Jump to content

Why I Don't Want To Be Baptised


des

Recommended Posts

PS - Some wonderful Christians I've read lately feel that the goal of Christianity is SALVATION of the world and that such a goal can be accomplished when Christians quit focusing on "me me me and my relationship to God", but instead become "missional", with a view of becoming a "blessing to all nations".  :)

You mean God cares more about the poor than about my sex life? :blink:

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

WindDancer:

 

"About JW's and Mormon's not being viewed as Christian. That bugs me too. Because it shows the emphasis on "correct" beliefs as the criteria for being Christian. I'd look more at the dysfunctional life-diminishing behavior that is so damaging and can happen in any faith community. Other Christian denominations are not immune to that, just because they have the "correct" beliefs. "

 

That is precisely it. The fundamental far right Protestants such as Southern Baptists, Assembly of God and Calvary Chapel all embrace the same sexist views of women and the "members-ONLY" salvation theory that the Mormons and JW's do. But none of these antiGolden Rule hyprocrisies matter to any of these groups...they instead focus all their attention of fighting over the doctrines such as trinity....

 

And this is where Progressive Christianity stands in stark CONTRAST to ALL the fundamental Protestants as well as their fundamental cousions, the JWs and Mormons that they are always tagging "CULTS." Unlike these fundamental groups, be they deemed "orthodox" by Evangelical Protestants...or "UnOrthodox"...

Progressive Christianity stands in stark contrast to Southern Baptists, Assembly of God, Calvary Chapel..AND Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons...because Prog Christianity's prime focus IS on social justice rather than on fighting over doctrines.

 

On the Progressive Christianity site you will find Progressive Christians who may be pro-trinity Liveral Catholics or Progressive Lutherns and Prebyterians as well as Progressive Christians who came from JW and Mormon background who are bibical unitarians and you'll also find Unity church Progressives as well as those who came from a Christian Science background and who may still hold Progressive New thought views...and yet all of these are welcomed and NONE are tagged, "Cult", or "Unorthodox"....Because we all share the same respect for social justice..then this is what ties us together regardless of whether we embrace a triniatrain view of God or Bibical unitarian view, and you can believe in New Thought, New Age or the New Earth..and no one will judge how "Orthodox" you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...because Prog Christianity's prime focus IS on social justice rather than on fighting over doctrines.

You are not the appointed spokesperson for Progressive Christianity. Social justice is immensely important to me personally, but it is not what I'm referring to when I identify myself as a Progressive Christian. Progressive Christianity means just what it says: a movement to explore the meaning and practice of Christianity in a Progressive context. You can't throw your arms around the world with this label; it has to mean something more than a social agenda.

 

My committment to Progressive Christianity will probably mean that my ideas dovetail significantly with those of other belief traditions, and that I won't be trying to convert them to a different outward religious form. It will even probably mean that our social agendas will overlap significantly. But a Zen Buddhist is not a Progressive Christian, nor would he identify himself as such. Do you see the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a quote that I thought might bring the thread back on topic (sorry about that Des, didn't mean for it to go wandering sideways :D ):

 

"The word baptize derives from the Greek word βάπτειν, which loosely means "to dip or bathe", but more precisely means to plunge something entirely into the water, so that the water closes over it.

 

Today, baptism is most famously identified with Christianity, where it symbolizes the cleansing (remission) of sins, and the union of the believer with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection.

 

The choice to be baptized is made by a confessing believer (credobaptism), regardless of age, as a confession of his faith; or for a child by his or her parents (paedobaptism) according to the parent's confession of faith.

 

There are differences in opinion about the nature and practice of Christian baptism. Some denominations, such as Baptists, practice believer baptism, and believe that baptism does not save, but rather publicly demonstrates that a person has been saved through his union with Christ.

 

Other people, including Martin Luther, have placed a much greater importance on baptism. Luther states in The Large Catechism of 1529AD : "To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save."

 

Catholics and Orthodox : The liturgy of baptism in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition makes clear reference to baptism as not only a symbolic burial and resurrection, but an actual supernatural transformation, one that draws parallels to the experience of Noah and the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea divided by Moses.

