that Syncretists/Mythicists use when denying the Jesus even existed). I remember in the early 90’s there was a big ecumenical push between Protestants and Catholics, but I don’t think everybody got the memo. And then people were also using “born again” as a category. They would ask “are you ‘a born again.’” I had just returned from the Philippines where all us good MKs knew the differences between all the denominations, so the whole thing was bewildering to me.
I remember stumbling across those Crusader comics when I was in middle school in the early to mid-80s and having the living daylights scared out of me. Those things were intense. Maybe that's why I like horror stories.
Regarding Christianity starting with Calvin, I recall a coworker once describing the mindset as, "There were the apostles, then 1500 years if darkness, and then Luther came."
Yeah. All part of the “satanic panic” of the mid 1980’s for sure. Chick is a classic LA story kind of person. Funny enough his comics have a cult following with more underground comic folks. And a super little known fact is that his famous Chick Tracts were designed after dirty little comics called Tijuana Bibles. All very LA story in its fullness.