How a Wesleyan Goes to the Scriptures

As a member of the Order of St. Luke, my devotional practice includes the praying of the Daily Offices of Morning and Evening Prayer. We are free in the Order to use whatever versions of the Daily Office we choose (the OSL, of course, provides their own resources). It has been my practice to use the version of the Book of Common Prayer given by John Wesley to the Methodists in America, viz., The Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America.

Fairly recently I began to incorporate in my prayers the singing of hymns taken from The Works of John Wesley, vol. 7, "Collection of Hymns for the Use of The People Called Methodists" (Bicentennial Ed. - Over this past week I sang a series of hymns in a section entitled "Before reading the Scriptures," and I want to share a few stanzas from three of those hymns (pages 186-85).

Notice how different the Wesleyan approach to Scripture is from fundamentalism, on the one hand, and ultra-liberalism, on the other. Notice the affirmation of the inspiration of the writings of Holy Scripture, but also the necessity for the Holy Spirit to inspire them afresh and anew to us. Notice also the goal of going to the Scriptures, viz., to know God.

85

1. Come, Holy Ghost, our hearts inspire,

Let us thine influence prove,

Source of the old prophetic fire,

Fountain of life and love.

2. Come, Holy Ghost (for moved by thee

The prophets wrote and spoke);

Unlock the truth, thyself the key,

Unseal the sacred book.

3. Expand thy wings, celestial dove,

Brood o'er our nature's night;

On our disordered spirits move,

And let there now be light.

4. God through himself we then shall know,

If thou within us shine;

And sound, with all thy saints below,

The depths of love divine.

AND

86

2. While in thy Word we search for thee

(We search with trembling awe!)

Open our eyes, and let us see

The wonders of thy law.

3. Now let our darkness comprehend

The light that shines so clear;

Now the revealing Spirit send,

And give us ears to hear.

AND AGAIN

87

1. Inspirer of the ancient seers,

Who wrote from thee the sacred page,

The same through all succeeding years;

To us in our degenerate age

The spirit of thy Word impart,

And breathe the life into our heart.

2. While now thine oracles we read

With earnest prayer and strong desire,

O let thy Spirit from thee proceed

Our souls to waken and inspire,

Our weakness help, our darkness chase,

And guide us by the light of grace.

A Fellow Methodist* Prays for the United Methodist General Conference

Today, Wednesday, April 23 the General Conference of the United Methodist Church begins. The General Conference convenes every four years and serves as the denominations top policy-making organization. In fact, according to church law, only the General Conference (i.e., no other individual, including any bishops, or group) has the authority to speak for the denomination. For information on the UM General Conference click here.

This year there are a number of interesting and not a few significant resolutions coming before the delegates. Some of those resolutions may shape the direction of the denomination for years to come. Others may affect the relationships the UMC has with other denominations. As the largest denomination in the Wesleyan/Methodist tradition, this General Conference could have some affect upon all of the denominational members of the World Methodist Council, including the Church of the Nazarene.

Two issues being discussed this year are worth mentioning in this post: First, various resolutions are being brought concerning the ongoing debate over homosexuality. In fact, according to my OSL brother, the Rev'd. Sky Lowe-McCraken, nearly 950 of the over 1500 petitions of legislation deal with some aspect of the homosexual debate. Thus far, the UMC has consistently maintained that "Homosexual persons . . . are individuals of sacred worth" (Book of Discipline, par. 161, G.), on the one hand, but, on the other hand, they have consistently maintained that "the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching" (par. 304.3).

The second issue deals with whether the U.S. church will become a central conference. If it does, it will keep the African and European United Methodists from voting at future (U.S.) General Conferences. If it does not become a separate central conference, then the voice of Africa will still be heard, and their votes will carry much weight. (From my perspective, if the African United Methodists remain a part of this General Conference, it could save the United Methodists from possibly experiencing the kind of splits that The Episcopal Church has experienced. In their case, the "orthodox" Anglicans sought oversight from Anglicans from the global South.)

One can track all of the legislation of interest by clicking here.

I will be watching the UM news, and perhaps issuing a few comments/reflections during the week of and the week following the General Conference. - It is my sincere prayer that the God of all wisdom will guide the delegates in all of the decisions that will be made. Further, it is my prayer that the Holy Spirit will be poured out upon the United Methodists afresh and anew, in order that God would be glorified in and through them.

