She Said ... Yes.

Every year during the last week of Advent I remember the story of the Annunciation: that few minutes when the angel Gabriel met with a teen girl to inform her that God - the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - was about to deliver Israel. To get that done, God was finally sending the Messiah. The catch was that God intended to use Mary to bring him into the world.

Mary's response - what we call the Magnificat - could only have come from the lips of a person deeply imbibed in the story of Israel and expectantly waiting for the Messiah to come. Mary was hoping for the Messiah. Mary prayed for the Messiah. Mary longed for the Messiah. Now her hopes, prayers and longings were to be fulfilled.

But NOT in the way Mary planned.

It doesn't take much imagination to recognize that Mary wasn't thinking God would deliver Israel by making her pregnant out of wedlock. We do not know exactly what Mary's expectations were about how the Messiah would come, but it seems plain that her expectations about her hope and the way God intended to fulfill her hope did not match up.

And so, what did Mary do? She said ... yes. 

Think what Mary could have done. She could have stalled in confusion because God's way of fulfilling his promise did not match her preconceived notions. She could have actively fought God because God's way of doing things did not matter to her.  Instead, Mary said yes. She said yes because she was able to keep her hopes and expectations separated. 

This fourth week in Advent always reminds me to be unmoving with my hopes and nimble with my expectations. All of us are looking for God to show up in our lives. But we need to heed Mary's model. By all means, hope in God; trust God fully! But at the same time we must be careful to not tie our hopes to closely to expectations. In doing that we might miss God and we might find ourselves, in the midst of our hope, saying no to God.

Why Do We Baptize Babies? 4

I apologize for the time gap since my last post.

I am continuing with thoughts about why Anglicans believe children of believers are proper candidates for baptism. A text that is important to our thinking about this is the story of Jesus blessing the children. Mark 10:13-16 states,

¹³ And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. ¹⁴But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. ¹⁵ Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." ¹⁶And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.

This text says nothing about baptism. However, it does say that little children ought to be brought to Jesus because the Kingdom belongs to them. All by itself, this statement does not justify baptizing babies. So why do Anglicans look to this text as a basis for baptizing babies? Because baptism is a rite of entrance and a sign of belonging in the Kingdom of God. Since the Kingdom can belong to little ones, it seems appropriate to give the sign of Kingdom belonging to them.

Again, all by itself, this text does not teach nor justify the practice of baptizing babies. What it does do is add to a cumulative case for the practice. The coming posts will add more biblical data to the case for baptizing babies.

Why Do We Baptize Babies? 3

Virtually all Christian traditions agree that converts to Christianity ought to be baptized. Disagreement comes between those who believe only converts should be baptized and those who believe the children of believers may also be baptized. Anglican's are in the second group. This raises a question, why do Anglican's believe children are also proper candidates for baptism?

Let me begin my answer in this post and complete it in the next  few to come.

The first thing to note is the inconclusiveness of the New Testament. There is no text in the New Testament that identifies the proper candidate for baptism - believer or child of believer. The New Testament is just plain silent. Second, while there are a number of examples of believers receiving baptism in Acts, there are also examples of whole households receiving baptism. The only person in these texts professing faith is the head of the household. All we are told about the other members is that they were baptized as well. The household texts don't claim children of believers were baptized, but they do create ambiguity.  We simply do not know for sure who was in that household. And we do not know if every member of the household professed faith before being baptized. 

Since we cannot answer the question from New Testament resources, Anglicans believe the next place to go is to the Old Testament. While we do not find baptism in the Old Testament we do find a rite of initiation into life in God and the people of God: circumcision. Circumcision is not the same thing as baptism, but there are similarities. Like baptism, it is a rite of initiation into life in God and his people. But notice, the rite was not only for adults who joined Israel, but for the sons of Israelites. Here's the point: circumcision was for believers and for children of believers. Circumcision functioned as sign of faith (Romans 4:11). Therefore, circumcision makes clear there is nothing inherently problematic in God's economy for the sign of faith to proceed the profession of faith. There is much more that can be said about this than a blog post gives room for. However, the basic point is that Anglicans see in the Old Testament rite of circumcision part of the basis for offering the New Testament rite of baptism to converts and to children of believers. 

More needs to be said. Stay tuned.

Why Do We Baptize Babies? 2

In my first post I wrote, "Anglicans believe infant Baptism is ... an authentic expression of the meaning of Christian baptism and salvation as taught in scripture." 

So ... what is the meaning of baptism?

The Book of Acts gives a number of examples of people being baptized in water. In every case, this ritual is tied with them following Jesus and joining the Church. It's a kind of threshold; a kind of doorway into life in Jesus and life in the church.

