So, yesterday I gave my thoughts on why I didn't think Christians should baptize infants. Since then, I have been thinking about a related question... If not at birth, then when should the child of believing parents be baptized? This is a difficult question for me and for some other Christian parents I have spoken with.
I don't remember a time when I didn't believe in the existence of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I remember as a child, the communion plate was passed and the unbaptized weren't allowed to participate. My grade school friends and I wanted to be able to participate, but we didn't know when we were supposed to be baptized. We and the adults in our lives seemed to be waiting for some significant moment when it would "hit us," and we would know it was time to be baptized. Finally, for me, it was after 4th grade church camp, when I had had a particularly monumental growing experience in Christ that week. I remember being in a class on 1 John and being so struck and convicted about how I needed to really exercise the love of God toward my peers and family. However, I wasn't coming to that realization from a point of non-faith - I was coming to it as someone who already believed and was realizing more profound practical realities of the faith. However, it was enough of a turning point, and I was tired enough of waiting to be baptized, so I went forward to be baptized. I remember my Mom was so happy and moved by my baptism, and I wasn't as emotional as she was (although I was happy and blessed to have had the experience). I think the reason I wasn't as emotional is because it felt to me so long in coming. But then again, I tend to be less outwardly emotional than my Mom in general.
Now, my 4 1/2 year old son Jacob has a precious understanding of faith. I think he is a great example of why Jesus said we need to have faith like children. When he was still fairly little, Heath started reading the Bible to him every night before bed. We started with a toddler board-book Bible, graduated to a thicker, more detailed preschooler Bible, and finally to an even more detailed children's Bible. They read through each at least once, and I believe multiple times. Jacob would tell us Bible stories at random moments, with a surprising amount of accurate detail. The best thing I can remember him doing, though, was singing us a song in the car one time. He was making up songs about various Bible stories, and after he had already sung a couple, he said, "Okay now I'm going to sing a sad song." He sang a song about Jesus's crucifixion, with a haunting made-up melody. He said how they put "screws" in Jesus hands and put "pokeys" on his head (this was about a year to a year and a half ago, his vocabulary is much more advanced now), and how they hurt him. He said how they put him in a tomb, and Mary came to visit him, but he wasn't there, because he had come back to life. I can still hear his little voice raising in excitement at that part.
One night not too long after that, Heath was explaining the concept of accepting Jesus and asking Him to come live in your heart. Jacob wanted to do it right then. So he prayed and did. Since then, we've let him take communion with us in church if he's with us during that part of the service. We remind him what communion is all about as we participate together.
After Jacob's prayer, I began to think: When should he be baptized? Obviously, he has sincere faith and a basic understanding of the Gospel even now. But we know, as his brain develops and matures more, as he develops abstract thought and reasoning skills, faith will become more complicated for him.
Heath and I both went through this during our teen years. I became depressed and even suicidal at times beginning in junior high. I never doubted that God existed or was the God I had grown up learning about and believing in. But I wondered why he was allowing me to suffer, and I railed against Him. At times, I rebelled against Him by doing things that I thought would most offend Him - drinking, smoking, running with a wild crowd. I thought, well, God, if you won't provide nice friends for me, then I will have to find a way to survive on my own - and this crowd accepts me as I am. It wasn't until I was 16 at church camp again, that I realized that God did love me, despite the trials I had gone through. That was when I decided to stop rebelling against Him and receive His love and strength for the trials.
I can't speak too much for Heath's experience, but I know he went through a revival of his faith when he was 16, also, after a mission's trip. Thankfully, he didn't have all the same rebellion experiences I did (good friends are so important!), but whatever rebellion or lack of commitment was there was set aside after that point.
This was the point when our faith became so very important to us, as a daily part of life. At the time, I thought, now this would have been a really meaningful time to be baptized! I felt like I finally really knew what it meant to be crucified with Christ and rise to new life in Him - as is illustrated by baptism. But I did not get rebaptized, because I felt that my baptism at age 9 was still valid since I did really believe at that time, despite having not yet been tested in my faith. But I have struggled with questions: When was I first "saved"? Was there a point in between age 9 and age 16, or prior to age 9, when I wasn't saved?