Please join with me in a prayer for our sisters and brothers at the UM General Conference. - The following prayer was suggested by the Abbot of the Order of St. Luke, the Rev'd. Dr. Mark Stamm. It is adapted from a collect "For a Church Convention" in the Book of Common Prayer (255):

Almighty and everlasting Father, you have given the Holy Spirit to abide with us for ever: Bless, we pray, with his grace and presence, the clergy and laity delegates, the bishops, and all the faithful assembled in your Name at (the United Methodist) General Conference, that your Church, being preserved in true faith and godly discipline, may fulfill all the mind of him who loved it and gave himself for it, your Son Jesus Christ our Savior; who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

_____________________________

*I know that some of my Nazarene colleagues would prefer to distance themselves from Methodism. However, my self-identification as a Methodist is based on a number of factors, which could require an entire post (or series of posts). For now, suffice it to say that I understand the Church of the Nazarene to be a Wesleyan-holiness branch of Methodism.

Earthquake!

Our family, like so many in our part of the country were awakened around 4:30 this morning by a 5.2 (the last figure I've heard) magnitude earthquake. Thankfully, such events are few and far between here in southern Indiana! Later today, while in my study at the church, I had the opportunity to experience a good "after shock" while being wide awake. Again, quite an experience!

Recognizing that we sustained no real damage from the quake, and infinitely more important, our family was kept safe (I have not yet heard of any real injuries, though there may have been some), I wish to invite you to join me in giving thanks to God:

Almighty God who spoke all that is into existence and who sustains all that exists by the power of your Word, You parted the Red Sea, caused the mountain to tremble and ordered the sun to stop and turn back. When your Son, our Lord, was in the boat, He calmed the raging sea with but a word of peace. To You, Holy God, we give thanks for your mercy and mighty power which has kept us safe this day. Be with all who have sustained damage to property, and especially with any who may have incurred injury. And, recognizing that an earthquake accompanied the death and resurrection of your Son, may this occasion be so transformed and used by your Holy Spirit that those who do not yet know You may be drawn to You by your grace. Continue to be with us and protect us, we pray. And in all things may all glory and honor be yours now and forever; in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, amen.

Infant Baptism IV: What Happens When Infants Are Baptized?

In my previous posts on this topic I have attempted to set the practice of Nazarenes baptizing infant children within historical context. I then gave some of the reasons why we Wesleyan/Methodist Christians do baptize our young children. - This final post in my series on Infant Baptism has already generated some discussion in the comments section, and I have already given enough away in that section so that readers already have a pretty good idea where I am headed in this post.

Let me begin by identifying what seems to be the most common thoughts by Nazarene theologians (in writing) concerning what happens in infant Baptism. I will attempt to do that by looking to the two most recent Systematic Theologies produced by Nazarene theologians.

In A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology (Beacon Hill P. '94), Kenneth Grider says, "Even as God entered into a covenant with the male infant who was circumcised on his eighth day of life, God enters into a covenant to give special helps to an infant who is baptized. - This leads to the suggestion that infant baptism affirms the doctrine of prevenient grace - so important as a doctrine for Arminian-Wesleyanism" (503).

Ray Dunning, in Grace Faith and Holiness (Beacon Hill P. '88), says, "This may be interpreted as saying that baptism is the ordinary (a term Wesley insisted on) means by which the child appropriates prevenient grace, which would nonetheless by efficacious apart from baptism even as adults may be born again without the administering of water" (548, second group of italics mine). - (I would mention that Ray Dunning was my Theology professor at Trevecca Nazarene University. I hold him in high esteem and credit him with being the first to introduce me to a more classical Wesleyan Theology . . . though, at this point I have to say, I think he missed it.)

And, finally, the ritual for "The Baptism of Infants or Young Children" in the Manual (the Nazarene Book of Discipline) states clearly, "While we do not hold that baptism imparts the regenerating grace of God . . . Christian baptism signifies for this young child God's gracious acceptance on the basis of His prevenient grace in Christ and points forward to his (her) personal appropriation of the benefits of the Atonement when he (she) reaches the age of moral accountability and exercises conscious saving faith in Jesus Christ" (p 236).

