The odd thing is, in terms of what the Bible says, there doesn't seem to be any danger associated with receiving baptism "wrongly" (if there's such a thing), but there is for communion--though there are huge arguments about what exactly that means. I don't think they come down to intellectual incapacity, though. More heart attitudes. But if you can't refuse someone communion, IMHO that ought to go triply for baptism.
In the days when the New Testament books of the Bible were written, it was a dangerous thing to be a Christian. I can't see people wanting to be baptised unless they were really serious.
From what I am seeing on news programmes it could well be an issue these days.
Yes, the early Church did adopt a lengthy catechumenate, with periods of instruction lasting up to 2 or 3 years in some instances before baptism.
I would imagine practice varied according to circumstances.
As for whether it's dangerous to be a Christian in some parts of the world today. Yes, undoubtedly. As to whether it will become dangerous here too depends on the kind of news programmes you watch.
Besides, was everyone 'really serious' about being a Christian back when the NT was being written or compiled? How about Simon Magus? Acts 8:9-24.
He seemed to have his own agenda. For a time at least ...
How about the 'false brethren' the Apostle Paul mentions? Or those who were shoving other people out of the way to stuff or drink themselves silly at early Christian 'love-feasts'? 1 Corinthians 11:21.
It wouldn't have been infants who were doing that.
The idea that everything was sweetness and light back in the 1st century and Christians then were somehow more 'serious' than any since is pretty unsustainable in the light of the biblical and patristic evidence.
There was certainly no delay or examination when baptising 3000 on the Day of Pentecost, it took place straight after Peter's speech (one wonders how that was carried out!)
Admittedly those who were baptised were Jews and so had a working knowledge of God and the Scriptures; some may have heard Jesus preach - but that wouldn't be true of everyone, by any means.
The Philippian jailor is interesting because he was presumably a Gentile. Yet Paul was happy to baptise him and his family in the small hours of the morning after what could have only been a rudimentary understanding of the faith.
It seems to me the Lord has given his church a fair amount of leeway when it comes to discerning needs and instituting rites (not sacraments!) that suit the needs of the people at that time and space. When we began baptizing whole families at once, we went back to the early centuries looking for models for the catechumenate—basically how to educate and help people mature in the faith. It was hairy. A large church where the oldest Christians are two or three years old is no joke. We ended up absorbing a small dying congregation of fellow Lutherans (not Vietnamese) to live among us and give us some ballast. They’d all been seventy or eighty years in the faith, thank God, and were much less prone to freak outs.
It seems to me the Lord has given his church a fair amount of leeway when it comes to discerning needs and instituting rites (not sacraments!) that suit the needs of the people at that time and space.
I'd agree but that assumes one has some respect for the way God has worked through the church in time and space.
[Side note; for a few seconds I read your post as saying that you had a church full of literal toddlers]
God knows it felt like it! I never understood the Corinthian church before our people.
It's often occurred to me that we just don't have a roadmap for the death of Christendom which we're currently living through. The New Testament addresses a growing church, or a church under persecution, but it presents no model for a church shrinking and ageing in the face of indifference. I wonder whether it will be for some of us to guard the seed for a time so that it is ready for a new spring.
Yes. I've been thinking that too @Arethosemyfeet and pondering what the best strategies are to do this without descending into other-worldly solipsism or brittle forms of traditionalism or 'conservatism' in the sense of hunkering down to 'conserve' what we value to the expense of everyone else.
There are those who think churches are going through a process of winnowing and purifying. That seems elitist in the extreme.
However numbers are growing in the developing world so the centre of gravity of Christianity is moving away from the more liberal-minded North. Interesting times ahead.
There are those who think churches are going through a process of winnowing and purifying. That seems almost charismatic.
However numbers are growing in the developing world so the centre of gravity of Christianity is moving away from the more liberal-minded North. Interesting times ahead.
It would be interesting to know how much of that growth is simply demographic (i.e. church families having kids who stay in the church, though admittedly Europe mostly hasn't even managed that of late) and how much is growth by conversion.
There are those who think churches are going through a process of winnowing and purifying. That seems almost charismatic.
However numbers are growing in the developing world so the centre of gravity of Christianity is moving away from the more liberal-minded North. Interesting times ahead.
It would be interesting to know how much of that growth is simply demographic (i.e. church families having kids who stay in the church, though admittedly Europe mostly hasn't even managed that of late) and how much is growth by conversion.
I tend not to like this framing as creating a faith that perpetuates itself is hard enough, and the demographic argument can come across as somewhat orientalising.
The New Testament addresses a growing church, or a church under persecution, but it presents no model for a church shrinking and ageing in the face of indifference. I wonder whether it will be for some of us to guard the seed for a time so that it is ready for a new spring.
What would this look like? It's not like you can have a sort of 'gospel bank' buried in the ground, and the history of Christianities that get detached from the rest of the religion isn't necessarily one to be emulated.
I agree with your comment on "brittle forms of traditionalism or 'conservatism " and "hunkering down".
Ahem ... it's a saying, @Baptist Trainfan. It goes back to the days when TV or radio quizzes would invite viewers or listeners to submit answers by postcard.
There are those who think churches are going through a process of winnowing and purifying. That seems almost charismatic.
However numbers are growing in the developing world so the centre of gravity of Christianity is moving away from the more liberal-minded North. Interesting times ahead.
It would be interesting to know how much of that growth is simply demographic (i.e. church families having kids who stay in the church, though admittedly Europe mostly hasn't even managed that of late) and how much is growth by conversion.
