CONS.ELF@AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg) (01/09/91)
Hello from Ake Eldberg. Ron Graham commented on my recent posting, and I want to correct a couple of my own mistakes... It was not my intention to start a debate about baptism. I should have anticipated that my posting would cause some people with baptist sympathies to feel wronged. Sorry, people. I was hasty. My point was to demonstrate that believing in the bible as some sort of "magical" book which needs no connection to history and will automatically interpret itself correctly to anyone who is driven by the Spirit, is a mistake. I chose a certain flavor of baptism as an example. I have met many fundamentalists of the baptist persuasion who have clained - quoting the bible - that: a) there is no salvation without baptism, b) infants cannot be baptized, it's not valid before God. Which would mean exactly that most Christian believers through the ages are damned. It's possible that this is a peculiar Swedish brand of baptism which doesn't exist in America? I am well aware of that most baptists do not claim that those who are baptized as infants and never receive the "believer's baptism" are damned. Sorry if my posting looked like an all-out attack on baptists. Sorry too that my stupid example took away all the attention from my main point about Christianity as a historical religion with a development behind it. Ake Eldberg
watson@uunet.uu.net (Steve Watson) (01/15/91)
In article <Jan.9.04.00.01.1991.3252@athos.rutgers.edu> CONS.ELF@AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg) writes: >It was not my intention to start a debate about baptism..... >.....Sorry too that my stupid example took away all the >attention from my main point about Christianity as a historical >religion with a development behind it. Take heart Ake, it's not that bad. Even though I chose to respond ALSO to the Baptist angle, I certainly didn't miss your point, which I thought was quite well expressed. (The tendency of discussion threads to throw out side branches, which then turn into threads in their own right is a pleasant characteristic of the Net). One thing I will say in favour of the Church of Christ is this: their stated aim is to restore the New Testament church, shorn of all the accretions and corruptions of 19 centuries (thus the name 'Church of Christ'). It's a pity that the attempt went (IMHO) so badly astray, and wound up producing just another Fundamentalist sect, distinguishable from others only by the idiosyncracies of its legalisms. But one of the things I retain from my days in that church is a sort of tendency toward minimalism in my faith: a habit of asking "Is THIS essential, or just peripheral?". It makes me look at my church, or whatever I happen to be involved with and say "This is just a vehicle, just a wrapping. Unless it helps me to find that Kernel of the faith, that Holy-of-Holies, it's worthless". While I recognize the value of tradition as a guide (i.e. "These people did such-and-such, and it had this result. Maybe we should try something like that?" (or: "avoid it like the plague!")), I think we also need occasionally to try and put ourselves in the position of those first-century believers, with a shiny new Faith to live and proclaim, and no previous generations to guide them. It could lead to some valuable insights. -- +===========================================================================+ | Steve Watson Disclaimer: Blame me, not the Company I keep... | | UseNet: watson@Software.Mitel.COM UUCP: mitel!spock!watson@uunet.uu.net | +===========================================================================+
CONS.ELF@AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg) (01/24/91)
Travelling in the USA, I have seen the sign "Church of Christ" here and there. It told me nothing because that denomination does not exist in Sweden. I guess the closest we come is the Pentecostals who are a congregationalist evangelical type of baptist church. Myself, I was born and raised in a secularized family. I went so Sunday School among these evangelicals, but as an adult I have come to find my spiritual home in the high-church Lutheran community (which in Sweden is more like High-Church Anglican than anything you Americans would call "Lutheran"). Baptism was once a problem for me, because I saw that many parents who were not churchgoers and had very weak links to Christianity were having their children baptized because it's tradition, but without knowing what it means. This made me think a baptist approach was better. Let the kids choose for themselves. It is still a problem for me, as a minister of the Church of Sweden, that so many of the parents are not truly members of the parish -- they belong to it in theory, but they don't go to church. I have been impressed by the Roman Catholics who demand attendance in order to regard people as true Christians. Several Lutheran (C of S) parishes are now employing a special programme to bring the parents to awareness of what baptism really means. Meaning, we get them to go to church and some "school" meetings before their children are baptized. On principle, however, I am still convinced that children can validly and rightly be baptized into a community which their family already is in. They were born into a Christian family, and there is nothing to say that any level of knowledge or any amount of faith is necessary to be received by God. Let the children come to me! said Christ. But it gives me trouble that many parents who have no intention of caring about God want their children baptized because it's a neat tradition and nothing more. Ake Eldberg
lvron@earth.lerc.nasa.gov (Ronald E. Graham) (02/03/91)
In article <Jan.24.03.21.09.1991.26466@athos.rutgers.edu>, CONS.ELF@AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg) writes... [regarding perspectives on infant baptism...] >Baptism was once a problem for me, because I saw that many parents >who were not churchgoers and had very weak links to Christianity >were having their children baptized because it's tradition, but >without knowing what it means. This made me think a baptist >approach was better. Let the kids choose for themselves. Having once adhered to the Baptist church (does it matter which one?), I was used to having the same view of the more liturgical groups which practice this. It was my reasoning that, since baptism was supposed to be a sign of Christ's work in the believer, I should support and practice the "believer's baptism." > [...] >Several Lutheran (C of S) parishes are now employing a special >programme to bring the parents to awareness of what baptism >really means. Meaning, we get them to go to church and some >"school" meetings before their children are baptized. Even after my family joined the Episcopal (American Anglican) church, I retained my belief in believer's baptism as the acceptable manner. This was due, in part, to Episcopal pastors choosing to base their defense of the practice of infant baptism primarily on tradition rather than on Scripture. The only references from the Bible applied to the defense were generally from Acts, describing individuals who believed and were baptized along with their households. I felt these passages to be necessary, but not sufficient, for a defense from Scripture. In short, I wanted to be able to *defend* decisions I make on my children's behalf, especially decisions of this nature, even if nobody cares to listen to the defense. So a class like Mr. Eldberg describes above, if they can make a Scriptural defense, would IMPO be essential for sincere Christian parents who want their children baptized. Too bad most of us parents aren't sincere, innit? :-( >On principle, however, I am still convinced that children can >validly and rightly be baptized into a community which their >family already is in. They were born into a Christian family, >and there is nothing to say that any level of knowledge or >any amount of faith is necessary to be received by God. Let >the children come to me! said Christ. Well, now I agree with this statement 100%, although I didn't just one month ago. I was loaned a book put out by the Presbyterian Reformed Church on infant baptism, which outlined their defense. It was from Scripture, and where there were gray areas in their logic, it was pointed out that those who follow the believer's baptism doctrine have the same gray areas to deal with as well. The book is called "What Christian Parents Should Know About Infant Baptism." It's only about 30 (short) pages long. Because of the defense of this book, I have changed my stand. My children will both be baptized on 02/03/91, and I understand why I'm allowing it. If anybody gives a rip, I'd be glad to discuss it. >But it gives me trouble that many parents who have no intention >of caring about God want their children baptized because it's >a neat tradition and nothing more. Amen. I wish I knew how to deal with this myself. G'dae, Mr. Eldberg. RG [Having children baptized simply because it's the custom is a continuing problem. However many churches insist that those bringing a child for baptism must be active Christians. This can sometimes be a way of bringing people back into the church. It's pretty common for people to fall away in college, and come back only as they begin to have a family of their own. So there are both good and bad sides to the situation. On the one hand, we need to do our best to prevent baptism from turning into a cultural event or superstition. On the other hand, it's possible to go too far in suspicion of parents' motivations, and become self-righteous. People may in fact be moved to reconsider their priorities in a serious way when they become responsible for children. --clh]