Thus, it becomes clear that most Nazarenes seem to identify the Baptism of infants as a means of proclaiming that prevenient grace is at work in the child.

There are a couple of problems with this position, from my perspective. First, (except in the case of Dunning, above) this position removes Infant Baptism from the category of sacrament. A sacrament for Wesleyan Christians is an outward sign of an inward grace and a means whereby we receive the same. In the position espoused above the Baptism of infants is no longer a means whereby grace is received, but rather merely a means of proclamation . . . that prevenient grace is already at work in the child. (Dunning manages to escape this trap by identifying Baptism as "the ordinary . . . means by which the child appropriates prevenient grace," even though he goes on to say that it would nevertheless be efficacious without Baptism.)

In addition to the problem of stripping Infant Baptism from its "sacramental status" is the issue of what "prevenient grace" refers to. - Certainly, it refers to God's grace that "goes before" we can do anything. And, in as much as that is true, Infant Baptism does proclaim the prevenient nature (at least) of grace. However, when speaking of prevenient grace, one usually refers to that grace that extends to all humanity due to the Atonement of Christ, which is at work in every sinner's heart, seeking to awaken, convict, convert, and sanctify, and granting us the gracious ability to respond to the call of the gospel (cf. An Introduction to Wesleyan Theology. Greathouse/Dunning. Beacon Hill P. '89. p 60 & 72). In the case of infants, what is essentially being said in baptism (according to the view espoused above) is that our children are "covered by the atonement" until they reach an age of moral accountability. - Keep in mind, this is true whether we baptize them or not. Infant Baptism is seen as simply proclaiming that particular aspect of God's grace.

The problem is that while the practice of Infant Baptism is consistent with Wesley, and the doctrine of prevenient grace is consistent with Wesley, the combining of those two doctrines in the way that Nazarenes have (above) is completely foreign to Wesley (and the ancient Church). In fact, such a view seems to have only recently originated within the Wesleyan-holiness tradition (though there may be evidence of it in some earlier Methodist writings).

So what was Wesley's view? - Frankly, Wesley believed that infants who were faithfully baptized were then and there regenerate and "born again." Wesley does not identify Baptism as being the same thing as the new birth. And he recognizes that a person may be "born of water," and yet not "born of the Spirit" (Staples 184). And, one may experience being "born of the Spirit" by faith prior to Baptism, as seen in Acts. However, of infants Wesley says, ". . . all who are baptized in their infancy are at the same time born again . . ." (Wesley's Works 6:74).

Such a view does not mean that the child does not need to "own the faith" for his/herself when they are old enough to do so. They, like all of us, must do so. Neither does it mean that they cannot fall from grace (as in a kind of "once baptized, always saved" idea). It is also important to note that Wesley rejects a mechanical ex oper operato doctrine. Rather we are called to bring our children to the sacrament of Baptism with faith in Christ.

I am of the opinion that John Wesley's view is more consistent with that of the Church Fathers, and I am in full agreement with him on this point.

Now, how does a Nazarene maintain such a position? If I were a United Methodist, the answer would be simple: Wesley's Standard Sermons are a part of their doctrinal standards, and Wesley, there, espouses this position. But we Nazarenes do not have that standard listed in our Manual. - Nevertheless, I would maintain that such a view is not contrary to our Articles of Faith (though it certainly is not espoused there). I recall a very helpful conversation with a former professor of mine concerning the sacraments. I ask him how he reconciled his own views with the Manual's so very weak (sacramentally speaking) statements on The Lord's Supper. He replied that he believed our Manual statement . . . he believed "at least that much." - My views on infant Baptism, I think, fall into the same category.

It is true, however, that our ritual for infant Baptism seems to outright deny Wesley's position as even a possibility. In order to make it compatible one would have to invoke a technicality that says Baptism does not impart regenerating grace; God imparts regenerating grace through Baptism. But it must be admitted that the intent of the ritual is to rule out such a view.