I am afraid I am starting to ramble, but I guess what it comes down to is that this is one more reason that I do understand why parents baptize infants. Of course the child will share the parent's faith, at least until a certain point in life. Children believe what their parents teach them (what an awesome responsibility!). So, if the child is going to have faith in childhood, but not yet be baptized, how does that make sense? Aren't all those with faith supposed to be baptized? Do we not allow them to be baptized because we know they don't fully understand what faith will require of them throughout the rest of their lives, and how hard it might be some times to hold on to it? I know many Amish and Mennonite groups don't allow their children to be baptized until they are teenagers and fully understand the faith. For me, when I was baptized at age 9, even though I had a greater understanding of what it meant to follow Jesus than I did at, say, 3 years old, I didn't know the trials I would face in the coming years any more than I did when I was 3 years old.
I am just voicing my thoughts here; I don't have any conclusion really, except that there seem to be problems with either approach when it comes to baptism of children of believers. Maybe those of you from a different church background have some helpful perspectives to share?
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
thoughts on Orthodoxy.... (Eastern Orthodoxy that is)
When we were visiting Heath's hometown (GC) for Christmas, we had the chance to talk briefly to one of our friends there who has decided to join the Eastern Orthodox Church. His decision is especially interesting considering another friend, from Heath's office, is also considering joining, and we have known four of our fellow Bible college students who joined after college. What is it about Eastern Orthodoxy that is drawing these former non-denominational church members?
We have been reading a book that our friend from GC lent us called "Becoming Orthodox." We have also looked up several internet articles and dug up a copy of the Orthodox Study Bible that my Uncle Mark gave me ten years ago, which has some very helpful articles as well. In college, I learned of the split in 1054 A.D. between the Western and Eastern branches of the "One Holy Catholic Apostolic" Church (Western, now known as Roman Catholic, and Eastern, now known as Eastern Orthodox). However, I always thought that the two branches were pretty much the same except that the Eastern church has icons and rejected the filoque clause in the creed (which was the cause of the split). I have to admit, there were some things I didn't know...
Two doctrines in particular which are troublesome to non-Catholics are the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Infallibility of the Pope. I discovered these doctrines were incorporated into the Roman church after the split. So that knocks two off the list of things that concern or confuse me about the Eastern church.
However, there are still parts of the Eastern church that confound me as much as they did in the Catholic church. I know part of this is my upbringing, hearing the people around me in my non-denominational protestant church voice their own disagreement or bafflement at certain Catholic doctrines or practices. One such practice is the veneration of Mary. When I read the Orthodox church's statement regarding Mary, I agree with the basis of it - she definitely was honored and blessed as no other woman in history has been. But the actual practice of it makes me sooooo uncomfortable. I also understand the Orthodox perspective on praying to the Saints. I understand the perspective, and I don't think it is a problem doctrinally, but I just don't buy it, really. I think, "Why? Why wouldn't I just pray to God myself?" I understand it is supposed to be similar to asking a friend or pastor in the physical realm to pray for you, but when I do that, I do it partially for the advice I might receive and the tangible support I feel from them. I don't think I would get the same benefit from asking a Saint, who I have not known personally and who I presumably can't get feedback from.
The other major hitch for me about Orthodoxy is infant baptism. Now, this is definitely a major hitch, because if we are concerned with going back to how the first Church did things, then infant baptism just might be a part of it. For the children of the first Church members, that is. (The very first Church members were older children or adults who heard the Gospel at Pentecost, accepted it and were baptized, as recorded in Acts - although some would say when whole households were baptized as recorded later in Acts, that it also included babies.) It appears that as early as the 100's or 200's, babies of church members were being baptized. Maybe it was even earlier, but we don't have any record of it. Infant baptism may have began because the early church believed that something actually happened in baptism, and they wanted that something to happen to their children. I understand the early church's belief that something actually happened in baptism, because I think the scriptures support that view. However, what I have long believed is somewhat different from the Orthodox view in that I have assumed that the reason something happens in baptism is because of the faith it expresses; that it is, basically, the means that God has provided or decreed for us to express our belief and repentance, and that is what gives it its power. For my friends or acquaintances that have faith but for some reason have not been baptized, I have always believed that they are still saved by their faith, although I felt they should still go ahead and receive a baptism of faith for the spiritual benefit and blessing that it will bring. I can't explain exactly what that benefit or blessing is - I agree with the Orthodox perspective there, too, that it is a "mystery of grace." It (along with the Lord's Supper) is something God set up as a means of us responding to Him and receiving His grace, and we just need to trust Him on that.
