Baptism Again
This post makes public an ongoing email exhcange with reference to the earlier discussion(s) of baptism that Matt and I have been having:
Matt,
Thanks for your email. Apologies for the tardy reply; I was in Pittsburgh for ordination process stuff. I am regrettably unfamiliar with Beasley-Murray and McClendon - though I recall Freeman mentioning that McClendon was not adamantly opposed to pedobaptism (or something like that). With respect to the text and the tradition, I think both modes of baptism enjoy substantial warrant.
This being the case, I approach the question/debate from a missional perspective. That is to say, given the contextual setting of the Church/a congregation, which form/practice performs and proclaims the gospel "more effectively" (for lack of a less utilitarian phrasing)? As my earlier post indicates, infant baptism seems to enjoy more warrant on these grounds.
But, I'd like to hear a little bit more about how you (and B-M/McC) think about the missional sensibilities of believers baptism. I'd also be interested in a thick description of the actual difference (missionally and theologically) between "dedication" and "baptism." Though the sacramental character and liturgical actions differ, it seems to me that in many (most?) cases the dedication-baptism and baptism-confirmation practices are functionally equivalent.
Your turn,
DWL
Matt,
Thanks for your email. Apologies for the tardy reply; I was in Pittsburgh for ordination process stuff. I am regrettably unfamiliar with Beasley-Murray and McClendon - though I recall Freeman mentioning that McClendon was not adamantly opposed to pedobaptism (or something like that). With respect to the text and the tradition, I think both modes of baptism enjoy substantial warrant.
This being the case, I approach the question/debate from a missional perspective. That is to say, given the contextual setting of the Church/a congregation, which form/practice performs and proclaims the gospel "more effectively" (for lack of a less utilitarian phrasing)? As my earlier post indicates, infant baptism seems to enjoy more warrant on these grounds.
But, I'd like to hear a little bit more about how you (and B-M/McC) think about the missional sensibilities of believers baptism. I'd also be interested in a thick description of the actual difference (missionally and theologically) between "dedication" and "baptism." Though the sacramental character and liturgical actions differ, it seems to me that in many (most?) cases the dedication-baptism and baptism-confirmation practices are functionally equivalent.
Your turn,
DWL
posted by Prince Duhwizzle at 6:02 PM
54 Comments:
*sniff* *sniff* I smell the fumes of pragmatism. A vacuum cleaner functions, baptism doesn't.
Boy is that a self-righteous response. I will come back with a thicker view if I can find the time away from my lake and my boat.
Wilson,
I admitted the limitation of my diction. To be thicker myself....Both dedication and pedobaptism seem to (involuntarily) constitute space/subjectivity in Christ and within the Church. This is later ratified, accepted, reaffirmed, in baptism or confirmation. And, despite any anabaptist protestations about choice and conscience, children are generaly involuntarily brought to corporate worship, VBS, Sunday shool, youth group, etc.
All this leaves me thinking infant dedication is an odd circumlocation and evasion of what is actually going on; namely an infant baptism minus the water. The charge to the parents and congregation are quite similar. The liturgical event and subsequent catechetical activities for children/youth are largely the same and are normally not optional.
I'll close with a caveat. I think in Anabaptist (i.e. Mennonites, etc.) there may be an actual difference sine the aversion to infant baptism is embedded within the commitment to nonviolence, and not merely an appeal to generic freedom of conscience.
And finally; though I generally do not have an aversion to pragmatism that was not the tone of my remark. To us a legal trope, the facts of the case (text and tradition) seem inconclusive. This leads me to missional considerations of performance and proclamation, which I hope all y'all can help me work through....
Wilson,
Once again the weakness of text conversations arises. It's so much easier for me to understand your points when we are face to face. So help me once again. I get the pragmatism thing, although I can't buy into the implication that pragmatism is from the dark side. I acknowledge that pragmatism (too often) falsely presumes a homogenous community and tends to be self-referential. And, in addition to that, the Tillichian strain in me wants to insist that pragmatism is rightfully criticized because it points not vertically but only horizontally, and therefore its vision is flat, and hence given to utopias that end in emptiness and despair. Hell, that's my life story before I was grasped by the Spirit. Yet, that same strain leads me to presume that pragmatism is at worst ambiguous - it contains within it both the divine and the demonic. So it's hard for me to understand the implication that an idea should be dismissed just because it smacks - sniff sniff - of pragmatism. I need to know more about why you feel Derrick's offering should be dismissed if I am to understand you. And I want to.
And I miss what the antecedant of "that" is in "is 'that' a self-righteous response?" Are you referring to Derrick's response to Matt? Or are you engaging in self-criticism? I thought about it and, frankly, could not tell what you meant. Pray tell!
I am always engaging in self-criticism, Craig. When in doubt, assume that I am mocking myself.
Pragmatism is a very loaded word for me dealing with James, Dewey, Rorty, and my brother, so I should be more tactful about throwing it around, but my initial knee-jerk was Derrick's comment about paedobaptism and dedication being functional equivalent. I feel like that functionality could be a way to hide the "metaphysical baggage" (scare quotes "emphasized") of baptism. And I am not pulling for idealism against pragmatism, that's a false dichotomy. This is one of those incoherent things floating in my head like "mystery" that I should let float a while longer, at least til it nears the beaches of coherency.
Derrick, after we had our baptism fight club I talked to Martin for a while about it and your point about still taking dedicated kids to worship &c., was one that I was making that felt very convincing to me, but you know the patience of a Mennonite...(that should be an old saying, but alas). Needless to say, it was one of the issues that confirmed my thoughts on paedobaptism, for the moment (that and "age of accountability" which I have a suspicion is from the evil one, but I have not pursued yet(slight sarcasm there)).
And my gut tells me that Anabaptists pre-20th century were not focused on the nonviolent aspect of Christian practice as central. Not that it wasn't important, I just think that reading the gospel through nonviolence is a relatively recent practice. Now this is not the Colbert Report so I can't cite my gut, but I'd be interested in Martin's take on that point.
If only the Christian tradition afforded two baptisms, then all this stuff would be academic. I can see the point of both pedobaptism and believer baptism. I'm becoming more convinced that the important thing is not the actual form of the choices we make in worship but rather that we express the intentionality of the choice. Rarely do we talk about why we're baptizing an infant. When was the last time we heard about that? I suspect that in those churches that practice believer baptism (at least in the case of mine growing up where I was baptized at 13) that the intentionality of the choice to baptism as an adult or as a confessional act is more frequently discussed. More liturgical settings do a good job of reciting the liturgy (which certainly tells the story) but tends to think that the liturgy is sufficient to tell the story without further reflection. I suspect we should preach from the "text" of the liturgy about as often as we preach from the "text" of scripture. Or at least alongside one another.
Prince, I wonder what it is you think about infant baptism that better encapsulates the gospel?
Peace out.
The "better" of infant baptism is adjudicated missionally. It asserts and/or creates (a metaphysical bone thrown to Wilson) space and subjectivity outside the claustraphobic demands/constraints of late modern capitalism and liberalism.
Against believer's baptism, I submit "freedom of conscience," "intent," and volition all presume a self that is (somewhat) sui generis, rather than recieved. This occludes the warping effects of ideological interpellation, rather than naming them (as powers and principalities) right up front, and insisting that any self capable of intentionally choosing discipleship is one that is given/created by God.
Matt's most recent email reply to me mentioned actors (agents). In baptist practice, there are three: God, the Church, the person being baptized. He suggested that in infant baptism the third is absent. Being Reformed, my contention is that the actual agent is God with any agency (ecclesial or personal) being derivative of that.
To summarize, infant baptism seems missionally superior in that it emphasizes the helplessness of sinful humanity and primacy of divine agency. God (re)creates the self (subject) and space (Church) who and in which confession become possible. Believer's baptism (indirectly) suggests there is a self and space with (some measure of) an autonomy unto itself capable of choosing to make a confession.
This is an inescapable semi-Pelagian tendency of Arminian theologies eschewing perceived coercion of election in the Reformed, Roman, and Eastern confessions. Wesley attempts to dodge this (ineffectually) with his notion of "prevenient grace" which can only seem something of a "poor-man's predestination."
Derek,
While I stand near the King in seeing this argument as interesting but far too abstract to entice me to parley, your last words are provocative. Frankly, the distinctions in practice in America seem to me to be too subtle to support a claim by either side of missional superiority. I wonder if we are better served to press hard for a rigorous understanding of the Eucharist in the pews. But on to your provocation. Prevenient grace as poor man's predestination? Hunh? Wesley abhorred the idea of predestination. And prevenient grace is not his notion. Cranmer wrote about it before he became Archbishop (200 years before Wesley), and his understanding was rooted in Aquinas' idea of grace acting operatively. Prevenient was a translation from the latin - loosely "coming before." Perhaps when you refer to predestination, you are focusing on God's act of election of those who come to faith, and are not focusing on the idea of a limited group who are predestined? Because I believe Wesley supported the former,and, until right before he died, denied the latter. I am reading "Responsible Grace" by Randy Maddox right now so this is of great interest to me right now. And do you mean to suggest that you deny the concept of prevenient or grace acting operatively? I thought you embrace those concepts...