I take solace in knowing that we are not bound by the rituals in our Manual, and thus not by doctrinal positions placed there which are absent from our Articles of Faith. This is illustrated in a number of ways. First, with the exception of the ritual for membership, the Manual does not require the use of our rituals. Second, it was the Manual Editing Committee that commissioned Dr. Jesse Middendorf (now General Superintendent) to write The Church Rituals Handbook, which our publishing house produced. And finally, if our rituals are not used at our General Assembly by certain of our own General Superintendents, it surely means that we are not require to use them.

Therefore, while I may be awfully lonely, I believe myself to still fall within Nazarene boundaries when espousing Wesley's view of infant Baptism.

One final clarifying note on adult baptisms: such a view of infant Baptism does not imply that every adult who is baptized is thereby "born again." In the case of adults, the call is still to exercise faith in Christ, to repent and to be baptized. Also, while it may be maintained that Baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation (i.e., a person may be "born again" prior to being baptized), nevertheless it must also be recognized that it is a command of our Lord, and the New Testament knows nothing of "unbaptized Christians."

The Bishop of Rome Travels to America

(For link to the Pope's U.S. visit click here.)

The Bishop of Rome, Pope Benedict, arrives in the United States today. His theme for his U.S. visit is "Christ Our Hope." (Perhaps we, Nazarenes should listen in, since our quadrennial theme has been "Jesus . . . The Hope.")

As a Nazarene, I am well aware of some of the anti-Catholic sentiments that fill some Nazarenes and other Protestant Christians. I've heard reports at district assemblies about conversions, and it is often mentioned if the person experiencing the conversion was a former Catholic (as though their conversion is something to really rejoice about!). And, it doesn't help matters when missions materials spout things like, "This country is almost completely non-Christian; it is 90% Roman Catholic." Such attitudes may not possess all Nazarenes or Protestants, but they are expressed by far too many. - Often times these views have been reinforced by unfortunate (and I would argue unsound) interpretations of the Book of the Revelation which have identified the Church of Rome with "the great whore." - How sad! (But it does explain some of the attitudes of many Evangelical Christians.)

Oh, I know there are a number of things with which we and the Roman Church disagree. And I could enumerate them. However, I think far too many spend far too much time doing so. Besides, I just think that there are far more (significant) things that we have in common, including (but not limited to) our claim that Jesus Christ is our one Lord, the creeds (expressing our one faith), our practice of the sacrament of our one baptism, and our profession of our one God and Father of all (cf., Ephesians 4:5).

For my part, I pray that the visit of Pope Benedict will be used by God to draw people to God, by the power of the Holy Spirit, through Jesus Christ our one Lord. I pray that the good Bishop would be used as an instrument of God to foster a more "catholic" (i.e., universal) spirit throughout Christ's one Church. After all, didn't Christ, Himself, pray that we be one?

For all Wesleyan/Methodist Christians, it might not be a bad idea to take a look at: John Wesley's, "A Letter to a Roman Catholic."

One should also read the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. This document, originally agreed on by the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church, was also adopted by the World Methodist Council at their last conference. (It was a unanimous vote, including the delegates from the Church of the Nazarene. We are, of course, a denominational member of the WMC.)

Also of interest might be David M. Chapman's In Search of the Catholic Spirit: Methodists and Roman Catholics in Dialogue. Peterborough, Great Britain: Epworth Press, 2004. (This book was reviewed by John W. Wright in the most recent issue of the Wesleyan Theological Journal.)

For Nazarenes, in addition to the above, I would encourage a reading of Chapter 7 "The Roman Catholic Church" in either What Is a Nazarene? Understanding Our Place in the Religious Communion (Wes Tracy & Stan Ingersol. Beacon Hill Press, NPH.) or Here We Stand: Where Nazarenes Fit in the Religious Market Place (the latter being an expanded book that contains the former book). - The treatment of other Christian traditions in these books seems to be fair and in a spirit of Christlike generosity, identifying commonalities, as well as differences in the way that we understand the Christian faith.