With that in mind, I will define baptism as a rite of entrance - entrance into life in Christ and entrance into life in the Church.

How does infant baptism express this? Anglicans believe that baptism is the beginning of a journey. And so when parents bring their children to be baptized they are bringing them to Jesus and bringing them to the church. Baptism is a ritual that marks their entrance into life in Christ and life in the Church. I realize that raises questions about the inability of a baby to profess faith in Christ. That is a very important question and I will address it in a later post. Right now, the key idea I want to stress is that we do not understand baptism as a once and for all event. It's not some magical act that gives a kid eternal life no matter what happens subsequently to baptism. It is a beginning. It is an inauguration. It's a threshold. When mom and dad bring their seven month old daughter and have her baptized, they are beginning a journey that they will take with their kid to raise her into the fullness of life in Christ and the church.

The next question, is why do we believe little kids can be brought for baptism apart from their own profession of faith. I will answer that in the next post.

Why Do We Baptize Babies? 1

As an Anglican priest I am regularly given the occasion to explain our theology and practice of baptism. The main question I get asked is, "Why do you baptize babies?" In the next series of posts I aim to answer that question the way I do with folks I meet with in my parish.  I hope you find it helpful!

On to my answer.

The first reason we baptize babies is we believe it is biblical. Before unpacking that, a word about what I mean by biblical. There are a number of ways something can be Biblical. The most basic is when there is a verse of scripture that makes a statement about the question at hand. For example, is it biblical to lie? Well, no, because in Exodus 20 it says, "You shall not lie." Now, baptizing babies is not Biblical in this first manner. There is no verse that says, "You shall baptize babies." Some stop there and conclude baptizing babies is therefore not Biblical at all. However, there are other ways something can be Biblical - ways we use all the time. Another way we conclude something is Biblical is if it does not contradict the teaching of scripture. The Bible is silent about automobiles. But I would argue that driving a car is perfectly Biblical. Why? Because it does not contradict the teaching of the Bible and there is no prohibition of the activity. Anglicans would argue that baptizing babies is Biblical in this way - we see no prohibition in scripture against this form of baptism. This way of being Biblical is pretty weak though. Thankfully there is another way something can be Biblical. While something may not be explicitly commanded or exemplified, it can be an expression of the teaching of scripture. Anglicans believe infant Baptism is Biblical in this sense. It is an authentic expression of the meaning of Christian baptism and salvation as taught in scripture.

In the next few posts I will explain how Anglicans see baptizing babies as an authentic expression of the teaching of scripture.

So What is Anglicanism Anyway?

When I explain Anglicanism I typically describe it as a middle way between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. A combination of the central insights of the reformation with Catholic order, piety and discipline. A shortcut (that I learned from a good friend) is: Anglicanism, at its best, is the best of Protestantism combined with the best of Catholicism.

Of course a church scholar or theologian would want to nuance all those statements. But these are designed to be pithy shortcut tags that capture the heart of the tradition - the kind of thing you say in a three week church introduction class.

But I recently had someone ask me if Anglicanism, in light of this description, is just a set of compromises and not a tradition in its own right. Wow. That was a very good and challenging question. My way of explaining can sure sound that way.

So I have been thinking about a better answer and want to try this one on for size:

Anglicanism, at its heart, is a western (as in western Christianity) expression of the faith, life and worship of the ancient undivided Church. I like this. The ancient Church is a big tent and there is room for different accents and emphasis within it, but I am wondering if this is a better, good and helpful one sentence way to explain Anglicanism.

Any thoughts?

Why You Should Ponder Your Death.

It used to be said that the job of a pastor was to help people die well. Actually, that's not a bad job description. Death is inevitable - no one get out alive. So being ready for it is essential. And one of the ways we get ready for it is to ponder it regularly.

So, why should you ponder your death?

1. To make living more intentional. It is easy to float through life and let things happen. But if we are accountable for how we live this life (and I believe we are) than remembering that the journey comes to end can motivate us to live each day in a more focused and intentional manner.

2. To be a better person. This dance doesn't go on forever. If I need to work on my character, I need to work on it now. Especially if how I live now makes a difference in the next life.

3. To be ready for what is next. Most of my readers are Christian believers so this makes sense. But even for those of you who are not, I would encourage you to consider that there might actually be more to life than this life and that how one lives this life matters in the next life. Remembering that this life ends is a good motivator to be ready for the next life.

It's Ash Wednesday. Today we remember we come from dust and that we will return to dust. This is good thing to ponder. Ponder it well!