We probably strike close to the heart of the matter now. Does the individual have any agency in the decision to come to Christ. I believe they do. Derek, do you not experience some agency? Are you not making choices? Or does it just appear that you are, but really behind the scenes God is just pulling the cords?
Hold it king, that's sounds like a new topic.
Agency is a tricky thing. Though I can't recall where I read it, I recently read a description of freedom (used here as a loose, but useful synonym) as "ability to choose which causes determine one's action. (This would be something like the choice between letting one's anger form a response to one's spouse, rather than one's love - or vice versa.)
Aquinas, Calvin, and Wesley-Cranmer all attempt to decipher this in terms of how humans "act" with respect to God and its (in)efficacy in the eeconomy of salvation. Both Aquinas and (Craig's account of) Wesley affirm a prior act of God creating/making possible human response. Given Aquinas's Aristotelian bent, the important cause is God. Calvin articulates this more baldly as predestination.
But in all of these schemas, the human action is impossible apart from God's prior action - both as creator and redeemer. Absent prevenient, cooperative, or irresistible grace.
Referrning to the earlier discussion (previous thread), this is a theological articulation of what marxists refer to as hegemony and interpellation. It is an odd admixture of coercion and consent within overall structures constraining possible alternatives. (E.g. - I choose to function within a consumerist market-economy, but viable alternatives are severely limited).
I apologize for the length of this post, but I aim to clarify Wesley's position on these complex topics more reliably than my quick response to Derek above.
Despite the credit Derek gave me, I don’t yet know enough to give a worthy account of Wesley, but I can pass on what I have read in Maddox’ account of Wesley in “Responsible Grace.” And I can add what I have learned this summer about Thomas Cranmer, because he is surely relevant in any right understanding of Wesley’s thought. I rely (and quote/paraphrase) on Maddox ch 3 and pp. 221-225 for what follows.
As Derek points out, the doctrine of prevenient grace figures importantly in Wesley’s thoughts on baptism. But we must attend to considerable nuance in Wesley’s version of that doctrine. First, Maddox points out the critical sources for Wesley were not Western Christianity but his Anglican tradition and the Eastern Orthodox tradition. In particular, it’s important to note that Wesley’s understanding of sin and the Christian life resonates more with the Greeks than the Roman tradition. This is an important element of Anglicanism that distinguishes it from the more pure expressions of the Reformed tradition. Cranmer was himself a patristic scholar, heavily influenced by Gregory of Nyssa et les Cappadocians, which was handy when Henry VIII needed to distinguish his church from Rome. The soteriology of the West was characterized by a dominant juridical emphasis on guilt and absolution, while that of the East emphasized the therapeutic concern for healing our sin-diseased nature. Wesley in “best understood as one fundamentally committed to the therapeutic view of Christian life.”
“Wesley understood prevenient grace to be God’s initial move toward restored relationship with fallen humanity. As a first dimension, this involved God’s merciful removal of any inherited guilt, by virtue of the Christ. A second dimension of God’s initial move to restored Presence is a partial healing of our debilitated human faculties, sufficient for us to sense and respond to God. The final dimension is God’s specific overtures to individuals, inviting closer relationships. If these overtures are welcomed, a grace-empowered relationship of cooperative and progressive transformation sets forth. Since God’s grace is universal, so is the possibility of such relationship. Since God’s grace is resistible, no individual’s participation is inevitable.”
This leads to the question of human agency raised by Tom et al. “Wesley did indeed affirm a role for meaningful human participation in salvation. However, he always maintained that this role was grounded in God’s gracious empowering, not our inherent abilities. As he repeatedly insisted, we must hold in tension the two biblical teachings: ‘Without me you can do nothing,’ and ‘I can do all things through Christ strengthening me.’” Maddox’ term ‘responsible grace’ points to “Wesley’s conviction that our requisite cooperation is only possible in response to God’s empowering. It also carries hints of the universality of Prevenient Grace - it is because God is graciously present to all humanity that all humanity are responsible.”
This leads to our discussion on baptism. There may be a surprise here: “Adult convert baptism functioned as the model for framing the theology in the Early Church and for Wesley.” Because of his therapeutic focus, Wesley believed “the defining purpose of baptism is not to bestow our juridical pardon, but to initiate the graciously-empowered transformation of our lives....the grace of baptism is sufficient for initiating Christian life, [but] it becomes efficient only as we responsively participate.” Thus, “Wesley declined to identify the New Birth with baptism in any rigid sense.” Wesley’s view of baptism, per Maddox, “resonates strongly with the co-operant nature of baptismal grace affirmed by the Eastern Christianity.”
Yet while Wesley emphasized adult baptism, he also practiced infant baptism. “The mature Wesley joined Eastern Christians in discounting [the remission of the inherited guilt of Original Sin as the] purpose for infant baptism." This is because he believed that forgiveness of that guilt is washed away for all humans at birth as part of God’s prevenient grace. Jesus died for all, period. So the only guilt in question is our own guilt after birth. “Wesley remained convinced that infant baptism conveyed the regenerating Presence of the Holy Spirit, though he emphasized that the full effectiveness of this gracious Presence emerged gradually, as the developing child responsibly appropriated it.”
Perhaps another surprise: “Wesley objected...to the rite of confirmation itself....To begin with, Wesley would have balked at the possible implication that reception of the Holy Spirit is guaranteed through confirmation....He rejected the notion that the Gift of the Holy Spirit is somehow reserved for later bestowal upon folk who were already ‘partly’ Christian. If the intention of confirmation is defined instead as simply renewing or deepening one’s responsiveness to the Gift of the Holy Spirit, then Wesley would reject the suggestion that this need is met in any single event; the way of salvation is a continual process of deeper responsiveness to the Spirit’s Presence, empowered by regular participation in the several means of grace....Thus, his deletion of the rite of confirmation as a required sacramental supplement to baptism was a conscious practical-theological decision.”
I just got the smack down from the blog master. :)
On that note, why don't we hold a Socratic Club Cage Match first thing back at school. Last one standing gets to be king for the new year.
Back to business...what does a baptized baby posess that an unbaptized baby does not posess?
Per Wesley at least: the regenerating presence of the Holy Spirit. And, in my view, the commitment of their community of faith to walk alongside them and nurture them in the Way so that they may grow in the fruits of grace.
That Craig attneds to the Eastern account of redemption does not suprise me. I take his (and Maddox's) word that Wesley worked off of/within that paradigm. Though as we all recall from studying for CH14, when you look at the Wesley Redemption Question and the CH13 (Co)Operative Grace question, the paradigm is remarkably similar. Wesley retains an immistakable dose of the juridicial move of the West.
This being said, I mentioned earlier my new leanings toward the East and its ontological account of redemption and regeneration (theosis). The Eastern view leans decisively in favor of infant baptism, as the ontological dimension of theosis (becoming god-like) implies a radical minimization of the human self and its agency.
And finally, an interesting avenue for our continued discussion responding to the King's most recent question. I agree with Wesley, and the Reformed tradition does not count confirmation as a sacrament - it does not bestow the Spirit, which was somehow withheld in baptism.
In the Reformed tradition the it runs sacrament (baptism) first, liturgical ecclesial rite (confirmation) second. In anabaptist traditions it is liturgical ecclesial act first (dedication), sacrament second (adult baptism). Wesley seems to have it both ways.
This being the case, I would again commend the former as it emphasizes and (chronologically) prioritizes the divine action, with a responsive human action to follow, rather than suggesting there is human action which is later joined to divine action. (Though no one would likely explicitly say the latter, the misisonal liturgical subtext reads that way.)
I forgot to answer Tom's question:
It seems that on the Eastern and my iteration of the Reformed view, the baptized infant has been given (invaded by) a new self (Christ's own self via the Spirit).
we really need a Baptistish person to chime in. I think this debate has been entirely too paedocentric.
I commend Derek's phrasing and want to nuance his depiction of the Eastern view by again quoting Prof Maddox. Here I focus on Derek's careful wording. The babe has been "invaded by a new self." His phrasing suggests a transformation of the babe's reality rather than implying the babe is the same as before except for the sudden possession of the Spirit. Perhaps one might better say the babe is possessed by the Spirit rather than the other way around. In context, Wesley's view matches the Eastern, per Maddox: Prevenient grace is not a new endowment given into human possession, it is an accompanying effect of God's initial move towards mercifully-restored Presence in our lives. Maddox makes a distinction, which he says Wesley made, between 'created' grace (the Western view) and 'uncreated' grace (the Eastern view. (Actually Maddox commends Prof. Langford's view on this.) The point is that, in both Wesley and the Eastern view, Prevenient Grace should not be considered a gift FROM God, but the gift OF God's activity in our lives.