In the meantime, I offer this prayer for the Pope (adapted from Wesley's ritual for "The Ordination of Superintendents"):

Most merciful Father, send down upon your servant, Benedict, your heavenly blessing, and so endue him with your Holy Spirit, the he, preaching your Word, may not only be earnest to reprove, beseech, and rebuke with all patience and sound doctrine, but also may be to believers a wholesome example in word, in conversations, in love, in faith, in charity, and in purity; that faithfully fulfilling his course, at the latter day he may receive the crown of righteousness laid up by the Lord, the righteous Judge, who lives and reigns one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit, world without end. Amen

Infant Baptism III: Why Wesleyans/Methodists Baptize Infants

In this post I do not intend to list all of the reasons why those of us in the Methodist tradition baptize infants. What I intend to do is briefly rehearse four of the reasons John Wesley gave. I find each of these to be strong arguments, but combined, I think them irrefutable arguments for infant Baptism (though I'm sure that my Baptist brothers and sister would disagree).

Prior to looking at these arguments, I want to make it clear that the Church of England affirmed the practice of infant baptism in its Articles of Religion, as well as in its rituals. So, too, Wesley not only followed the practice (having, of course, experienced it for himself in infancy), but passed the practice on to American Methodism through his Articles of Religion and the rituals of The Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America. The Church of the Nazarene, from its beginning, likewise retained the practice in its Articles of Faith and rituals as found in the Manual (our Book of Discipline).

In his "Treatise on Baptism," Wesley sets forth his reasons for retaining the catholic (i.e., universal) Christian practice of baptizing infants of Christian parents. For a thorough understanding of Wesley's thoughts on the matter, I commend his "Treatise" as found in the Jackson Edition of Wesley's Works vol. 10:188f. (Unless I've overlooked it, the Bicentennial/Oxford edition of the Works has not yet published a volume containing this "Treatise.")

The first compelling argument focuses on the covenant of God and the God given sign of the covenant. - It is clear from the Old Testament that the mark of the covenant was circumcision. All of the requirements of the Abrahamic covenant would seem to imply that infant children would be incapable of entering such a covenant. And yet, it is quite clear from Deut. 29:10-12 that "little ones" entered into covenant with God. Further, the mark of the covenant, viz., circumcision, was performed when the infant was only eight days old. Thus, it is clear that infant children of faithful Jews entered into the covenant with God through circumcision.

St. Paul identifies circumcision (the mark of the "old" covenant) and Baptism (the mark of the "new" covenant) in Col. 2:11-12. Baptism is now the sacrament of initiation into the covenant of God through Christ. Thus, there is in Scripture a continuity within the covenant before and after Christ, but through Christ, circumcision is replaced by Baptism. Wesley concludes "Infants are capable of entering into covenant with God. As they always were, so they still are, under the evangelical covenant. Therefore, they have a right to baptism, which is now the entering seal thereof" (10:195). - The continuity between the covenant mark of circumcision and Baptism is a strong argument for baptizing infant children of Christian parents.

The next argument I find compelling looks to Matthew 19:13-14 and Luke 18:15. There we see infant children being brought to Jesus. When the disciples tried to stop this from happening, Jesus rebuked His disciples. Jesus goes on to declare "it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs." In fact, Jesus tells us "whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it." Thus, "infants are capable of coming to Christ [and ] of admission into the Church . . ." (10:195). - If Jesus makes the point that the kingdom belongs (uniquely) to these young children, and that we must enter the kingdom like them, then surely they should bear the kingdom mark in Baptism. Wesley concludes that infant children ought to be brought to Christ and admitted to the Church through the initiatory sacrament of Baptism.

The third and fourth compelling arguments focus on the tradition of the ancient Church. - Wesley argues that if the apostles baptized infants, then we must do the same. This proposal holds utmost strength, for me. - The problem is the New Testament does not give explicit proof that the apostles did baptize infants. However, Wesley is aware that the Jews baptized all infant children of proselytes. Since this was the practice, since Jesus and the apostles knew this practice, and since Jesus did not instruct the disciples otherwise (in addition to Jesus' clear teachings cited above), it seems very likely that the apostles would have baptized infant children of Christian converts. Further, the Scripture does record the instances of entire households being baptized. This is a term that would include any infants of that household. Finally, Wesley points to the words of St. Peter which, upon instructing the people to be baptized, declares "For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away . . ." (Acts 2:39 NRSV italics mine).