I tend not to like this framing as creating a faith that perpetuates itself is hard enough, and the demographic argument can come across as somewhat orientalising.
I don't think it's unreasonable when people point to the growing numbers in churches in developing countries as an indicator of success to ask what the figures look like if you correct for population growth.
I agree with your comment on "brittle forms of traditionalism or 'conservatism " and "hunkering down".
Ahem ... it's a saying, @Baptist Trainfan. It goes back to the days when TV or radio quizzes would invite viewers or listeners to submit answers by postcard.
Or perhaps you knew that and were being ironic.
It's not a saying here - and quite likely in other places the Ship is read.
There are those who think churches are going through a process of winnowing and purifying. That seems almost charismatic.
However numbers are growing in the developing world so the centre of gravity of Christianity is moving away from the more liberal-minded North. Interesting times ahead.
It would be interesting to know how much of that growth is simply demographic (i.e. church families having kids who stay in the church, though admittedly Europe mostly hasn't even managed that of late) and how much is growth by conversion.
I tend not to like this framing as creating a faith that perpetuates itself is hard enough, and the demographic argument can come across as somewhat orientalising.
I don't think it's unreasonable when people point to the growing numbers in churches in developing countries as an indicator of success to ask what the figures look like if you correct for population growth.
It might well be interesting to see the breakdown of conversion versus "cradle Christians", but calling it a "correction" rather makes @chrisstiles 's point!
There are those who think churches are going through a process of winnowing and purifying. That seems almost charismatic.
However numbers are growing in the developing world so the centre of gravity of Christianity is moving away from the more liberal-minded North. Interesting times ahead.
It would be interesting to know how much of that growth is simply demographic (i.e. church families having kids who stay in the church, though admittedly Europe mostly hasn't even managed that of late) and how much is growth by conversion.
I tend not to like this framing as creating a faith that perpetuates itself is hard enough, and the demographic argument can come across as somewhat orientalising.
I don't think it's unreasonable when people point to the growing numbers in churches in developing countries as an indicator of success to ask what the figures look like if you correct for population growth.
It might well be interesting to see the breakdown of conversion versus "cradle Christians", but calling it a "correction" rather makes @chrisstiles 's point!
I was using it in the statistical sense, of trying to isolate effects by trying the adjust for other, known effects.
Comments
How does that fit with the Ethiopian eunuch, Acts 8:26-40 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 8:26-40&version=ESV
(Sorry, I don't know how to shorten links)
Or Cornelius and his household? Acts 10.
Yes, the early Church did adopt a lengthy catechumenate, with periods of instruction lasting up to 2 or 3 years in some instances before baptism.
I would imagine practice varied according to circumstances.
As for whether it's dangerous to be a Christian in some parts of the world today. Yes, undoubtedly. As to whether it will become dangerous here too depends on the kind of news programmes you watch.
He seemed to have his own agenda. For a time at least ...
How about the 'false brethren' the Apostle Paul mentions? Or those who were shoving other people out of the way to stuff or drink themselves silly at early Christian 'love-feasts'? 1 Corinthians 11:21.
It wouldn't have been infants who were doing that.
The idea that everything was sweetness and light back in the 1st century and Christians then were somehow more 'serious' than any since is pretty unsustainable in the light of the biblical and patristic evidence.
Admittedly those who were baptised were Jews and so had a working knowledge of God and the Scriptures; some may have heard Jesus preach - but that wouldn't be true of everyone, by any means.
The Philippian jailor is interesting because he was presumably a Gentile. Yet Paul was happy to baptise him and his family in the small hours of the morning after what could have only been a rudimentary understanding of the faith.
I'd agree but that assumes one has some respect for the way God has worked through the church in time and space.
[Side note; for a few seconds I read your post as saying that you had a church full of literal toddlers]
It's often occurred to me that we just don't have a roadmap for the death of Christendom which we're currently living through. The New Testament addresses a growing church, or a church under persecution, but it presents no model for a church shrinking and ageing in the face of indifference. I wonder whether it will be for some of us to guard the seed for a time so that it is ready for a new spring.
Answers on a postcard please ...
I agree with your comment on "brittle forms of traditionalism or 'conservatism " and "hunkering down".
However numbers are growing in the developing world so the centre of gravity of Christianity is moving away from the more liberal-minded North. Interesting times ahead.
It would be interesting to know how much of that growth is simply demographic (i.e. church families having kids who stay in the church, though admittedly Europe mostly hasn't even managed that of late) and how much is growth by conversion.
I tend not to like this framing as creating a faith that perpetuates itself is hard enough, and the demographic argument can come across as somewhat orientalising.
What would this look like? It's not like you can have a sort of 'gospel bank' buried in the ground, and the history of Christianities that get detached from the rest of the religion isn't necessarily one to be emulated.
Ahem ... it's a saying, @Baptist Trainfan. It goes back to the days when TV or radio quizzes would invite viewers or listeners to submit answers by postcard.
Or perhaps you knew that and were being ironic.
I don't think it's unreasonable when people point to the growing numbers in churches in developing countries as an indicator of success to ask what the figures look like if you correct for population growth.
It's not a saying here - and quite likely in other places the Ship is read.
It might well be interesting to see the breakdown of conversion versus "cradle Christians", but calling it a "correction" rather makes @chrisstiles 's point!
I was using it in the statistical sense, of trying to isolate effects by trying the adjust for other, known effects.