Orthodoxy

That never-ending debate in modern churches: Should Christians baptize babies?

That never-ending debate in modern churches: Should Christians baptize babies?

THE QUESTION:

Unending Debate: Should Christians baptize babies?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Yes or no, depending what church is answering the question.

A quote posted in August by Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary says this “debate over baptism has raged in the church for millennia” and “all sides argue passionately for their view.”

Jesus’ evangelism command to his followers in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19) directed water baptism for church membership as observed in all types of Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant groups (except for the Quakers and Salvation Army).

Along with this, Baptists and other Protestants of like mind, view baptism as an “ordinance” to symbolize faith, not a “sacrament” where God bestows grace or regeneration. And, as discussed below, full immersion of the body in the water is their trademark practice.

Who should be baptized? Baptists et al. make a simple, straightforward argument. They see no explicit examples of infant baptism in the New Testament, only cases where baptism followed conscious conversion to a personal belief in Jesus Christ as Savior. Such “believer’s baptism,” of course, is impossible for infants and young children. The Great Commission linked baptism with religious instruction, and Acts 2:38 records that the original 3,000 Christian converts on the day of Pentecost repented for forgiveness of their sins before baptism.

Christians on the opposite side respond by citing New Testament examples where a “household” or “family” was baptized as a group and reason that young children were surely included.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Is Christmas 'news'? Not really, unless it is a case of 'Christmas AND ...'

Podcast: Is Christmas 'news'? Not really, unless it is a case of 'Christmas AND ...'

At least once a year, back in the days when I was in a newsroom full-time, I would have a semi-argument with an editor about this question: Are debates about worship issues “hard news”?

Every now and then I would win and we’d run a story — like a feature about United Methodists arguing about gender-neutral language for God (this was in the 1980s). When it ran, all hellfire broke loose, which convinced some editors that I was right. Others, however, were upset that so many readers disagreed with their conviction that a religion-religion story was news, as opposed to religion-politics stories.

This brings me to Christmas — which is on a Sunday this year. This has led to some interesting polling and emotional online debates, but, so far, not much news coverage about the central worship question: Should churches celebrate Christmas on Christmas, even if Dec. 25 falls on a Sunday? This was the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

Research? The team at Lifeway Research has done two studies linked to Christmas worship. For example, see this Baptist Press headline: “Most churches plan to open on Christmas and New Year’s Day.” I wrote a column the other day with this headline: “When is Christmas? That depends on the person asking.”

Back to the question about worship being news. You end up with an equation that goes something like this:

* Flocks of people attending Latin Mass rites is not news.

* The pope questioning the motives of traditional Catholics who support the Latin Mass is news.

* A major American political leader — Joe Biden, perhaps — supporting the pope’s take on the Latin Mass would be big news.

See how this works? You can see how this would apply to the whole “When is Christmas?” debate. It matters to millions of people in pews. It doesn’t matter to the political desk.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

NPR comes to hills of Tennessee and sees exactly the religion trends that you would expect

NPR comes to hills of Tennessee and sees exactly the religion trends that you would expect

What do you know: National Public Radio came to my backyard here in East Tennessee to cover an important religion-beat story. And, well, NPR saw exactly what you would expect NPR to notice, while ignoring all of the details and questions you would expect this deep-blue news organization to ignore.

Once again, we are talking about a story that is totally valid, but its producers avoided the kind of diversity in sourcing that would have made matters more complex. Here’s the headline for the online text version: “As attendance dips, churches change to stay relevant for a new wave of worshippers.”

What’s missing in this story? It’s absolutely true that there are declining churches here in the mountains of East Tennessee, especially during COVID-tide. That’s an important story. The problem is that there are also growing churches in the region (yes, including my own Orthodox parish, which has grown at least 25% in the past three years) and that’s a detail that makes this story more complex. Here is the overture:

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — It's Sunday morning and a small group sits around a fire pit in a community garden under the limbs of an expansive box elder tree. Church is about to start. And it's cold.