In the matter of baptism, "Wesley carefully eliminated from the [39] Articles any suggestion that baptism inevitably conveys the benefits of justification and regeneration...with the apparent intention of affirming the availability of regeneration in baptism, while protecting against presumption by removing the suggestion of assured reception...[He] underlined the personal and responsive nature of baptismal grace, on close analogy with his understanding of grace in the Lord's supper."
"Wesley consistently rejected the notion that unbaptized persons who receive the assurance of faith...do not then need baptism. God has worked in an extraordinary fashion in their case (like with Cornelius), but they should still come to the water for the confirming and strengthening grace that it provides. Wesley's concern here is not that baptism is a juridical necessity for salvation (because it is not), but that it contributes to the therapeutic transformation of our lives. Thus, even after Wesley denied that Quakers would be damned for not observing water baptism, he continued to baptize Quakers who joined his movement."
As I think about what I just wrote about Wesley, I wonder: is there, for Wesley, a real distinction between infant and adult baptism? If he emphasizes the availability of regeneration for the infant and denies the inevitability of regeneration, is he not saying that infant generation is really voluntaristic, with the decisions of acceptance of grace happening not in an instant but rather over the course of the babe's life? In other words, is Wesley not making infant baptism voluntaristic just like adult baptism, and, in practice, emphasizing adult baptism? For, in both cases, he speaks of the necessity of response for baptismal grace to be effective...
1) Wilson - Matt Marston has been emailing me with great stuff. Some of which I've cut and pasted into the blog. Can you invite/conscript him and give him the 411 on posting?
2) In the interest of nuance, I agree with Craig. We do not possess the Spirit, but instead are possessed by it. In the lovely words of Beuchener's descripton in THE SON OF LAIGHTER Jacob says, "It is not I who ran off with my Father's blessing; it was the blessing that ran off with me."
But it is more than that. The Eastern view is not merely that God is present with us as some sort of Jimeny Cricket conscience. Nor is it that we now enjoy God's presence acting in/through our lives. God's own self somehow becomes our self.
This is theosis (divinization and/or deification) - we become god(like) in an ontological sense.
I'll attempt to parse this out by way of an anology of a computer:
1) The semi-Pelagian view would suggest that baptism and redemption are like an anti-virus program containing and eliminating certain bad parts of an otherwise good computer.
2) The usual Reformed view would be something like installing a new operating system which corrects all functions and programs which previously were running amok. (Installing OSX or Linux on a Windows PC, if you will.)
3)The Eastern view is more akin to installing entirely new hardware and software within an ostensibly unchanged casing. This is a radical ontological, and seemingly transubstantial view. Imagine, taking a dell CPU tower and installing Mac hardware and OSX-based software within. Or - to avoid the illusion of human possession, imagine the dell to no longer use its cpu and internal bits or its program, but (somehow) to function entirely by using hard/software "served" to it from without - a mere network terminal of sorts.
4) I am not sure how to plot A/a-nabaptist paradigms on this analogy. Matt's notion of liberal baptists certainly fit one. Quakers don't even practice baptism.
Though Wesley might hae affinity with the East, he stops substantially short of the throoughgoing ontological view that is theosis. Though his notion of perfection does in some way parallel divinization. If you'll allow me another well-intentioned joke; Not only is prevenient grace a poor-man's predestination, his sanctification-perfection schema seem a poor-man's theosis.
And I'd still like some thoughts on my observation about the polarities of the human and divine actors/actions in my last post on baptism-confirmation (divine-human) dedication-baptism (human-divine).
In the interest of responding to Craig's second posting, setting a new comment record, and avoiding studying GRE math...let me suggest we frame his question in a practical-pastoral setting (lest Tom think I am all esoterica of little use to the average congregant):
What do we think/say happens to a person who was baptized as child, leads a pofligate life as an active non-disciple, and who dies without any ostensible act of contrition? How doe we counsel that family? How do we preach that funeral?
Is the scrament ex opere operato, or is some act of the will required for its efficacy?
I would like to pipe in a little on Wesley, even though I don't have any sources with me. What I remember from Maddox's book (and Craig can correct me) was that he seemed to imply that it was a big deal about 15 or 20 years ago for Methodist theologians to claim Eastern views, but that that wasn't entirely accurate. Also, that while he claimed himself being an arminian, he never really read arminius (even though he started a journal about it) and so can't be camped with that group either.
And I think that saying perfection is a poor man's theosis could be apt, only because so much of Wesley's anthropology is Reformed and Lutheran (at least according to Steinmetz). I hope that was an accurate reading, but its been over a year since I read that book, which if you remember from my heart to heart, is one of the main reasons I am not Catholic (yet).
But to try and address the prince's question, I feel like donatism is one of the great heresies of protestantism and so with the trinitarian formula and like the Nicene Creed, I believe there is one baptism, ex opera &c. That being so, grace? Anybody? I don't want to throw in "mystery" here as a cop-out, I think mystery/sacramentum , &c. explains it perfectly, but I don't know how Wesley would address it, probably differently with his whole backsliding thingy.
Oh, is grown up and can join if he wants. That line about baptists was a back handed way of getting at him staying out of the debate.
At the risk of being censored by the blog master for raising another topic in this thread of discussion and at the risk of continuing this thread so it inches closer to the current record held by own thread and at the risk of bringing old skeletons out of the closet...
Derek, I'm glad you brought the ministry into this discussion. As for your baptized yet backsliding inactive prepatory member (unless he/she was confirmed, then she/he would be just an inactive member), I'll let Wesley speak for himself from his sermon, The Almost Christian:
"But here let no man/woman deceive his/her own soul. "It is diligently to be noted, the faith which bringeth not forth repentance, and love, and all good works, is not that right living faith [which makes one altogether a Christian], but a dead and devilish one. For, even the devils believe that Christ was born of a virgin: that he wrought all kinds of miracles, declaring himself very God: that, for our sakes, he suffered a most painful death, to redeem us from death everlasting; that he rose again the third day: that he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father and at the end of the world shall come again to judge both the quick and dead. These articles of our faith the devils believe, and so they believe all that is written in the Old and New Testament. And yet for all this faith, they be but devils. They remain still in their damnable estate lacking the very true Christian faith...The right and true Christian faith is…not only to believe that Holy Scripture and the Articles of our Faith are true, but also to have a sure trust and confidence to be saved from everlasting damnation by Christ. It is a sure trust and confidence which [one] hath in God, that, by the merits of Christ, [one’s] sins are forgiven, and [one is] reconciled to the favour of God; whereof doth follow a loving heart, to obey his commandments." (The Almost Christian)
So while I never make it a habit to speculate on the salvific status of individuals, I'd say that you're backsliding inactive prepatory member doesn't make Wesley's cut. This then becomes a question of how to minister to a family who may or may not agree with Wesley on this (assuming you do agree with Wesley).
By the way, I'm using this quote in my second coming/judgment sermon this Sunday.
You have a good memory, Wilson. Here's what Maddox said: "Recently, some have drawn attention to a specific aspect of Anglican patristics scholarship - it devoted particular emphasis to Greek authors who had receded from Western consciousness following the fourth century of the church's existence. Wesley not only became aware of these Greek authors through his study, he seems to have imbibed a marked preference for them over the Latin writers!" Over and over again, Maddox shows how Wesley's view is misunderstand when we project Western views onto him in considering his response to Calvinism. I have thought many times as I have read Maddox that Steinmetz may be guilty of this in his lectures this spring; I think Maddox paints a portrait of a more sophisticated Wesley.
I think you may remember, Wilson, that the growing awareness is not really of the Eastern influence on Wesley, but of how he received much of it from his immersion in Anglicanism. I discovered this in studying Cranmer this summer. Much of the BCP comes from translations of Eastern rites and prayers. And, in his battle against those bishops who would have returned Henry VIII to Rome as the European political climate shifted, Cranmer relied on Greek sources to justify evangelical positions (many of which Bucer was trying to get him to adopt). Cranmer, and thus Anglicanism, began their reformation with Lutheran positions but quickly moved to Reformed positions. Wilson, I believe what you are recalling may be Maddox's point that historians are just now starting to realize that much of what we attribute to Wesley comes not only from Eastern sources, but also from Anglican sources. Which means that he perhaps should be understood in some ways as one defending that received Anglican tradition against the claims of Calvin's descendants, who stressed sanctification less than Calvin (according to Maddox) and who stressed "double predestination and irresistible grace." I say that as a way of proposing that we are uncharitable to Wesley when we ignore his context and dismiss his views as "poor man's" predestination or theosis. I am not claiming that the content of that critique is wrong, but I do believe it fails to give Wesley the credit due him given the battle he was fighting. As Maddox says, "Wesley was essentially an 'Anglican in Earnest.'"
Thus, Wesley inherited and held, as you say, an anthropology that shares a lot with the Reformed. He certainly embraced 'total depravity." However, he could not accept the ideas of irresistable grace and predestination, which he referred to as "that infernal doctrine."