I did some more reading to try to understand the perspective of those who baptize infants, and it became clear that for at least some, they believe that the act of baptism alone can initiate faith. That despite the infant's incapacity to understand and accept the Gospel, God can still provide spiritual blessing and benefit through baptism, which will then lead to later faith. They point out that even our faith was not our own doing - it is God who moved in our hearts and brought us, as older children or adults, to faith and to baptism to express that faith. So, they say, we can trust God to use baptism to initiate faith in the child. I do think proponents of infant baptism believe you must continue to hold on to faith throughout your life in order to be saved, but that it is still through your faith and baptism together (both gifts of God) that you are being saved. Even if that baptism happened prior to your faith. The proponents of infant baptism say, "Why would we want to deny the grace of baptism to a child?" rather than "Why would we baptize an infant who cannot have belief?"
These explanations are interesting to me, but they don't really convince me that Christians should have their infants baptized. Even though I believe in the mysterious grace of baptism, I have trouble seeing how that can apply to an infant. If there is no belief on behalf of the participant, then how is baptism any different than giving the infant a public bath? I guess proponents might answer that it is because of the faith and commitment of the sponsors, parents, and church family involved, who are committed to raising the child in the faith, or perhaps they would answer that it is because of the authority of the priest performing the ceremony?
The final, practical matter of Orthodoxy that would keep many protestants away is the liturgy. Granted, the liturgy is beautiful. It contains lots of doctrine and scripture, which are reinforced and celebrated each time it is spoken - provided the speaker is paying attention. Yet, it is the same beautiful words every week, and as humans who become too easily accustomed to the familiar, I see how many would not even pay attention to what they are saying, how they would begin to think there was some magic in simply saying the words, not that the magic is in what the words attest to, the miracle of Christ saving us. I understand having a plan for worship, a structure to make sure all the various aspects are included (and often times we non-liturgical folk sadly lack this), but I don't see the necessity of having exactly the same words to express the thoughts of worship each week. Didn't David always want to sing a new song to the Lord? While I value and enjoy the rote prayers and hymns that have been collected by the Church through the centuries, I think we have to also leave room for that new song in our hearts for the Lord.
We have been reading a book that our friend from GC lent us called "Becoming Orthodox." We have also looked up several internet articles and dug up a copy of the Orthodox Study Bible that my Uncle Mark gave me ten years ago, which has some very helpful articles as well. In college, I learned of the split in 1054 A.D. between the Western and Eastern branches of the "One Holy Catholic Apostolic" Church (Western, now known as Roman Catholic, and Eastern, now known as Eastern Orthodox). However, I always thought that the two branches were pretty much the same except that the Eastern church has icons and rejected the filoque clause in the creed (which was the cause of the split). I have to admit, there were some things I didn't know...
Two doctrines in particular which are troublesome to non-Catholics are the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Infallibility of the Pope. I discovered these doctrines were incorporated into the Roman church after the split. So that knocks two off the list of things that concern or confuse me about the Eastern church.
However, there are still parts of the Eastern church that confound me as much as they did in the Catholic church. I know part of this is my upbringing, hearing the people around me in my non-denominational protestant church voice their own disagreement or bafflement at certain Catholic doctrines or practices. One such practice is the veneration of Mary. When I read the Orthodox church's statement regarding Mary, I agree with the basis of it - she definitely was honored and blessed as no other woman in history has been. But the actual practice of it makes me sooooo uncomfortable. I also understand the Orthodox perspective on praying to the Saints. I understand the perspective, and I don't think it is a problem doctrinally, but I just don't buy it, really. I think, "Why? Why wouldn't I just pray to God myself?" I understand it is supposed to be similar to asking a friend or pastor in the physical realm to pray for you, but when I do that, I do it partially for the advice I might receive and the tangible support I feel from them. I don't think I would get the same benefit from asking a Saint, who I have not known personally and who I presumably can't get feedback from.