"God our Father, we are just so thankful for this time that we have to share this morning," says Pastor Chris Battle, a big man with a pipe clenched in his generous smile. "And we really thank you for fire that keeps us warm even as we sit up under this tree. We just pray that you would bless our time together."

Three years ago, Battle walked away from more than three decades leading Black Baptist churches and turned his attention to Battlefield Farm & Gardens in Knoxville. They grow vegetables and sell them at a farmer's market. They also collect unsold produce from around the city and deliver it to people in public housing once a week.

Battle says he left because traditional church was not connecting with people. He felt they were turned off by the sermons, the pitches for money, the Sunday-morning formality of it all.

This brings us to the first of two thesis statements describing the big picture:

American Christianity is in the midst of an identity crisis. Attendance is in steep decline, especially among millennials and Gen Z who say traditional church doesn't speak to their realities.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Plug-In: Religious liberty vs. gay rights -- LGBTQ debates escalate around the world

Plug-In: Religious liberty vs. gay rights -- LGBTQ debates escalate around the world

The latest clash of religious liberty versus gay rights at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Friction over LGBTQ issues in traditional faiths around the world, from the global Anglican Communion to the vast Muslim world.

Final congressional passage of a bill to protect same-sex marriage rights.

No doubt, there’s a common theme to some of this past week’s top headlines.

At The Associated Press, Jessica Gresko and Mark Sherman report:

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority sounded sympathetic Monday to a Christian graphic artist who objects to designing wedding websites for gay couples, the latest collision of religion and gay rights to land at the high court.

The designer and her supporters say that ruling against her would force artists — from painters and photographers to writers and musicians — to do work that is against their beliefs. Her opponents, meanwhile, say that if she wins, a range of businesses will be able to discriminate, refusing to serve Black, Jewish or Muslim customers, interracial or interfaith couples or immigrants.

Meanwhile, AP’s global religion team partners with its Lilly Endowment grant partners — Religion News Service and The Conversation — to examine LGBTQ belief and belonging around the world.

Among the specific stories:

Friction over LGBTQ issues worsens in global Anglican church (by AP’s Chinedu Asadu and David Crary and RNS’ Catherine Pepinster)

Across vast Muslim world, LGBTQ people remain marginalized (by AP’s Edna Tarigan, Mariam Fam and David Crary)

LGBTQ students wrestle with tensions at Christian colleges (by AP’s Giovanna Dell’Orto and RNS’ Yonat Shimron)


Please respect our Commenting Policy

When is 'Christmas,' anyway? For many church leaders, that's a complicated question

When is 'Christmas,' anyway? For many church leaders, that's a complicated question

On church calendars, parents and grandparents circle this December event with red ink.

The problem for clergy is simple: When do they schedule that special Christmas service, or that concert full of Christmas classics?

"Evangelicals, and especially Baptists, tend to be rather pragmatic about these decisions. We want the most bang for our bucks and we want as many people as possible" in the pews, said Joshua Waggener, professor of church music and worship at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.

One thing is certain: "You have to have those little kids up there singing 'Little Drummer Boy.' It's pragmatic. For most people, I don't think theology has anything to do with" the timing.

This reality affects when churches schedule special events, especially in December -- when their members wrestle with school calendars, travel, office parties, family traditions and, yes, worship services. Meanwhile, civic groups, shopping malls and mass media offer "The Holidays," a cultural tsunami that begins weeks before Thanksgiving.

In churches with centuries of liturgical traditions, the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ is Dec. 25, following the quiet season of Advent (Latin for "toward the coming"). This year, Christmas falls on Sunday and, for Catholics, Anglicans and others, the Christmas Eve Midnight Mass is one of the year's most popular rites. This opens a festive season that continues through Jan. 6, the Feast of the Epiphany. Many Eastern Orthodox Christians follow the ancient Julian calendar and celebrate Christmas on Jan. 7, after Nativity Lent.

In the United States, some kind of Christmas Eve service remains the big draw, according to almost half (48%) of Protestant pastors contacted in a new study by Lifeway Research. The frequency of high-attendance church events builds until Christmas Eve, then declines sharply.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Machine guns in the Monastery of the Kiev Caves: Can reporters find sources for facts?