On Arminianism: You are right in recalling that his reading of Arminius was limited. "More important, his general conception of Prevenient Grace was not cast within assumptions dictated by hyper-Calvinism, as was the case with Arminius. Most what Wesley termed "Arminianism' was more properly a native English tradition (reaching back long before Arminius) that affirmed a role for human cooperation in salvation. ...One particular aspect of this was his encounter with influential articulations of the basic notion in early Greek theologians."
Regarding a poor man's theosis: I think this is subtly off the mark because it does not show how Wesley differed from the epectasy of Nyssa. As the King points out, Wesley insisted that grace, in order to be effective, demands our response. So , while he had a doctrine of perfection that sees continuous progress towards God like Nyssa and Aquinas, he also maintained the integrity of his position on the resistability of grace. Thus, for him, it was possible for one ultimately and finally to reject grace and thereby to suffer eternal condemnation.
Once again, I stand near the King. Where I differ is in his characterization of our hypothetical man as a "backslider." Because I argue that Wesley might say that his baptism was never effective. The point I want to underline is that there are two ways we can go here and only one of them is down 'backslider' avenue. The second possibility is to remember that Wesley insisted that baptism did not inevitably convey the benefits of justification and regeneration. A good Anglican, he believed that "the outward sign must be 'duly received' to be accompanied by the inward grace." Baptism only becomes efficient as we responsively participate. Wesley refused to equate the New Birth (Derek - is the New Birth = theosis?) with baptism.
If we assume that our man never participated in the inward grace as evinced by the absence of any fruits of grace, then can we say that he was not a backslider, but simply unregenerate? Was his heart ever baptized? For Wesley, baptism was like the Eucharist in that the rite had no meaning without repentance and faith.
So, is it possible that the truth, per Wesley, is that our man was effectively never regenerated? That his baptism was a farce? And if so, what say we to his loved ones and what say we about his fate?
Methinks Wesley made an important distinction between this case and the case of the backslider. Believers backslide and believers are the objects of God's perfecting grace. But those who never respond to God prevenient grace are in a different category. "If Wesley's conviction about the co-operant nature of grace led him to place increased emphasis in the matter of judgment on our responsive appropriation of God's healing work [note the language of therapeutic vs. juridical here], it also constrained him to respect the integrity of our possible final rejection of that offer - to our ultimate condemnation. While this possibility is truly grievous, the alternative would ultimately involve either irresistible grace or indiscriminate salvation, both of which are contradictory to a God of responsible grace."
So. In this scenario, I would not preach a sermon that spoke of perfection or hope for the man, because I don't know what his fate is. I would not condemn him or suggest he is going to Hell or Heaven, although I feel confident some of his relatives will condemn him and proclaim his new address in Hell. But, like Wilson says, his fate is a mystery to us. Thus, the pastoral issue is not with his fate, but with enabling the loved ones who remain to experience God's presence in the midst of their grief at the man's loss and/or their encounter with death itself. That means commending him to God's care, giving voice to the mystery of death, affirming any grief that some may or may not feel, and focusing on what our experience of death says about our own relationship with God and our own mortality. I would lift up any positive memories I could gather from those who knew him well. In other words, I would focus less on the man and more on pastoral care of those who remain, leaving judgment and salvation of the man to God.
Uncle! Craig, I think you just out-manuevered me when it comes to thinking about what Wesley might say to this. I think you got it right. Wesley would probably say that this man never had a baptism of the heart. So while our administrative unit (i.e. the UMC church) might declare him a "prepratory member" up to confirmation, he probably did not evidence that kind of love which proved his faith was true and not "devilish." Well, done.
I do wish you were taking Methodism with us this next year! Though I will look forward to reflecting on him with you as I learn even more from the Wesley-code-breaker, Dr. H.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Going back to the beginning of the discussion.
I agree with Derek that infant dedication and infant baptism "do" the same thing. However, I see this a reason to retain the practice of dedication, but the doctrine of the church comes into play here as well. Dedication is involuntary and so is taking your kid to VBS. But your kid can be at VBS and not cooperate. An infant can be dedicated or baptized and later not cooperate. Obviously this is not Augustinian, but neither am I.
Accounts of believer's baptism that focus on "freedom of conscience" are Pelagian and usually also view baptism as entirely symbolic of the choice one has made and the community unnecessary. If the church and the baptism are necessary then I think the charges of being Pelagian are avoided or at least softened a bit. Believer's baptism can also assert that God is the primary agent that makes everything else possible. We can rebel against God.
If anyone is curious what my response to Derek's original post, here it is:
Derek,
You're right about McClendon. He and Freeman/Mark Nation and others have argued
that infant baptism is acceptable when combined with confession of faith, i.e.
confirmation. Many Bapist churches have responded to this and have dropped
immersion as a membership requirement. Of course, other Baptist churches have
dropped the requirement in order to make membership easier, not for
theologically sound reasons.
I wish I could agree with you that dedication-baptism practices were equivalent
with baptism-confirmation. Unfortunately, I think baptist practices fall
short. Dedication is more prone to sentimentality than infant baptism and
"believers baptism" is performed at ages younger than that of confirmation.
What ends up happening is that people get confused about the process and we get
the peculiar practice now of "rededication" which includes walking the aisle at
invitation and making a public profession of faith, but no one really knows
what to do with it. Freeman is of the opinion that baptists must get more
serious about their practice or there will be no reason to continue it.
Here's missional description of baptism and dedication. The baptism is pretty
much straight McClendon (Doctrine). I don't know of any theological account of
dedication so I offer my own attempt.
Most Christians agree that there are three actors in the lives of discples.
God, the C/church, and the disciple. Everyone agrees that it is best for
Christians to be Christians intentionally or perhaps faithfully. Believers
baptism involves all three actors, whereas infant baptism, two (assuming the
parents/family are considered church; possible challenge here). Since baptism
is the entrance into the church, it is better for baptism to occur when all
three actors are present, trying to avoid people being in the church who don't
want to be there. Missionally, believers baptism makes the church "visible"
because the baptized are only people who want to be baptized and be subject to
the discipline of the church (and yes I laughed aloud at that sentence when
thinking about Baptists). The visibility of the church and the character of
the lives of Christians are evangelistic because they are committed to public
witness. McCl. thinks that at some point(s) people commit their lives to the
Gospel anyway. But believer's baptism makes this public in a way that a move
of conscience does not.
In dedication, the family and the church commit to modeling and teaching the
Gospel to the child. In other words, the church remembers that it is by
definition a missional church, that its work is not finished, and that the
child is to be evangelized. There is work to do with the child because that
child is not yet a member of the body of Christ. Dedication also recognizes
the child as a gift from God and points to the hope of salvation for all
people.
I've been rereading and making notes from some of my summer reading (a la Wilson), which returns me (us) to freedom and agency once again.
In an extended discussion of Hegel, Kant, and Lenin, Zizek notes the difference between "formal" freedom and "actual" freedom (On Belief, 114-125). The former indicates a limited agency within a given set of coordinates - a child being asked if she wants apple or orange juice. The latter includes the ability to change the coordinates of the situation itself - the child being able to ask for and get soda.
With respect to our discussions of baptism/redemption, it seems like the human agency involved is formal. Unless God changes the coordinates of the situation, there is no human ability to choose to respond affirmatively to the gospel.
Now of course, this does not resolve the issue. Mr. Wesley wants the coordinates changed so that all persons have such a possibility, whereas Mr Calvin wants to say that if the coordinates are so changed, the affirmative response is entailed. I am not quite sure how to parse Aquinas and the East on this.
I've never read Zizek, nor heard of him until you raised his name this summer. So I must respond just to your paragraph above. Based on that presentation, it seems that the logic of your statement offers another conclusion. Your premise seems to be that the coordinates that need changing have some indisputable character. It's not clear to me what that character is, but only that you believe it is different than what Calvin or Wesley et al propose. But based on your presentation, could it be that Wesley presumes that the coordinates of the offer made by God are made to all, while Calvin presumes they are offered to a (s)elect group? It seems to me that the idea of prevenient grace fits well within the framework of Zizek's notion of formal freedom. God is acting and making an offer (or making known the fact of formal freedom given) that is the same for the entire population to whom that offer is made. So that the biggest difference in Wesley and Calvin (in this doctrine) is the nature of the population given that freedom and not as much the nature of the human agency? In other words, why is it necessary to conclude that either theologian wants to make a change in the coordinates or to presume that it is necessary to change the coordinates if one is to have a free choice in responding to the gospel? Is it possible that you are presuming your conclusion ("Unless God changes the coordinates of the situation, there is no human ability to choose to respond affirmatively to the gospel.")? I suggest the offer made by God in the context of formal freedom need not be changed to fit either theologian. For I understand that the offer made by God to all humanity is "you may choose between life (apple juice) or death (no juice)." In that reading, Wesley and Calvin agree on the offer but differ on the population to whom it is made. For Calvin, I think, God also proclaims to a second population (the reprobate), "you get no juice, period." Again, I am mostly questioning the internal logic of your statement, here. Am I missing something?