The other major hitch for me about Orthodoxy is infant baptism. Now, this is definitely a major hitch, because if we are concerned with going back to how the first Church did things, then infant baptism just might be a part of it. For the children of the first Church members, that is. (The very first Church members were older children or adults who heard the Gospel at Pentecost, accepted it and were baptized, as recorded in Acts - although some would say when whole households were baptized as recorded later in Acts, that it also included babies.) It appears that as early as the 100's or 200's, babies of church members were being baptized. Maybe it was even earlier, but we don't have any record of it. Infant baptism may have began because the early church believed that something actually happened in baptism, and they wanted that something to happen to their children. I understand the early church's belief that something actually happened in baptism, because I think the scriptures support that view. However, what I have long believed is somewhat different from the Orthodox view in that I have assumed that the reason something happens in baptism is because of the faith it expresses; that it is, basically, the means that God has provided or decreed for us to express our belief and repentance, and that is what gives it its power. For my friends or acquaintances that have faith but for some reason have not been baptized, I have always believed that they are still saved by their faith, although I felt they should still go ahead and receive a baptism of faith for the spiritual benefit and blessing that it will bring. I can't explain exactly what that benefit or blessing is - I agree with the Orthodox perspective there, too, that it is a "mystery of grace." It (along with the Lord's Supper) is something God set up as a means of us responding to Him and receiving His grace, and we just need to trust Him on that.
I did some more reading to try to understand the perspective of those who baptize infants, and it became clear that for at least some, they believe that the act of baptism alone can initiate faith. That despite the infant's incapacity to understand and accept the Gospel, God can still provide spiritual blessing and benefit through baptism, which will then lead to later faith. They point out that even our faith was not our own doing - it is God who moved in our hearts and brought us, as older children or adults, to faith and to baptism to express that faith. So, they say, we can trust God to use baptism to initiate faith in the child. I do think proponents of infant baptism believe you must continue to hold on to faith throughout your life in order to be saved, but that it is still through your faith and baptism together (both gifts of God) that you are being saved. Even if that baptism happened prior to your faith. The proponents of infant baptism say, "Why would we want to deny the grace of baptism to a child?" rather than "Why would we baptize an infant who cannot have belief?"
These explanations are interesting to me, but they don't really convince me that Christians should have their infants baptized. Even though I believe in the mysterious grace of baptism, I have trouble seeing how that can apply to an infant. If there is no belief on behalf of the participant, then how is baptism any different than giving the infant a public bath? I guess proponents might answer that it is because of the faith and commitment of the sponsors, parents, and church family involved, who are committed to raising the child in the faith, or perhaps they would answer that it is because of the authority of the priest performing the ceremony?
The final, practical matter of Orthodoxy that would keep many protestants away is the liturgy. Granted, the liturgy is beautiful. It contains lots of doctrine and scripture, which are reinforced and celebrated each time it is spoken - provided the speaker is paying attention. Yet, it is the same beautiful words every week, and as humans who become too easily accustomed to the familiar, I see how many would not even pay attention to what they are saying, how they would begin to think there was some magic in simply saying the words, not that the magic is in what the words attest to, the miracle of Christ saving us. I understand having a plan for worship, a structure to make sure all the various aspects are included (and often times we non-liturgical folk sadly lack this), but I don't see the necessity of having exactly the same words to express the thoughts of worship each week. Didn't David always want to sing a new song to the Lord? While I value and enjoy the rote prayers and hymns that have been collected by the Church through the centuries, I think we have to also leave room for that new song in our hearts for the Lord.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
wonderful weekend!
I had a wonderful weekend! My mom showed up unexpectedly in Wichita, and lunch together turned into her staying the night when I lured her with the prospect of seeing Jacob's Christmas program at church (see the video on Nattyman's blog!). Church was great, the kids' program was delightful, and Mom and I were able to spend some rare time alone together the next day lunching and shopping. I collected ideas for presents, but didn't buy very much yet. Hopefully I'll be able to go back out and purchase items in the next day or two.