Machine guns in the Monastery of the Kiev Caves: Can reporters find sources for facts?

Let me begin with some personal remarks, since it would be valid for readers to raise these issues.

Yes, I am an Orthodox believer who has — twice — worshipped with the monks of the Monastery of the Kiev Caves. I have walked its matrix of underground sanctuaries, tombs and monastic cells. It’s hard for me to imagine something more horrifying than soldiers with machine guns inside the Lavra, passing the bodies of numerous saints. I confess that, for a decade, I have prayed that we would not see a military takeover of this sacred site by forces on either side of the divides inside Ukraine.

Yes, I saw the New York Times report with this headline: “Ukraine Raids Holy Site Amid Suspicion of Orthodox Church Tied to Moscow.” I have read a dozen or so other mainstream media accounts of the rising tensions about the current Ukrainian administration considering some kind of Lavra takeover.

All of these reports are based on information from government officials and the leaders of the new Orthodox Church of Ukraine, which was — depending on the sources cited —created by Western Ukrainian leaders, the U.S. State Department (under the administrations of Donald Trump and Joe Biden), the government of Turkey and/or the first-among-equals Ecumenical Patriarch who leads the tiny Orthodox body that remains based in Istanbul.

These reports continue to ignore or downplay the statements and actions of the historic Ukrainian Orthodox Church, led by Metropolitan Onuphry, which has — since the day of the Russian invasion — stressed its total opposition to this action of the Vladimir Putin government in Moscow. This church, the canonical church of Ukraine for many generations, has taken steps to cut its ties to Orthodox leaders in Moscow, even as its leaders have recognized they do not have the clear authority to do so. They appear to be pleading for the wider world of Orthodoxy (as in patriarches of multiple ancient churches, not just Istanbul) to intervene, somehow, in this crisis.

As a rule, mainstream journalists have expressed little interest in the actual Orthodox traditions and laws linked to this tragedy. In particular, the press has ignored the global voices of the Orthodox who oppose Putin, but support Metropolitan Onuphry and, thus, the monks of the Lavra.

Frankly, my head is spinning as I try to deal with the myriad journalism issues involved in covering this massive story. I am aware that most journalists are limited in what they can cover, due to language issues and the difficulty of on-site work in the midst of this conflict. I want to look at two issues in this Times report because — this is a positive — it includes some remarks from an actual monk from the Kievan Caves. Such as:

Father Hieromonk Ioan, a member of the Kyiv monastery, said that the clergy there were not loyal to Moscow but did not shy away from the close historic ties with Russia. “We have certain relations with Russia and it’s painful for us what is going on now,” he said in an interview outside the monastery. …


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Why do ancient churches pray for the dead, while many modern churches do not?

Why do ancient churches pray for the dead, while many modern churches do not?

THE QUESTION:

“Why Do Catholics Pray for the Dead?”

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

A Catholic News Agency feature for All Saints’ Day with the above headline was written by senior Rome Correspondent Hannah Brockhaus. One of The Guy’s colleagues immediately critiqued that wording because Eastern Orthodox Christians likewise pray for the dead — although in a different mode from Catholics, as we’ll see.

Perhaps the appropriate question should instead be: Why don’t Protestants pray for the dead when these other Christians have done so for many centuries?

There’s long-established history behind the practice of Christians during their earthly life praying to benefit fellow believers who are dead. This was commended by revered theologians of the early church.

By the early 5th Century, St. Augustine said “the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers.” He stated that through parishioners’ prayers, Masses, and donations, “there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve.”

The modern Orthodox catechism “The Living God” (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press) teaches that just as Jesus and St. Stephen prayed for forgiveness even for the people who were executing them, so “the prayer of the righteous can also help to obtain forgiveness for a sinner even if he is already dead.”

At this point, Protestants will object that the Bible does not teach such a concept. Their founding principle of sola scriptura means Christian beliefs are defined solely by explicit teachings in Scripture and not by church traditions, even ones that are longstanding and deep-seated.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

'Indulgences' for Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine? Remember that Moscow speaks for Moscow

'Indulgences' for Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine? Remember that Moscow speaks for Moscow

Once again, the thought for the day is this: Eastern Orthodoxy is not the Church of Rome. There is no pope at the top of a unified Orthodox ecclesiastical structure that speaks for everyone.