As an extension of the previous argument, Wesley's final compelling argument turns to the practice of the catholic (i.e., universal) Church. He argues that if the Baptism of infants was "the general practice of the Christian Church in all places and in all ages, then this must have been the practice of the Apostles, and, consequently, the mind of Christ" (10:197). Wesley goes on to list the Church Fathers as witnesses to the Church's practice of infant Baptism in all places and all times. Further he cites those Fathers who explicitly affirm that the practice was handed down by the holy apostles, themselves. And the Church has continued to baptize infant children of Christian parents to this day. (For more on this point, cf., my previous post.)

As I've stated, each of these arguments provide a strong rational for the practice of infant Baptism, but, when combined, they seem to me to be irrefutable. There are, undoubtedly, other arguments employed by Wesleyan/Methodist Christians for baptizing our children, but these four I find more than sufficient to settle the question.

In my next post in this series, I will turn to the question of what I believe is going on in the baptism of our infant children.

Infant Baptism II: Nazarene Practice in Historical Context

A couple of words before I proceed: First, I'm discovering that this blogging deal is not quite like writing a term paper! The venue seems to demand a bit more brevity, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of footnoting in the few blogs that I've checked out. That being said, a great place to read up on the shaping of Nazarene baptismal practice is in Stan Ingersol's article, "Christian Baptism and the Early Nazarenes: The Sources that Shaped a Pluralistic Baptismal Tradition," Wesleyan Theological Journal. vol. 25, Number 2, Fall 1990. - And now, on with the article . . .

In the "Historical Statement" of the Nazarene Manual (our Book of Discipline) it is stated that the Church of the Nazarene has ". . . taken care to retain and nurture identification with the historic church in its . . . administration of the sacraments . . ." So, we begin there, with the historic Church.

Infant baptism has been documented as being practiced and considered valid since as early as the 2nd century. Tertullian's writings at the turn of the second and third centuries are the earliest writings that we have that make explicit mention of infant baptism. Significantly, he argued against it. Equally significant, his argument was not based upon it being a "new invention," or that it was less than valid. Quit the opposite. Tertullian's arguments against infant baptism assumed that it was indeed real, valid, Christian baptism. His argument was based upon the concern that sins committed after baptism might not be forgiven. In fact, he not only argued against infant baptism, but against baptism prior to marriage (in case one might fall into sexual sin, before marriage). Tertullian's concern would logically call us all to put off baptism until near death. - Nevertheless, what we find as early as the end of the second century is clear documentation of the practice of Christian parents baptizing their infant children.

Within thirty years of Tertullian's writings, Hyppolytus in the West, and Origen in the East both identified infant baptism as the norm for Christian parents. Further, they both considered the practice to be of apostolic origin. (cf., The Water that Divides. Bridge & Phypers. Mentor P. 1998.) Of course, there is further evidence of infant baptism in the early Church. There is the testimony given by Polycarp, whose life overlapped that of the apostles, themselves. And then with the explicit writings of the early Fathers identifying infant baptism being of apostolic origin, there are the implicit writings in Scripture, itself; the "household" baptisms recorded in Scripture, along with Jesus' words to let the little children come to Him, for to such belong the Kingdom of God.

From these beginnings, the catholic (universal), orthodox Church has continually affirmed infant baptism. In fact, even today, with the popularity of rituals of infant dedication in evangelical circles (a practice that only dates to the 16th century), the vast majority of Christian parents around the planet have their children baptized. (e.g., Roman Catholics, Orthodox, those in the Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist and Reformed traditions nearly universally baptize infants or at least provide for their baptism. Only those whose roots are found in the Anabaptist-Restorationist traditions or the Pentecostal-Charismatic traditions tend to reject infant baptism.) - Those Nazarenes that baptize young children stand firmly in the broad catholic tradition.

The Church of the Nazarene is connected to the early Church through Anglicanism. It is connected to Anglicanism by way of John Wesley through Methodism and the Holiness Movement of the 19th century. While it is uncertain the exact position of the southern branch that merged to form the Church of the Nazarene, it is clear that infant baptism was, at the very least, allowed in the other two merging branches. It also seems likely that it was at least allowed in the southern branch, as well, since it too emerged from a Methodist context, and since the practiced mode of baptism in that branch was pouring.