Ethan's intestinal virus cleared up on Sunday, and that was a cause for celebration as well. No more screaming and writhing in pain while we change his diaper 5 or 6 times a day. I think it lasted about 3 weeks total. We started feeding him yogurt every day last week, and I think it really helped.
I hope you all had an equally delightful weekend!
Ethan's intestinal virus cleared up on Sunday, and that was a cause for celebration as well. No more screaming and writhing in pain while we change his diaper 5 or 6 times a day. I think it lasted about 3 weeks total. We started feeding him yogurt every day last week, and I think it really helped.
I hope you all had an equally delightful weekend!
thank you
The discipline situation in our house does seem to be stablizing. Thanks to all of you for your prayers and encouragement. While I was trying to sort out my thoughts on the issue of discipline, I wrote an article about the various philosophies of discipline that are prevalent in our society. If anyone is interested, here is the link: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dg33wtj7_2gvztsc
If you are a parent you may be familiar with most of the information, but it was helpful to me to outline it all in an objective tone. Now if I could write a critical review of each method, that would really be something... :-) If any of you would like to undertake that, I'd love to read it.
If you are a parent you may be familiar with most of the information, but it was helpful to me to outline it all in an objective tone. Now if I could write a critical review of each method, that would really be something... :-) If any of you would like to undertake that, I'd love to read it.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
aliens!
We stayed home all day waiting for a UPS delivery, which finally arrived a few minutes ago. We contacted UPS earlier today, and they said someone would have to be home to sign for the package. So around 5 pm, the doorbell rings and I rush down the stairs to sign for the package. Jacob tries to beat me to the door, and as he is on his way, he yells, "Someone is here! Do you think it is aliens?" He had been watching Postcards from Buster, and Buster was visiting Roswell, NM.
Incidently, when I opened the door, the UPS driver had left our package on the porch (without a signature) and was walking back to the truck.
Incidently, when I opened the door, the UPS driver had left our package on the porch (without a signature) and was walking back to the truck.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
more on discipline
Heath and I have both been seeking counsel about our discipline issues with the kids, and everyone seems to be saying the same thing. Everyone is saying, basically, that consistency is the key. That we just need to be determined, and keep after it.
I think the thing that has been discouraging me lately is that I usually have one strong-willed child (Jacob) and one slightly less strong willed child (Ethan). I am used to the psychological and emotional effort required for that mix. But ever since Ethan got this intestinal virus, he has been cranky and unreasonable and difficult to please. His whole personality is different. (We did take him to the doctor today, and he is otherwise healthy; the doctor said the virus will just have to run its course.) So now instead of one child demanding and resisting and throwing fits, I have two.
Right now, for instance, Ethan is screaming in his bedroom because I had the audacity to change his diaper and lay him down for a nap when he was obviously exhausted. He was also mad about his pillow and blankets not being how he wanted them, but nothing I did to fix them made him happy. Also, I tried to take him a drink of water, but it wasn't in the right cup (not that I know which cup would have been the "right" one) so that just made him more mad, too. Our bedtime rules are 1) stay in bed and 2) be quiet. Thank God, he is obeying rule number 1, but he is nowhere close to obeying rule number 2. I spanked him for not being quiet, actually for being the opposite of quiet by throwing a huge screaming fit, but I eventually gave up and simply left the room. So that wasn't exactly a great example of consistency or sticking with it. But at least I didn't let him get up.
Meanwhile, Jacob has been pretty well behaved since yesterday afternoon, except for one incident at lunch. He ran away from Heath at The Waterfront - a very similar situation to what started all of our trouble yesterday. We took away TV for the rest of the day, and he's been pretty well behaved since. I struggle with knowing how much to let slide and how much to crack down, in trying to be consistent. If Jacob tries to convince me to change my mind about what I have asked him to do, rather than doing it immediately, does that warrant punishment? Does he get one appeal, one clarification, and then he is to drop it or get spanked? I struggle with balance. Sometimes I wonder if they are really capable of complying with what I am asking, in the way I want them to, anyway. I wish this came easily to me, that I felt confident about it. Disciplining is definitely the hardest part of parenting for me.