 

Thus baptism is literally and symbolically not only cleansing, but also dying and rising again with Jesus. Catholics believe that baptism is necessary for the cleansing of the taint of original sin, and for that reason infant baptism is a common practice for them.

 

The Orthodox also practice infant baptism on the basis of various texts such as Matthew 9:14 which are interpreted to condone full Church membership for children, and so baptism is immediately followed by Chrismation and Communion at the next Divine Liturgy regardless of age.

 

Baptists: Baptist groups derive their name either from the restrictions that they traditionally place on the mode and subjects of the ordinance of baptism.

 

They typically teach that baptism does not accomplish anything in itself, but is an outward sign or testimony, a personal act, indicating the invisible reality that the person's sins have already been washed away by the cross of Christ, and applied to their life according to their profession of faith. It is also understood to be a covenantal act, signifying entrance into the New Covenant of Christ (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:8-12, Romans 6). For Baptists, baptism is a requirement for church membership, rather than a necessary requirement for salvation."

Edited by AletheiaRivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with Christian Science has not been as a Christian so much as a Scientist. If they are going to call their faith Christian Science, they should involve a lot more experiment, and I don't see how being against modern medicine is consistent with Science. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Aletheia, that's why they call it a "thread" because it keeps weaving in and out maybe? If it were straightforward it would be called a "line". :-) I think any thread that stays on topic for maybe two pages is amazing.

 

RE: definition of progressive Christianity being primarily about social justice. I think that that would be the differentiation being made between "liberal and progressive". Although it is many times the same thing, I think the term "progressive" was used originally to say that "progressives" go beyond the social justice issues and on into spirituality, etc. I think I read some article about that anyway. Maybe someone who is more originally with TCPC can answer that better than I.

 

As for the Christian Science oxymoron, I'm also more offended by the science part as well. For one thing, science is not a kind of unbreakable legalistic rule. (I think CS is highly legalistic). But Mary Baker Eddy lived in the 19th C and not the 21st, and I somewhat imagine her ideas of science were highly limited to "laws" like those of gravity and not by actual experimental science, which I doubt if she even knew about. The other thing is that the "healings" (some of which I think happen) are not exposed to rigorous evaluation. Actually from what I have seen the Catholic church is much more careful about making assessments on faith healing (which CS say they don't do-- I mean they say it is not "faith healing" but the scientific application of Christianity). It may not be my explanation or understanding of Christianity, but then a lot of things aren't that.

 

Lolly, thanks for sharing your experiences. I did want to discuss it and explain why someone might feel this way. As per the idea that baptism is to wash away sins, I don't share that particular idea (I know Lolly you didn't say this). I think infant baptism is valid and don't believe in original sin (at least not in the sense of being sinful by nature or somesuch). So those feelings would be contrary. I have been to a couple infant baptisms. But that doesn't really help my own feelings of feeling it alien somehow. I think that my definition of it would be more symbolic/metaphorical and covenantish. So I feel I would have good reasons/understandings to do it but the comfort and familarity is what I lack.

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm coming to appreciate the covenental view of baptism and the covenental/missional view of Christianity. NT Wrights writings and Brian McLaren's writings have helped me much in this regard.

 

I also think that infant baptism is quite beautiful and appreciate what it means to the parents to "covenant" to raise their child as a Christian.

 

Hopefully one day I'll have both the health and the desire to visit a few churches, but right now I'm content to "work" in my yard, play with worms :P and read. I felt so guilty as a JW, not being able to make it to the meetings (3 a week). I felt that I was letting God down. Now I feel God every time I sit in my yard and watch sunsets.

Edited by AletheiaRivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Now I feel God every time I sit in my yard and watch sunsets.

 

Funny that you mentioned that Aletheia. I once went to a church that had a huge window that showed up this fantastic view of the mountains. I found I was much more interested in looking at the mountain than at listening to the (rather flat, imo) church service.

 

I feel priviledged that I can now do both and be happy with them both, but I would not at all feel "guilty" about "just" looking at the mountain.

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(BeachOfEden @ May 18 2005, 09:18 AM)

...because Prog Christianity's prime focus IS on social justice rather than on fighting over doctrines.

 

 

FredP Yesterday, 10:30 AM Post #29 :

 

"You are not the appointed spokesperson for Progressive Christianity."