I am not saying Zizek offers a different account of the coordinates of conversrion than Wesley, Calvin, et al (or any account therof at all). I am merely using his parsing of Kant and Hegel on agency and freedom to frame our discussion.
The coordinates of conversion can be parsed in this way in the classic Augustinian language. Non posse non peccare names the coordinates of sinful humanity apart from God's action - unless, of course, you are a (semi)Pelagian. In other words the coordinates do not present the option of affirmative response to the gospel. After God's action (and here is where our paths become contested again - Wesley, Calvin, Aquinas, etc.) the coordinates are posse non peccare. Affirmative response (conversion) becomes possible.
Within this paradigm, prevenient grace (at least on my read) seems to present human agency as actual freedom, rather than mere formal freedom; whereas Calvin is forthright about human agency being a kind of formal freedom at best. Perhaps Wesley states too much, and Calvin too little, with regard to this formal freedom.
I am "presuming my conclusion" in the sense that I am not arguing for the fact that "unless God changes the coordinates, there is no human ability to respond affirmatively to the gospel." This I take to be dogmatically established, unless again one is a semi(Pelagian). I am instead submitting a paradigm within which we might discuss this dogmatic claim, and render the details of freedom/agency - human and divine.
My main point is Wesley seems to be (mis)representing human agency as actual freedom. The gift of prevenient grace is the actual freedom that changes the coordinates of humanity's situation. Human response is merely a formal freedom wtihin the new coordinates created by the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. In short, the Wesleyan paradigm is (or ought to be considered) soemthing less than a throughgoing free-will theism. It seems only (semi)Pelagian paradigms are truly Arminian, and even then God is the creator who creates the original coordinates in which humans have freedom (cf. Aquinas).
Derek,
I'm TJ's friend in Hawaii. This blogging on "Baptism Again" caught my attention. Can you and/or someone in your Duke Socratic Club explain how all this relates to my 3-year-old daughter? As a layperson who has not read any theology books, I would appreciate comments in "plain English" as much as possible, please.
I remember sitting on Lanikai Beach with you and TJ during your vacation here in Hawaii, and briefly discussing my then-current church's (Pentacostal denomination) practice of baby dedication (but not practicing baby baptism). Both of you were able to attend my then-9-month-old baby's dedication during your Hawaii visit.
We now are members of an Evangelical Covenant church -- and they practice infant baptism.
My questions for your blogging discussions are (and hopefully I can gain some insight too):
1) Practically speaking, what is the "age range" for infant baptism (and what is the theology behind this)? Up to 1 year of age? When is a child ineligible for infant baptism? -- I'm just wanting to understand how this blog topic relates to our situation in a practical sense.
2) Theologically, what's the difference between infant baptism vs. child baptism vs. adult baptism, if any?
3) So if we wanted to have Katie baptized at our new church (since our old church did not practice this), is it too late, theologically speaking, for her to participate in infant baptism? Or is it even theologically unsound to want to have her baptized since she's already been dedicated?
I'm sure I will need to ask these questions of the pastors at my church, but I also wanted to see what the Duke Socratic Club has to say -- hope you don't mind?!
(Note: Personally, I was baptized as an infant -- probably around 2-3 months old -- and have sometimes wondered during my membership at the Pentacostal church if I should've been "rebaptized" as an adult.)
Aloha,
Dar
Dear Dar,
Only for such great questions will I risk breaking my own record of 32 comments on a topic. I'm not Derek (who would probably give a much more intricate explanation than I) but here's my answer to your questions:
1. I'd say infant and child baptism are essentiall the same. Both are in the place of an individual who is not able to choose for themselves. The point when it becomes adult or believer's baptism is the ever elusive "age of accountability" often considered to be around the time of 12 or 13. So your child is not "inelligible" for "infant" baptism.
2.Infant Baptism: sealing the covenant between God and an individual and adoption into God's family, the church. This is chosen by the parents in the same way that only by God's grace do we have faith by which we are saved.
Adult/Believer Baptism: making a public statement of confession by which one states that one has chosen to respond to God's grace with faith. Tends to imply more of a decision on the individual's part.
3. There is no reason to not have a child baptized who has been dedicated, unless one tends to a community that discourages infant baptism to begin with. But if one is OK with infant baptism, then there is no real theological reason not to baptize an infant who has been dedicated. Consider it equivalent to the intentions (dedication) and vows (baptism) of a wedding.
Personally, I'm inclined toward adult/beliver baptism. But I also think that baptism of infants can and is used by God as a means of grace. The more important thing in either is undestanding the intention behind it. If you choose to have your child baptized, how will you (and your church) then follow up practically with the commitment you are making to raise your child to know, love, and serve Jesus Christ so that when he/she reaches the age of accountability and participates in confirmation, he/she can confirm for him/herself the decision which was made for him/her (I wish I knew the sex and name of your child) when he/she was unable to make it for him/herself.
You might find my other post titled "Dedicated with water from the River Jordan" interesting. Particularly some of the other individuals (esp. Craig) who describe their own experience with baptism.
Peace and grace,
Tom
P.S. You're welcome to post any time.
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the reply. This is the first time I've participated in a blogging conversation, so I'm not quite sure how it works. In fact, I wasn't sure if I "joined" this convo too late in the game and therefore wondered if no one would be replying/posting (if this topic was already "old.")
Also, I later realized that my post kind of felt like (to me) I was "barging in" on a conversation uninvited -- So thank you for your "p.s." at the end of your post! Also, I know how busy all of you must be in your seminary studies, so I appreciate your taking the time to reply to someone who is not quite "up to speed" in the theology department as the rest of the bloggers here. (I must admit that my eyes started to glaze over after reading most of the posts!)
Again, thanks for responding to my questions -- I think I have a better understanding of this in regards to my 3-year-old daughter, Katie.
And when it's all said and done, I agree with what you wrote:
"The more important thing in either is undestanding the intention behind it. If you choose to have your child baptized, how will you (and your church) then follow up practically with the commitment you are making to raise your child to know, love, and serve Jesus Christ so that when he/she reaches the age of accountability and participates in confirmation, he/she can confirm for him/herself the decision which was made for him/her (I wish I knew the sex and name of your child) when he/she was unable to make it for him/herself."
One more question, though: Is "confirmation" a Catholic practice primarily, or do many Protestant churches offer this as well? (I grew up in a Protestant church, and I don't remember hearing about confirmation.)
Mahalo (thank you),
Dar
Dear Dar,
I am a United Methodist and confirmation is alive and well in the UMC. My wife even helped write the current confirmation curriculum.
Confirmation takes the role, symbolically and in some sense theologically, of adult baptism in the traditions that practice infant baptism. These traditions still desire a rite-of-passage (in the least sense) or sacrament (in the most sense) that initiaties an adult into the church. Confirmation is that symbol/means of grace/sacrament. If your church does not offer confirmation (generally around seventh or eight grade) then the question becomes for you as a parent: when your child becomes and adult, how will you help her know and experience that this faith must be claimed for herself and that her parents claiming it for her as an infant is not enough? And how will you do this in the community of the church and not just as an insular family?
Great questions. We're glad to have them. Keeping us down to earth.
Tom
P.S. I was probably a little sloppy theologically in how I just described that. But I am sure that some other Socratic will clean up my mess. :)
P.S.S. Derek, where are you? You've just beaten my record by my help!
Infant baptism and Confirmation is practiced by Methodists of all types, Anglicans/Episopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Roman and Orthodox Catholics, to name a few. While all of these proclaim baptism as a sacrament, the Protestant churches do not give the confirmation rite that status. Confirmation is an important rite, but it does not "complete" baptism in any sense.
Baptism is the sacrament of initiation and incorporation into the body of Christ. Baptism signifies that one is a Christian.Confirmation signifies that one has made a personal decision to participate and support a particular community of faith.
After baptism, the church provides the nurture that makes possible a comprehensive and lifelong process of growing in grace. Becoming a professing member of a particular church requires the answer of faith of the baptized person made visible in a service of profession of Christian faith and confirmation using the vows of the Baptismal Covenant. Perhaps the most significant practical aspect of confirmation is that one makes a commitment of support for a particular community of faith (a specific congregation), whereas baptism signifies membership in the church catholic. So confirmation is done as a rite of passage at which one emerging into adulthood is able to make such an individual commitment. Furthermore, one then can transfer one's membership to another community by professing faith and making a similar commitment of support; in such events, it is the membership in a particular community, and not one's baptism, that is being transferred.
Normally kids are not confirmed until they have completed the sixth grade. [Personally, I believe it should be done between 13-16, but that is not typical.] This happens following a confirmation/catechism class that typically lasts from 13-52 weeks (the length depends on the choice of the senior pastor). Adults who have never been confirmed usually attend an abbreviated indoctrination course lasting usually 4-6 weeks.
In the Methodist, and I believe, the Presbyterian churches, individuals can be confirmed by a pastor of their church. In the Anglican tradition, only a bishop can confirm one in the church.