I think the thing that has been discouraging me lately is that I usually have one strong-willed child (Jacob) and one slightly less strong willed child (Ethan). I am used to the psychological and emotional effort required for that mix. But ever since Ethan got this intestinal virus, he has been cranky and unreasonable and difficult to please. His whole personality is different. (We did take him to the doctor today, and he is otherwise healthy; the doctor said the virus will just have to run its course.) So now instead of one child demanding and resisting and throwing fits, I have two.
Right now, for instance, Ethan is screaming in his bedroom because I had the audacity to change his diaper and lay him down for a nap when he was obviously exhausted. He was also mad about his pillow and blankets not being how he wanted them, but nothing I did to fix them made him happy. Also, I tried to take him a drink of water, but it wasn't in the right cup (not that I know which cup would have been the "right" one) so that just made him more mad, too. Our bedtime rules are 1) stay in bed and 2) be quiet. Thank God, he is obeying rule number 1, but he is nowhere close to obeying rule number 2. I spanked him for not being quiet, actually for being the opposite of quiet by throwing a huge screaming fit, but I eventually gave up and simply left the room. So that wasn't exactly a great example of consistency or sticking with it. But at least I didn't let him get up.
Meanwhile, Jacob has been pretty well behaved since yesterday afternoon, except for one incident at lunch. He ran away from Heath at The Waterfront - a very similar situation to what started all of our trouble yesterday. We took away TV for the rest of the day, and he's been pretty well behaved since. I struggle with knowing how much to let slide and how much to crack down, in trying to be consistent. If Jacob tries to convince me to change my mind about what I have asked him to do, rather than doing it immediately, does that warrant punishment? Does he get one appeal, one clarification, and then he is to drop it or get spanked? I struggle with balance. Sometimes I wonder if they are really capable of complying with what I am asking, in the way I want them to, anyway. I wish this came easily to me, that I felt confident about it. Disciplining is definitely the hardest part of parenting for me.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
I am having a bad day. I am feeling like there is nothing I can do to influence whether or not Jacob is going to obey me. He doesn't care if I spank him, or put him in his room, or take away privileges. I mean, he cares at the moment, because he doesn't like the punishment when it occurs, but it doesn't make him any more likely to obey in the future - it doesn't change his attitude.
Dr. Dobson, in his book Dare to Discipline and also in The Strong Willed Child, describes how spanking is the best response when a child is willfully disobedient. He describes a scenerio where the child is testing the parent: The parent makes a rule and the child purposefully disobeys, in part to see if the parent is really serious about his/her word. The parent responds by spanking, and telling the child why he got spanked, at which point the child becomes repentant. Afterwards, the child and parent are back on good terms, and the child knows the parent means what he/she says.
It doesn't work this way for me. My children don't become repentant. They are mad they got spanked, and they may offer an apology if it is requested, but it doesn't break the spirit of willful disobedience. They still want their way more than they want to obey me. Jacob will even try to explain to me, "But I just wanted to do such and such..." Even as I am trying to explain to him why it is important to obey.
So, on days like this, I feel like I am completely ineffectual. And it is depressing because I feel completely out of control of my environment. I feel like despite everything I have read and tried to learn about discipline, I really know nothing, and I really have no influence.
Sorry to be such a downer. I'll probably remove this when I have a good day tomorrow, anyway.
Dr. Dobson, in his book Dare to Discipline and also in The Strong Willed Child, describes how spanking is the best response when a child is willfully disobedient. He describes a scenerio where the child is testing the parent: The parent makes a rule and the child purposefully disobeys, in part to see if the parent is really serious about his/her word. The parent responds by spanking, and telling the child why he got spanked, at which point the child becomes repentant. Afterwards, the child and parent are back on good terms, and the child knows the parent means what he/she says.
It doesn't work this way for me. My children don't become repentant. They are mad they got spanked, and they may offer an apology if it is requested, but it doesn't break the spirit of willful disobedience. They still want their way more than they want to obey me. Jacob will even try to explain to me, "But I just wanted to do such and such..." Even as I am trying to explain to him why it is important to obey.
So, on days like this, I feel like I am completely ineffectual. And it is depressing because I feel completely out of control of my environment. I feel like despite everything I have read and tried to learn about discipline, I really know nothing, and I really have no influence.
Sorry to be such a downer. I'll probably remove this when I have a good day tomorrow, anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)