 

Excuse me?! What is it I said that inspired such a negative sounded reply? I don;t see where I said anything that conflicts with Progressive Christianity. How is it that expressing a completely inclusive view is somehow in conflict with what Progressive Christianity stands for???

 

"Social justice is immensely important to me personally, but it is not what I'm referring to when I identify myself as a Progressive Christian. Progressive Christianity means just what it says: a movement to explore the meaning and practice of Christianity in a Progressive context. You can't throw your arms around the world with this label; it has to mean something more than a social agenda."

 

Umm..ok...if you want to expand on this, we are all listening.

 

"My committment to Progressive Christianity will probably mean that my ideas dovetail significantly with those of other belief traditions, and that I won't be trying to convert them to a different outward religious form. It will even probably mean that our social agendas will overlap significantly. But a Zen Buddhist is not a Progressive Christian, nor would he identify himself as such. Do you see the difference?"

 

By this to you mean you beg to differ with those here who maybe express that they see no conflict and complete harmony with blening Progressive Christianity with say...Zen buddhism? New Thought philosophy? Or Native American spiritual beliefs? Is this what you are talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Social justice is immensely important to me personally, but it is not what I'm referring to when I identify myself as a Progressive Christian. Progressive Christianity means just what it says: a movement to explore the meaning and practice of Christianity in a Progressive context. You can't throw your arms around the world with this label; it has to mean something more than a social agenda."

 

Umm..ok...if you want to expand on this, we are all listening.

I started another thread for this discussion, rather than taking this one even further off track.

 

By this to you mean you beg to differ with those here who maybe express that they see no conflict and complete harmony with blening Progressive Christianity with say...Zen buddhism? New Thought philosophy? Or Native American spiritual beliefs? Is this what you are talking about?

Not at all. My outlook has been enormously enriched by integrating ideas from Zen Buddhism, Taoism, and pre-Christian Greek philosophy. When I say that something isn't Christian, I'm not saying that it isn't true. I'm simply saying that it isn't located within some sort of Christian interpretive framework, however loosely you want to define that. If a belief system doesn't identify with some minimal notion of a Christian framework, what's the point of calling it Progressive Christianity? The word has no meaning then. That's all I'm trying to say.

 

I apologize for my harsh remark earlier. I shouldn't have lashed out at you personally. It just really irks me when people reduce Christianity to a social agenda, and I don't apologize for voicing my strong disagreement with that.

 

Anyway, the discussion continues on the "What is Progressive Christianity?" thread...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I've debated myself with this issue. When I was baptized I was 14-16 years old. I was dunked in a tank (of thankfully warm water) in a very conservative church. So now that I go to progressive liberal church there would be something to getting baptized because there has definately been a conversion of faith. This is my best reason for being baptized again. Reasons not to? Because it has lost much of its biblical meaning in modern churches. Everything from baptizing infants who don't have a say in the matter to having simply lost its meaning (or has it changed its meaning?) as a sign of repentence. I'm not big on tradition for tradition's sake. I think things that have lost meaning should be done away with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've debated myself with this issue.  When I was baptized I was 14-16 years old.  I was dunked in a tank (of thankfully warm water) in a very conservative church.

Well your baptism was obviously not valid. I am sure God intended that the water be shockingly cold. :D

So now that I go to progressive liberal church there would be something to getting baptized because there has definately been a conversion of faith. This is my best reason for being baptized again.

The presbyterian take on this would be that your new affirmation of faith should cover the conversion that you feel. At the same time, I still say that only you can be the judge of whether your earlier baptism was effective. Most people I know would be happy to have you baptized anew, so long as it did not seem to be that you were forming a pattern of having new conversion ever few years and getting baptized because of them. If you had been baptized twice, and did not feel that either of them was effective, you might have to convince the church that it is reasonable for you to think that the third time would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the presbyterian church I attend actually has a pretty strong concept that baptism is a sacrament of Jesus, not the church. If you have been baptized - even if, looking back it was "under duress", they are very reluctant to re-baptize. What do other churches believe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the general attitude (as it was discussed earlier in the thread, I think) is that more progressive and mainline churches do not re-baptize. I think they would do a rededication (might be quite similar to the original-- though I don't think most mainline or progressive churches do immersion). More conservative or fundamentalist churches commonly re-baptize, as they believe (in some cases like the Church of Christ-- not UCC) in some highly specific requirements. Others believe that an infant baptism or one in, say, mainline church isn't valid. You either didn't believe or didn't believe the right thing.