Given all this, note that I am suggesting an alternative understanding to the rite of confirmation from that offered by Tom. I don't believe that confirmation is theologically analogous to what others practice as adult baptism. I believe infant baptism and adult baptism are identical theologically in all churches; the traditions differ on the efficacy of the infant baptism. In no way, I suggest, is confirmation comparable to baptism. Indeed, in the Methodist church, an adult is first baptized in the name of the Triune God and only thereafter is confirmed in the particular church. Usually the service combines these two steps in sequence.
That said, I echo Tom's points about the practical questions a parent faces. The age-old question is how we as parents pass on the faith of our fathers and mothers to our own children such that, when adults, they are blessed with eyes to see and ears to hear. Confirmation, for some churches, is surely a means of grace during which that rite of passage is celebrated. Yet I suggest that regular prayer and bible study as a family - discussions around the dinner table and the practice of seeking God's will regularly in the family context - may be even more significant means of grace than that rite....
"Infant baptism and Confirmation is practiced by Methodists of all types, Anglicans/Episopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Roman and Orthodox Catholics, to name a few."
. . . Okay, that explains a lot. I grew up in a United Church of Christ church -- which, although Protestant and containing some liturgy and rituals/traditons, was obviously not a Methodist church.
After the age of 24, I attended a Hope Chapel church which belongs to the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel denomination (Pentacostal). I was also on church staff there for the past 8 years until recently. There is/was not much, if any, emphasis on sacraments or anything traditional or liturgical there (they strived to have baptism once a month, celebrated Thanksgiving, Easter -- but not Palm Sunday -- and Christmas, and tried to have communion once a month, but that was often postponed for one reason or another).
While Hope Chapel has a lot of good things going for it as a church, since leaving there I have a growing appreciation for observing and participating in these sacraments, rituals and traditions of the church -- and the sense of being part of.
Anyway, thanks again for the explanations and comments. I plan to keep returning to the blog to learn more from the conversations . . . (and, I'm sure, to ask more questions once in awhile!)
Dar (et al),
First of all, apologies for my delayed reply. I stopped checking this thread, because it wasn't active. Then someone asked who Dar was from HI. So now, let me take a moment to respond. I'll try to move sequentially through your numbered points.
Secondly, thanks for helping my post break the group comment record and push the blog's readership to transoceanic status.
Thidrly, how on earth did you find the blog and figure out I posted here? Just curious about this online needdle in the internet haystack.
Finally, here's some thoughts....
1) AGE/ELIGIBILITY:
a) There is not necessarily a cut-off for age. Any restrictions here have more to do with the sensibility and custom of the pastor and/or local congregation than scripture or tradition of the Church.
b) The issue is somewhat complicated by the terms "infant" and and "adult" baptism. What is really at stake is not so much age or developmental stage of the person being baptized, as whether the baptism is "chosen" or not.
In other words, is the baptism the decision of a parent/guardian or the person (child or adult) themselves.(Much of the discussion you're seeing here on the blog has to do with this issue of choice - when or if we have a real choice.)
c) So practically speaking, Katie is still "eligible" for baptism on the grounds of scripture and the tradition of the Church, (By tradition I mean the consensus of the Church universal across time and place).
2)DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INFANT/ADULT BAPTISM
a) There is NO difference. This is what the Nicene Creed means when it affirms "one baptism for the remission of sins." The belief of the Church is that baptism is effective regardless of whether it is infnat or adult.
Now of course, certain Baptist and more radical independent congregations inist on adult/believer's baptism. Some even insist on baptism by immersion. Some even insist that it must be by immersion in their denomination or congregation. But these, popular and numerous though they are, stand outside the tradition of the Church.
b) There are BIG differences, and these are, I've been debating here online and in our weekly meetings, and elsewhere. These pertain to missional and ontological (see below).
b1)"Missional" concerns, ask how do varied practices of baptism (infant or adult)assist or inhibit a congregation's witness and gospel proclamation. Does infant or adult baptism better proclaim the gospel in our particular setting(s) and circumstance(s)? My contention which you have read on this blog is that infant baptism is to be commended on such misisonal grounds.
b2) The ontological concerns are trickier and more technical. Ontology is the study of being, it asks "What does it mean to be a human being or a certain kind of human being?" In this case, "What does it mean to be a Christian being, and does this contrast with being human in general?"
Generally, becoming a Christian is considered to be becoming a new creation - a different kind of human being. And this is the work of God in the person of the Spirit - rather than the work of the person who is/becomes a Christian - in other words, the gift of grace.
This returns us to the question of freedom from above. If conversion is being made a new creation (divine action), I would submit infant baptism better represents and emphasizes the conversion is God's action - not ours. This is because the baptism is clearly not the infant's action.
3)THIS BRINGS US TO DEDICATION AND CONFIRMATION
a)Dedication seems to me to be primarily about the parents and the congregation - the pledge to do and be certain things to and for the child. Which is of course fine.
But oddly, dedication in scripture is far more decisive (e.g. Hannah and Samuel, Samson, or John the Baptist). In these cases it is not merely that the parets pledge to "bring the child up in the fear and admonition of the Lord," but that the child's life is claimed by God for a specific purpose of witness and ministry. There is no sense that this claim coukd be revoked or foresaken.
b)Confirmation, rightly conceived, must be viewed (I think) as analogous to the Jewish Bar Mitzvah. A child is circumcised (compare to infant baptism) and then catechized (taught the faith). The ceremony of the Bar Mitzvah marks completion of catechesis and a new level of responsibility and participation in the community. It is NOT a second baptism, or even analogous to adult baptism.
That's all for now. Please respond to clarify or discuss more.
Hi Derek,
I have to start by first thanking both Tom and Craig (I'm sounding like I'm accepting an Academy Award here) for their posts, even though I'm a total stranger to them and to this blog. I keep learning more with each post. Thanks, also, to the blogmaster for allowing me to post. Also, no need for apologies re: delayed reply -- I'm perfectly aware that I got into this "non-active" blog thread very late, so it's fortunate that Tom even saw my post and replied.
Second -- while I, of course, had no idea of the comment record to be broken, I hope there's some sort of prize or something given at the end of the year to the Socratic member who has the most comments on their post??? ;-)
Third -- Since I work part-time from home while being a stay-at-home mom (customer service/support for a friend's company, dealing with phone calls and emails), I often have "slow times" when I may on a whim "google" someone who comes to mind that I've lost touch with or topics that I'm interested in. In this case, I googled you and Tara, and came across this blog. Of course, I LOVE emailing with Tara -- but I know she is always SUPER busy (with teaching and pastoring at the college, and all the other extra-curricular stuff that goes with the job) and doesn't have much time to reply. (You might be interested in googling yourselves/names one day and find out what the rest of the world can know about y'all!) Not that the members of the Duke Socratic Club aren't busy themselves -- but you guys obviously make the time to blog, which fits into my world too.
Fourth - Thank you for the layperson's explanation(s)! My eyes didn't glaze over.
"What is really at stake is not so much age or developmental stage of the person being baptized, as whether the baptism is "chosen" or not. In other words, is the baptism the decision of a parent/guardian or the person (child or adult) themselves.(Much of the discussion you're seeing here on the blog has to do with this issue of choice - when or if we have a real choice.)"
Yes, thank you for spelling out that distinction (what is really at stake) for me. Also, I appreciated the summary explanations of the "missional" and "ontological" aspects/concerns of baptism -- which, I have to admit, I've never given much thought to before. I can see why (and better appreciate why) my parents had me baptized as an infant -- as I now recall my Dad's explanation years ago.
QUESTION: But if the only record of baptism in the NT is of adults being/choosing to be baptized (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong in that statement), then how did the Church's belief make that "jump" from the Nicene Creed to include infant baptism? And when did infant baptism start?
So I gather from all of this that if Katie is baptized while a young child (3 years old), she will eventually still need to make a personal decision to become a Christian (but that doesn't mean that she will need to get baptized again). Personally, I recall attending a church high school camp (when I was in high school) where the message emphasized that there are no "second-generation Christians" -- that we do not "inherit" our Christianity that way. I remember that is when I made a personal decision -- although I lacked any intentional/consistent discipleship to help me grow in that decision/understanding after that (which I don't want to happen with Katie or any future child). It wasn't until after college that God started to really "grow me up." And of course, I was never "confirmed" or baptized a second time.
After rereading Craig's post re: baptism vs. confirmation, I truly appreciated the detailed explanations/definitions.
Given my background of attending/being a member (and on staff) of a church for the past 15 years (up until recently) that has its beginnings in the Jesus Movement in the '60s and '70s, I have a question that came to mind after reading the following paragraph:
"This happens following a confirmation/catechism class that typically lasts from 13-52 weeks (the length depends on the choice of the senior pastor). Adults who have never been confirmed usually attend an abbreviated indoctrination course lasting usually 4-6 weeks. In the Methodist, and I believe, the Presbyterian churches, individuals can be confirmed by a pastor of their church. In the Anglican tradition, only a bishop can confirm one in the church."
My question: Why is confirmation class so long and involved? (If only some premarital counseling were so long and involved!)