I’m talking, of course, about the most recent controversial — to say the least — comments by the patriarch of Moscow. As one reader asked: “I'm interested to know what the buzz is in the Orthodox world about Patriarch Kirill's recent statements in support of Russia's mobilization. I'm sure you've seen it 100 times.”

I saw it 100 times. But I’ve been traveling for nearly a week, so I apologize for the delay in this post.

What’s up? There was this headline at Reuters, which was typical of several reports: “Orthodox Church leader says Russian soldiers dying in Ukraine will be cleansed of sin.” Here is the top of that:

The head of the Russian Orthodox Church has said that Russian soldiers who die in the war against Ukraine will be cleansed of all their sins, days after President Vladimir Putin ordered the country's first mobilisation since World War Two.

Patriarch Kirill is a key Putin ally and backer of the invasion. He has previously criticised those who oppose the war and called on Russians to rally round the Kremlin.

"Many are dying on the fields of internecine warfare," Kirill, 75, said in his first Sunday address since the mobilisation order. "The Church prays that this battle will end as soon as possible, so that as few brothers as possible will kill each other in this fratricidal war."

"But at the same time, the Church realises that if somebody, driven by a sense of duty and the need to fulfil their oath ... goes to do what their duty calls of them, and if a person dies in the performance of this duty, then they have undoubtedly committed an act equivalent to sacrifice. They will have sacrificed themselves for others. And therefore, we believe that this sacrifice washes away all the sins that a person has committed."

Yes, Patriarch Kirill speaks for Patriarch Kirill and does not speak for all of Eastern Orthodoxy (and may not be speaking for all of his own synod). Meanwhile, the “first among equals” Ecumenical Patriarch in Istanbul does not speak for all Orthodox leaders, even if — at times — it appears that he thinks that he has that authority (such as his intervention in decades of Orthodox divisions in Ukraine).

Will Orthodox leaders speak out against the remarks by Kirill?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: What will Queen Elizabeth II tell the world about her faith with her funeral liturgy?

Podcast: What will Queen Elizabeth II tell the world about her faith with her funeral liturgy?

This week something unexpected happened after I filed my national “On Religion” column, something that I have never seen before in my decades of religion-news work.

What? A retired literature professor responded to my column with a poem.

The topic was easy to predict. Like millions of other people around the world, but especially in Great Britain and the Commonwealth, I have spent many hours watching (primarily on British television) the rites and public drama surrounding the death of Queen Elizabeth II.

I will post the column at GetReligion at the usual time this weekend, after it has run in most newspapers linked to the Universal syndicate. But the podcast team decided to go ahead and use it as the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” (CLICK HERE to tune that in), since so many people are talking about the death of the queen. Here is a short clip from that column:

Throughout her life, Queen Elizabeth II understood the symbolic importance of kneeling, according to former Durham Bishop N.T. Wright. After one Church of England synod, she privately expressed surprise — disappointment, even — that worshippers in Westminster Abbey simply lined up to receive Holy Communion, instead of kneeling.

“Kneeling was important to her,” said the popular author, in a “Premier Christianity” tribute. In his encounters with her, Wright found the queen “very friendly and clearly a very devout, what we would consider ‘old fashioned’ Church of England Christian. I remember thinking during more than one Christmas broadcast, she has just preached the Gospel to the nation in a way that perhaps nobody else could have done.”

In response to the column, a reader raised in Canada — but best known for his work at Baylor University in Texas and at Peking University — wrote a poem and sent it to me.

David Lyle Jeffrey, now a distinguished senior fellow at Baylor’s Institute for Studies in Religion, noted that he has never considered himself a “royalist,” but the queen’s death is certainly a time to explore the “essence of her admirable Christian character and gracious reign.” The former Baylor provost and literature professor entitled the poem “Regina Exemplaris (An exemplary queen).” Here is how it ends:


Please respect our Commenting Policy