 

Anyway, I think this is a round about way of saying that most churches any of us (except for the token conservatives) might attend would never re-baptize you. OTOH, you could have a rededication. I think Bro Rog mentioned this. Haven't seen much of him lately so I would guess he is busy. I would guess my church would do this (though in my case not as I was never baptized). However, I have been going to UCC off and on for years and never saw an adult baptism or rededication either.

 

I don't think of baptism as a sign of repentence. If so, why did Jesus get baptized? I think it is understood as a symbolic act of receiving the Holy Spirit. Changing churches from one Christian church to another wouldn't be valid as it would be saying those other churches aren't Christian (or Christian enough). Most mainline to progress. churches would never say that. You could rededicate your faith or something such as that.

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the presbyterian church I attend actually has a pretty strong concept that baptism is a sacrament of Jesus, not the church.  If you have been baptized - even if, looking back it was "under duress", they are very reluctant to re-baptize.  What do other churches believe?

 

The Baptist Churches, Mennonite Churches, and Brethern churches (as well as Assembly of God) rebaptize because the usually don't recognize an infant baptism.

 

The Baptists, Mennonites, & Brethern are known collectively as anabaptists because of this, they were a different part of the reformation that decided only adults should be baptized. I'm incline to agree... but that is another issue!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though October, I don't think that these "Anabaptists" would be mainline to progressive--though I think American Baptist is prob. in the mainline range.

 

However, as to infant baptism, I have seen several such ceremonies and they definitely seemed to be wonderful spirit filled events. I'm not sure about the whole thing either, I think in some cultures they would be "naming ceremonies". But since the church is welcoming them into the community of Christians who will love and nourish them-- I think that is the point.

 

I don't see why we can't discuss it. We never stay on track anyway. Either the thread dies or it changes. Hmm, sounds like a good title for a Spong book. :-)

 

BTW, you resurrected this thread from May anyway. OTOH, you could start a new topic on what people think about infant baptism.

 

 

--des

Edited by des
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Baptists, Mennonites, & Brethern are known collectively as anabaptists because of this, they were a different part of the reformation that decided only adults should be baptized.  I'm incline to agree... but that is another issue!

 

If infants can not be baptised were they not better off under the old covenant? Circumcised infants were considered members of God's covenant. Under the new covenant, disallowing infants baptism for me is like saying they can not be members of God's covenant. I tend to think that credo-baptism came into prominence because baptism was no longer read within the paradigm of a Jewish familial system. It's interesting that the above mentioned groups came into their own once the enlightenment was having an impact. The enlightenment brought with it a greater sense of individuality. This would have helped the credo-baptist cause.

Edited by Socius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the presbyterian church, infant baptism requires a pledge on the part of the parents (at least 1) and the congregation to raise the child as a christian and to provide for their religious education and provide a godly example for them. It is seen as a way to "claim" the new covenant with God for the baby. Then at 12-14, or whenever appropriate, the child is allowed to join the church as an individual; kind of a confirmation of their own faith and choice. At my church, it is a spiritual and joyful occassion when babies, children, or adults are baptized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cynthia, this is my understanding of infant baptism as well. And of any baptism in the sense of accepting the New Covenant, beign new in the Holy Spirit. In fact, the metaphorical aspect of the story makes most sense as the making new in the Holy Spirit (or however you might want to word it).

 

I think with the Baptists (and other anabaptists), this must have been quite a defining issue, so much so that they named their church around it. I think at least early on they were into dunking in-- mostly-- natural waters. If you look at this, well it is physically closest to Jesus' experience of going to a lake and being baptized by John the Baptist and then starting his spiritual mission. If we took the story as any kind of literal example, then all baptisms should be in natural bodies of water by immersion and done by a person who is identified as a "baptizer" (perhaps wearing furs and eating raw meat and honey :-)). Why it is considered the be all and end all is beyond me, when this wasn't done for everyone. Only people who met up with the "baptizer" and went out for a spiritual mission. But you have literal thinking churches saying to people they will go to hell if they don't get baptized. And I recall my pastor looked kind of shocked when I said I hadn't been baptized, but recovered quickly. It is quite strange in light of the actual text. Of course, there are also comments about being baptized in fire and water. No one takes the fire part too literally either (fortunately!).

