Household Faith

A few weeks ago I attended an event I never thought I would attend in my life. Had someone told me a year ago that I would willingly attend this type of event and not condemn it outright, I would have laughed at the preposterous thought. Yet, there I was, in silent support. So what was this event that I attended? It was an infant baptism.

Obviously, this is the sort of thing that would still be hotly condemned by even the most lax of Mennonite Churches, but likely that's why it fascinated me so much. I am fairly certain that I am the first member of my family for half a millennium to attend such an event. Mennonites may not be sure about most of their original doctrines anymore: head coverings, war, politics, nationalism, or personal defense, but infant baptism would be possibly the strongest point of unity for this very fragmented and divided denomination.

Obviously, I have taught and backed Anabaptist doctrine for a good while. The founding concept of Anabaptist theology was a stance against infant baptism. However, as with most things in life, the concept of infant baptism is more nuanced than a single sort; the type my forbearers died fighting against. They stood against the Roman Catholic view that baptism is one of the seven sacraments that are required for salvation that must be administered. Indeed, as far as my understanding of Catholic sacraments goes, baptism is the only Sacrament that is required for a person to be saved. (Holding on to said salvation is more difficult in Catholic teaching, however and requires more sacraments). The Anabaptist doctrine on the subject of baptism would not view baptism as a sacrament but instead an ordinance. This meaning they believed it is commanded and should be obeyed, but is not salvific in any way. Instead, a Christian should have the desire to obey Christ after salvation and then be baptized on their faith. 

However, these are not the only two views of baptism. There is another school of thought that also views baptism as a sacrament, but does not consider it salvific. They believe that the household baptisms in Scripture, like those of the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailor, and Stephanas, indicate that baptism is not only a personal issue, but an issue of the family. Since baptism is not salvific but a symbol of dedication to Christ, they advocate that children raised in Christian homes be baptized into the Christian church as full members as soon as possible and be supported by the church and its membership as fellow members of faith. 

Those who have been taught a believer's baptism, such as I was taught and given, tend to balk at this idea. What happens to being baptized on your own confession of faith? Is that not what we are taught? While this is a common phrase, it is not in scripture. Indeed, we have more scripture supporting a Catholic Sacrament view (Mark 16:16, Luke 3:3, 1 Peter 3:21) than one that excludes infant baptism. Although I personally cannot reconcile the Catholic view of Sacramental baptism for salvation, I find that I do not disagree with the concept of baptizing the household of a believer. 

We have stressed the personal aspect of salvation so much in our generation that we forget we are a body. We are not independent units, but the singular bride of Christ. Our culture of personal satisfaction and personal achievements and competition have driven us to be so exclusive that we even find that we compete with our spouses in Christianity and spiritual mindedness. We are not God's employees that must compete to stay on the team; we are children. As children, we need to be more open and understanding with our spiritual siblings and see that our way isn't the only way. Can we accept other modes of baptism that are less personally driven and more family and community driven than our own? Should we? 

Of course, that begs the question, what about my son? I have a two year old son who is obviously not baptized. Do I split with five hundred years of tradition and baptize my child? 

Good question. 

Christian Identity

Modern, non-denominational teaching which floods our generation strongly advocates our relationship with Christ as paramount. Our relationship with Christ is vital; however it is not the only part of Christianity that is important. We cannot pick some parts of Christianity and leave the rest. 1 2 In our generation this obsession as let to a problem not unique to our generation. Dr. Harold Brown said it well:

"Instead of stressing personal Christianity, at a certain point much of Pietism began to cultivate the Christian personality, and soon found itself more romantic than Christian." 

Although this quote was about the Pietism movement and not originally about our generation, we find that history does often repeat itself. There are no new thoughts or movements, simply a new generation rehashing the things of previous generations. We see that the same issue has popped up again; we replace relationship with personality. We are drawn to the 'modern, hip, spiritual Christian' personality and it is so much simpler to conform to the standard than personally develop our own faith. This MHS Christian is pretty easy to identify, as they permeate all of social media.

 The ideal modern, hip, spiritual personality consists of:

-Strong Conservative or neoConservative views
-A stance against modern, conventional medicine
-A healthy condemnation of denominational beliefs as merely divisive
-Country house with a large yard
-An entrepreneurial hobby, usually involving woodworking or whole foods
-A beard obsession
-A natural health regimen
-Several children, all kept at home

This is what a good, modern Christian is supposed to look like. Its more romantic, a more desirable form of faith. Solid doctrine, opinions on complex theology, and a stance on denominational views are looked at with suspicion and concern. Rather than stressing a thorough education or critical review, the focus is on relational issues. The strength of a church is now measured in the extroverted charisma and popularity of the pastor, combined with a photogenic face.

We find these personalities usually have the gift of gab; that is they can speak for long periods of time sounding very spiritual without actually teaching or exhorting their listeners with any concrete beliefs or mandates. They delight in pleonastic speech, unarticulated faith, and vague vision statements that leave everything to the imagination. They take every opportunity to speak, without saying anything. Most importantly, they don't take a stance on difficult doctrine; in fact, they condemn those 'divisive' churches that have such doctrines. They are easy on the ears, supremely motivational, and demolish straw men with confidence.

We find ourselves enamored with the personality of these leaders, not the teaching thereof. We would rather follow the personality; its fun, its easier, and preprepared. It doesn't require discernment, just duplication. These are easy men to emulate, and we feel good doing so. We find that as we do that, we automatically fit in with all the rest of our peers that are duplicating the exact same thing. We have a pre-made clique, it is comfortable and safe. Of course our neighbors agree, they are copying the same master plan.

Was there anything inherently wrong with any of the traits I described? No, but when we replace substance with personality there is no personality that can take the place of substance.

Like everything in life, the easy route isn't really the best route. Most of the prerequisites we have created for a good modern Christian aren't even Christlike goals or have a blessed thing to do with Christianity. They are comfortable goals of our own generation and socio-economic class. We should not mistake our desires and whims with God's. Our nationality, patriotism, economic plans, or political views should not be valued the same way our faith is. We can't worship a God we create in our own image. If we fancy God to be an upper middle class Conservative gun-toting, Republican-voting, coffee drinking, bearded Confederate, we have created our own God. The ego we display by assuming God needs to approve our lifestyle rather than tailoring our lifestyle to Him is flabbergasting. There is no wrong in having a beard, artisan coffee, or gluten-free bread. There is great wrong in merging these things into our faith.

We are creating a new generation of non-traditionalists. We reject the traditions of the 'old' church; its teachings, practices, and style, yet we are creating equally preposterous standards; more so, since many of our new standards of Christianity have nothing to do with Christ. In fact, we find that much of this generation is labeling itself 'non-denominational', as if that were possible. Having no opinion on doctrine is in itself a doctrine, and we find that most 'non-denominationalists' really do have personal doctrine, they merely don't understand the terminology and implications of that belief. The culture of ignorance is valued as greater than knowledge because we have equated ignorance with humility and knowledge with pride. This will cause the church great harm as difficult situations arise and the church has no cohesive way to approach it. The personalities will fail us, as they are silent on the difficult parts of life. All the coffee, nonGMO foods, and natural sugars won't have an answer. We must stand up and be followers of Christ, to know what we believe and take the hard road. Doctrine may not be easy, but the church needs it; it is a vital component of a healthy church.