Please understand that I'm coming from a church culture that took its cues mainly from the Book of Acts and how churches seemed to be planted and led. Part of their philosophy of ministry was to keep things simple and have a "low threshold" of entry into membership and ministry (starting as a volunteer, etc.). Church planting was also a passion and vision.
Granted, when things are simplified, sometimes things get lost in the translation. I guess I'm just wondering if this kind of membership process is "culture-specific" or the ideal for churches everywhere, in every culture? (I'm not criticizing this process, especially since I don't know enough about it to make any type of judgment -- I'm just curious as to its origins, purpose and practicality IF it's supposed to be the ideal?)
Or is this another blog topic altogether?
Dar,
1) There are (admittedly only a few) instances of baptism of children in the New Testament. Acts 16.33 records the conversion of the jailer after the earthquake. It mentions he "and his family" (which would presumably include children) were baptized. I believe there are a couple others like this elsewhere in Acts as well.
2)With respect to catechesis (being mentored and instructed in the faith) and confirmation a few things come to mind. First, many (most?) of the NT congregations from Acts are comprised of Jews. And at this point, Christianity (the Way) is still seen largely as a sect within Judaism. Thus, these persons would not need aa thorough an instruction in faith as would a Gentile. That may be a reason for the llack of information in the NT (esp. Acts) on this.
Second, there is the issue of "choosing" to become a Christian. One is born into/as an American. We do not have a coming of age ceremony where one takes a public pledge in the way that naturalized citizens do. You are presumed to be one, unless you actively choose to be otherwise.
So in some measure, I would want to say that (as a function of God's sovereignty and grace) one is born into the faith as well. Though I'll admit that some measure of "owning" that is necessary. But I (and I think the Creeds) would say one becomes a Christian at baptism, not confirmation.
Dar,
You ask an astute question. Let me first say that it is not uncommon in Anglican churches for the confirmation class to span the 40 days between Mardi Gras and Easter. Now, why such lengthy periods? Well know first that the catechumens (the candidates for baptism) invested as much as three years before baptism in ancient times. It takes a long time to learn to live as a forgiven people! I suggest you look at the Apostles' Creed. Imagine that every line is the title of a lesson plan aimed at teaching what it means to follow Christ. I believe in God the Father Almighty.... What do we mean by 'believe?' What don't we mean? What does it mean to believe 'in' something, in contrast with simply believing something? What/Who is God? What do we mean and not mean when we say 'almighty?' you get the idea. Imagine unpacking every line, word by word, so that the new Christians know in depth what we believe in contrast with what the world teaches. The creed was basically the outline of the catechesis process that led to baptism. But that's just the intellectual stuff. It also takes time to trust - to learn the habits of a people who surrender control of their lives to a loving God. So the catechesis process took a long time....
Nowadays, the confirmation process that is supposed to achieve catechesis is too often trivialized and corrupted with questionable processes. The confirmation classes I have witnessed meet only for an hour per week, with an occasional kum ba ya retreat thrown in, where kids are told to write their own relativistic creeds. ( I'm sorry, that was a tangential rant.) Often the class attends a synagogue, a catholic church, a pentecostal church, and does some service work. These days, it seems the real goal is not to get kids to follow Christ seriously but rather to transition lower school kids into the middle school youth group, so a lot of time is spent selling that. These things are generally done only on weekends. So the amount of time invested is really not cumulatively 13-52 work-weeks, but rather the elapsed duration of the process is that long.
I confess the obvious - that I am deeply skeptical of what I see done most often for kids' confirmation. I admit that somehow God often acts through these programs in spite of their weaknesses and kids often do find themselves grasped by the Spirit. But I think that happens all too seldom. I think we sell our kids short by presuming that can't handle deeper waters....
Now the adult courses of about 4-6 weeks that I have seen are also weekly 90 minute lectures/seminars/fellowship periods. It seems like six sessions (about 9 hours) is about right to help an unchurched adult grasp the foundations of the faith. I base that strictly on the testimonies I have heard from many who have completed the course at my church. Is it complete in terms of the Apostles' creed syllabus of ancient times? Nein. But it seems to equip /inspire them to participate in the community who can then nurture them further into a deeper faith.
I hope these thoughts address your question....
Craig,
Thanks for your detailed post -- I do see the importance/need for new Christians to know what they believe and why. To start with the Apostles' Creed, Lord's Prayer, etc. makes sense. I can easily see why these classes are numerous.
I hope you don't mind another basic question . . .
Just to clarify: In your church, does this mean that I cannot become a Christian and be baptized without taking these classes first? (Or, perhaps said in another way, I would be discouraged from making that decision prior to taking these classes?) Or, I can become a Christian, but just not baptized and a "book-signed" member (rather than merely a regular attender) of the church before taking these classes?
====
Derek,
Thanks for those points re: the Book of Acts -- I forgot about that baptism account of the family, and you bring up a good point about the early church members and their knowledge.
You especially caught my attention when you said at the end:
"But I (and I think the Creeds) would say one becomes a Christian at baptism, not confirmation."
While I have no problem with becoming a Christian at baptism vs. confirmation idea, please forgive me if I'm still confused about something basic to you guys:
Does a (non-infant-baptized) unchurched adult person become a Christian when, for instance, he goes to a Billy Graham Crusade, hears the message, responds to the altar call, says the prayer and invites Jesus into his life as Lord and Savior? Or does he need to be baptized first?
(I realize that this scenario leaves out the involvement in a local church fellowship/community at this point to disciple/mentor this person in their faith, but for now I'm just interested in clarifying that "starting point" as a new Christian in regards to what you believe.)
The above will be my last questions on this blog thread, as I don't want to wear out my welcome and take up valuable time! Thank you for indulging my questions.
Aloha!
Dar
Dear Dar,
Please don't stop! You've got great questions and they force us with our heads in the sky to keep our feet on the ground. You also are about to experience one of the big differences between myself and the major other bloggers here. So welcome, full immersion adult baptism, into the socratic club...
First, I still think that we have some choice in the matter of our salvation. I do not by that mean that by ourselves we are able to save ourself or work our way into God's good graces. What I mean is that God has given us the ability to respond fully with our will. We can accept the gift of grace or reject it. We have that ability or agency. I do not believe that we become Christians at baptism (though Duke is hammering away at me on this...you'll have to ask me again in a year and half). I have a relatively low view of baptism compared to Derek, especially, and in some ways compared to Craig. I see it as a means of God's grace that is equivalent to any other means (i.e. communion, prayer, Bible study, worship, etc.). I believe your hypothetical friend who goes to the Billy Graham crusade and responds to God's grace is saved at that moment without the need for baptism to be saved. If they walked out the door and died in a car accident, their sins have been forgiven and they are secure in God's grace whether they were baptized or not. Would I ever reccomend someone not be baptized. NO way. And neither would I reccomend someone not pray, study the Bible, worship, or participate in communion. I am not yet convinced that salvation does not include our true and real response.
Second, I was not equating theologically confirmation with adult baptism in the way that Derek or Craig understand adult baptism. I was equating it pragmatically (which they will have a problem with at this point of "pragmatism") between two different theological perspectives. In other words, one theological perspective says that adult baptism is about choice. Another theological perspective says that confirmation is about choice (Every confirmation class I have ever heard of makes it clear to all the kids that they have a choice in the matter. They don't have to be confirmed. And very rarely, but it does happen, a young student chooses not to be confirmed. This person is most likely not secure in God's grace...unless the confirmation class was a real botch.).
Third, Martin (our Menonite Socratic Friend) pointed out to me the other day that "and their family was baptized" in the NT is an argument for silence. As Derek said, "we presume that included children." But our "presumption" may be incorrect. The family may have all been of the age of accountability and may have all chosen together. Martin also pointed out to me that in the case of the centurion whose family was baptized with him, that a man would have had to have been fairly old to have worked his way up to be a centurion. He may not have had any young children. They may have been all adults. I do not think this precludes infant baptism, but I think it is a big hole in the general argument used for infant baptism.
Fourth and last, just FYI for the rest of everyone else...my wife, Sarah, helped write the confirmation curriculum for the United Methodist Church. The confirmation class she set up at our previous church included once a month events and a week-long camp in the summer. The youth pastor who followed her added to this a weekly Sunday school class. All put together, these kids would be getting anywhere from 150-200 hours worth of confirmation events. And the kids generally didn't enjoy it to begin with but by the end loved every minute. Most of her committed youth pointed back to that week of confirmation as the point at which they really started to take their faith seriously (this is slightly different than the point when they "became a Christian"). Let that rock your confirmation world.
Tom
Clarification and retraction...
I was sloppy when I used the word "saved" above in reference to baptism. I made a classic evangelical blooper equating "salvation" with justification. What I meant was that your hypothetical friend at the Billy Graham crusade was "justified." I want to, with Wesley, reserve the word "saved" and "salvation" to include both justification and sanctification. So I hereby retract my previous use of the word "saved."