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the reason for infant baptism (if you study the history) was to keep the infant from going to hell should they die. Since I don't believe in Hell and I certainly don't think God would send a child there if it did exist I see no point in it.

 

 

Churches which do not baptize infants have a dedication which serves the same purpose -- welcoming the child into the family of God and introducing the infant to the church. The parents and church agree to raise the child in the Christian faith and set a good example.

 

I see baptism of infants as essentially forcing a child into a religious mold. My husband was baptized Episcopal therefore he *is* Episcopal. My Brother in Law was baptized Catholic and therefore he *is* Catholic. When he started going to church for the first time as an adult he *had* to go to a Catholic church. It came come into a form of almost brainwashing where a person feels obligated to go to the denomination in which they were baptized as infants, without choice or free will!

 

As for as anabaptists not being progressive? Not true. The first gay wedding I went to was in a Baptist church and one of the most progressive "churches" I went to was a Mennonite church! As individual congregations both of these were more progressive than the UCC I attend now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If infants can not be baptised were they not better off under the old covenant? Circumcised infants were considered members of God's covenant. Under the new covenant, disallowing infants baptism for me is like saying they can not be members of God's covenant. I tend to think that credo-baptism came into prominence because baptism was no longer read within the paradigm of a Jewish familial system.

 

That's a good point.

 

Jesus was born a Jew, so he was under the "old" covenant already. By being baptized, he outwardly expressed his joining of a "new" covenant.

 

And gentiles, not being members of the Jewish covenant, could join this way.

 

I think I need to re-read the gospel accounts of Jesus baptism. I might be retro-actively reading a "Pauline" view (or a JW view) into the account.

 

I really appreciate NT Wright's view towards Christianity being a covenental/familial relationship with God (and with each other). It's something that Christendom talks about, but unless you've studied Judaism, isn't really understood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As for as anabaptists not being progressive? Not true. The first gay wedding I went to was in a Baptist church and one of the most progressive "churches" I went to was a Mennonite church! As individual congregations both of these were more progressive than the UCC I attend now"

 

 

I think the actual lines drawn by denominations are getting pretty blurry! Around here, (South) all Baptists get a conservative label.... much more related to the last 10-15 years of the Southern Baptist Convention than to anything else.

 

It seems to me that denominations are not scriptural... "neither Jew nor Greek..." the nondenominational community churches seem to be growing more popular. Less pressure for everyone to believe exactly the same thing... or perhaps, just less education... any thoughts???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the nondenominational community churches seem to be growing more popular.  Less pressure for everyone to believe exactly the same thing... or perhaps, just less education... any thoughts???

On the contrary, it seems to me the "nondenominational community churches" are more homogenous theologically than the denominational churches. Denominations are the natural result of a religion that allows for a wide range freedom on many different issues. People and churches naturally group together along different lines of emphasis, and I don't see anything necessarily wrong or divisive about that; that doesn't mean they can't be united in spirit. (In practice they often aren't, but I don't think "denominationalism" is the problem.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If infants can not be baptised were they not better off under the old covenant? Circumcised infants were considered members of God's covenant. Under the new covenant, disallowing infants baptism for me is like saying they can not be members of God's covenant. I tend to think that credo-baptism came into prominence because baptism was no longer read within the paradigm of a Jewish familial system.

 

That's a good point.

 

Jesus was born a Jew, so he was under the "old" covenant already. By being baptized, he outwardly expressed his joining of a "new" covenant.

 

 

 

 

ummm.... no... Baptism is a take off (or perhaps a form of) the mikvah, a traditional Jewish cleansing that was in place long before John the Baptist.

 

http://www.free-definition.com/Mikvah.html

 

Jesus was not Christian, he was a Jew from the day he was born until the day he died.

 

Baptism didn't happen once, it was a repeated ritual.

 

Jesus didn't start Christianity, Paul did. And it was really a separate religion from Judaism but rather a sect of Judaism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service