Tom,
I'm not sure where you see a difference between us in terms of grace and baptism. I see those aspects exactly as you describe - it is simply one of the means of grace and it does not produce salvation. And as a Wesleyan fanatic, I naturally agree that we must decide to respond to God's grace (it's not irresistable, not least because to be human is to be finite and free.) Because salvation is not an event, but a journey; it takes time to learn the habits of participation in the body of Christ that sanctify us.
BTW, Tom, re: UMC confirmation curricula, I have experienced many curricula within UMC, of various lengths. Are you suggesting that there is now one "official" way? And, please, remember my comments aren't directed at the written plan for confirmation classes, but rather the execution of them. It's good to hear your testimony of positive results. The real test would require a longitudinal study....
Dar:
As I have posted elsewhere, and I believe Tom's post above implies, I don't believe baptism or confirmation actually makes one a Christian. Rather, they both are rituals in which we signify that reality. I believe Wilson et al may reserve room for some ontological transformation that is mysterious to us, and they may be right. (Many make the same argument about ordination of clergy, but I am not yet able to see it that way.) But your real question is, "how does one become a Christian?" I suggest that the only way one can be a Christian is to live in mutual subjection within a community of faith pledged to follow the Christ. In other words, one can't be a Christian without embodied participation in Christ's church. You and I both have kids (I have three!). As I see it, our goal should be to guide our kids to make that decision when they are able and to nurture them before and after they do on their journey. Baptism and confirmation are important only insofar as they signify truly embodied participation in the Church.
Craig,
"Claim the Name" on Cokesbury website has the following description: "The official confirmation program for The United Methodist Church, Claim the Name contains options for short-term or long-term confirmation classes, older youth and young adults, and retreats. Mentor and parent options are also available."
Sarah was part of the development and visioning team for this entire package. She then helped write the book on confirmation as a camp/reteat experience. She found that it took a week of experiencing Christian community to get kids out of their old ways of behaving. I think the same impulse is in Duke Youth Academy when it meets for two full weeks. That's enough time to really be immmersed in Christian Community.
Tom
Tom and Craig,
If I understand both of your posts correctly, then I think I stand near to both of you re: what I believe about becoming a Christian (there is the initial event -- or response to God's grace -- that starts the process or journey of "becoming" a Christian for the rest of your life within a community of faith). I also agree with what you guys said about baptism (my paraphrase: an outward, physical symbol/ritual reflecting what has taken place in the spiritual realm?).
Craig said: "I believe Wilson et al may reserve room for some ontological transformation that is mysterious to us, and they may be right."
I'm open to that. Perhaps something similar may happen in the marriage sacrament too? -- "ontological transformation." Wow. I gotta use that in a sentence this week! (Thanks, Derek, for the definition of ontology in "b2" of your first reply to my post! Helps a lot.)
On a sidenote regarding process/journey: I remember a conference speaker saying that God is a God of events AND a God of process. I think he used the example of conception and pregnancy -- conception is the event that starts the process of pregnancy. And most women (and, of course, the baby), if all goes as intended, will have to go through the nine months of process whether we want to/like it or not. (I remember this example well because I was pregnant at the time I heard him speak.)
And back to my original post re: my daughter Katie -- I do pray that, with God's help, Katie will be provided with a community of faith for each season of her life.
Ugh -- here's where I have to say I "lied" in my last post and ask a question! (Thanks, Tom, for your reassurance that these questions are still welcomed -- at least on your part!)
Do you mean in your last post that Duke teaches that people become Christians ONLY at baptism (when they are baptised)?
If so, what is the theology and/or reasoning behind that belief?
For some reason, this reminds me of the time I heard about a well-known charismatic church in Hawaii teaching that if you don't speak in tongues (or rather, if you don't have the gift of speaking in tongues), then you don't have the Holy Spirit in you (or, you are not a Spirit-filled Christian or something to that effect).
I guess both examples rub me the wrong way, but I don't know enough theology to be able to articulate why or to argue effectively in response.
Thanks for sharing what your friend Martin had to say -- more food for thought.
One more question . . .
When you said:
"What I meant was that your hypothetical friend at the Billy Graham crusade was "justified." I want to, with Wesley, reserve the word "saved" and "salvation" to include both justification and sanctification."
I don't understand what you mean by reserving the words "saved" and "salvation" to include both justification and sanctification? (These words sound familiar, I've heard them before, but I definitely need more explanation/definitions.)
I'm going to leave Duke's theology of baptism up to Craig or Derek to answer. Because to be honest, I don't really know or understand it myself. And I tend to be rubbed the wrong way a bit.
As for the question on sanctification and justification, I'm going to start a new post on that topic since its way off the baptism topic. Look for it on the main page.
Tom
You ask, does Duke teache that people become Christians ONLY at baptism (when they are baptised)?
I think the answer is that Duke does not attempt to feed us a single "right" understanding of baptism that one can recognize as Duke's teaching on the topic. Rather, we are exposed to the Church's historic understandings of the sacraments of both baptism and Eucharist (across time) and to the Church's current teachings (in our time), as well.
We are talking about something that is a great mystery to all humans. If we say we believe that God acts in the drama of the sacraments, then we are saying that those actions are inherently beyond our ability to comprehend fully. Hence, 'mystery' best describes what happens. But it is the testimony of Christians past and present that SOMETHING happens, and so we seek to describe it, for when we experience God's presence, we want to experience it again and again, for that experience is grace.
Through the ages, and especially since the Reformation, humans have disagreed on the meaning of both baptism and the Eucharist. And those disagreements have too often divided us. Many of our denominational differences are rooted in these differences, as you have observed here. And, I believe, the honest answer is that all of our assertions about the ontology and metaphysical aspects of the sacraments are inescapably speculative.
So what does Duke teach us? My answer is that Duke helps us appreciate the complexities, understand the answers that have been most dominant throughout the ages, and also understand the answers that our own particular faith tradition has given and currently gives. And, we are taught to abstain from our own private judgments (that shape the private understandings you have read here) and to subject ourselves to the answers given by the corporate judgment of the communities of faith that entrust and ordain us for the ministry of the sacraments.
The answers given by the Roman, Eastern, Anglican, Methodist, and Presbyterian communities share much, and those whose history can be traced to the Anabaptist movement share much (Baptists, Mennonites, and many who are often described as charismatic, non-denominational, or fundamentalist). Duke teaches us to understand the various traditions with some humility and to preside at the liturgies of our own. Finally, Duke teaches us to lament the sinful disunity in Christ's church that is rooted in our different understandings of the sacraments God has given us as means of grace.
Thanks for that last post (Craig). Not that my "own private judgment" means much in the grand scheme of things, but I do agree with what was said. Very well put.
While I may admit to things that I'm either unsure I agree with or don't understand -- and therefore ask questions about them, I totally agree that I/we cannot fully understand/comprehend these mysteries with our finite minds.
Thanks for helping me to "understand the various traditions with some humility and to preside at the liturgies of our own . . ." And "to lament the sinful disunity in Christ's church that is rooted in our different understandings of the sacraments God has given us as means of grace."
With that, it could be that this ends the "comments" for this blog thread . . . (?)
All Y'All,
1) Martin is (mostly) right to suggest the family baptisms are an argument from silence. I don't think that it's a totally accurrate portrayal, as households/families likey included the patriarch, his children, their children, as well as his slaves, servants, and their children. So I think it is slightly more than an argument from silence to presume the presence of children, especially as infant baptism later becomes a prominent practice - remember Polycarp from CH13.
2) That said, I would not make my case upon this slim evidence. My main arguements would be: continuity and analogy with circucision/bar mitzvah, early practice, and misisonal fidelity - ie it seems to better communicate what we believe about salvation, and lastly the NT texts which at least do not preclude the practice.
3) As to "becoming a Christian," this is the big can of worms.
a)I think that by the time anyone prays the sinner's prayer and/or gets baptized, they're already a Christian - if by Christian we mean something like "elect," "redeemed," "saved." Thus in one sense, the prayer or baptism is a ratification of something prior. I am not totally convinced of Cambell's line on this, but so far I'm buying what he's selling. More as NT144 proceeds.
b) This is a distinctly modern question concerning the eternal state of one's individual soul. What we (and by we I mean I) want to mean by "being a Christian" is being a disciple. Actively seeking to follow Christ in obedience and faithfulness within a congregation of the Church. (And the believer's baptism corner said amen.)
c) BUT, this is what I take the confirmation/bar mitzvah to represent. The completion of catechesis and entry into full participation in the ministry of the community. BUT, I take this active (free) responsive obedience to be predicated on the prior passive action of God.
Either in infant baptism, or elsewhere, God made someone a Christian in the sense of calling them into God's people. Thus, adult baptism or confirmation is a public expression of this prior act. And when done well, adult baptism follows a lengthy catechesis.
My apologies for my presumptuous last remark/speculation (about the possible end of the blog thread) in my last post . . . I can only claim ignorance and short-sightedness.
As I said before, I keep learning new things with each post. Thanks again for writing on a layperson's level.
Post a Comment
<< Home