What is certain is that, like the other churches in the Wesleyan/Methodist tradition, from the very beginning, the united denomination included infant baptism in its Articles of Faith on Baptism. That is not to imply that everyone in the united denomination agreed with infant baptism or practiced it (some came from Quaker or Anabaptist backgrounds), but it did mean that they were willing to be a part of a denomination that included it in its Articles of Faith. From the very beginning until this day, the Manual has included a ritual for baptizing infant children. In our earliest days, founding general superintendents (Wesley's term for bishops) Phineas Bresee and Hiram Reynolds, along with early general superintendents Roy Williams, J.B. Chapman, and John Goodwin, were sought after to baptize infants at district assemblies. Such was the prevalence of the practice.

But, alas, the tide has changed somewhat in the Church of the Nazarene. The denomination has been impacted by those who embraced the biblical doctrine and experience of entire sanctification as taught by Wesley, but who came out of an Anabaptist background. More recently Nazarenes have been hugely impacted by the dominance of the Southern Baptists in evangelical circles. Those impacts were reflected in the Manual in 1936 when a ritual for "The Dedication or Consecration of Children" appeared along side the one for infant baptism ". . . for use in those cases where the parents . . . do not care to have children baptized but simply dedicated . . ." - To this day, the Manual includes both ritual options (though the preface of the latter has been removed.) Further, with the "baptisification" of the denomination, infant dedication has become the dominate preference. In fact, it is so dominant that many Nazarenes have never seen a baby baptized and have no idea that we do baptize babies.

Still, there is something of a resurgence (perhaps still small in size) in the area of sacraments in the Church of the Nazarene. This is owed largely to the wonderful work of Rob L. Staples' book, Outward Sign and Inward Grace: The Place of Sacraments in Wesleyan Spirituality (Beacon Hill 1991). - While I do not look for the Dedication of Infants to ever go away (it will remain a valid option within the denomination), it is my hope that the practice of our spiritual forefather, John Wesley, and that of the historic Church; that practice which I believe to be of apostolic origin, will continue to (re)gain momentum within the Church of the Nazarene so that our children might gain the benefits of the grace of God poured out through the Sacrament of Holy Baptism.

Infant Baptism: The Beginning of a Topic

In my previous post on The Great Triduum, I mentioned that during our main service of Easter Worship at Grace Church of the Nazarene, I had the great privilege of baptizing. The person that I baptized was a nine-month old little boy. His parents, having previously been baptized, also took the opportunity to renew their own baptismal vows.

It was a wonderful and joyous time. The church was packed with people (not a few of whom were family members of the child being baptized)! Of course, there was the cuteness factor! The little boy slept through most of the ritual . . . until the water was poured on his head! Then he awoke with three little sneezes. The congregation laughed and awed.

But beyond the cuteness factor, there was great meaning in that part of worship; meaning for the parents and their extended family; meaning for the congregation, and, indeed, the entire Body of Christ; and meaning for that little nine-month old child. - There was meaning, not only because the people involved filled the event with their own perceived meaning, but there was meaning, because God was there and at work through that Holy Sacrament.

In talking about baptizing that nine-month old, it strikes me that not everyone out there knows why we baptize babies. In fact, it strikes me that there are countless members of my own denomination that don't even know that we do baptize babies (I used to be one of them, prior to college!), because the ritual of Infant Dedication has often replaced the sacrament of Baptism for infants in many Nazarene settings. (A fact which I, personally, lament.) Therefore, I hope to write a series of posts during the upcoming days concerning infant baptism. - I hope to briefly put the practice of Nazarenes baptizing babies in historical context. I will explain why I, and other Wesleyan/Methodist Christians, practice infant Baptism. And I will touch on what I believe is going on in the sacrament of infant Baptism.

The Great Triduum

What a glorious Holy Week we have had! How meaningful to journey through the great Triduum.

On Maundy Thursday our community of faith gathered around the Table with Christ, the great Paschal Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.

On Good Friday we experienced the death of our Lord through the Tenebrae Service of darkness.

Early Easter morning we gathered around a fire to read through the mighty saving acts of God in continuity with the Great Easter Vigil, and then celebrated at the rising of the sun.

During our Easter worship, we had a wonderful time in the presence of our risen Lord. We sang and prayed. We heard the reading and proclamation of the the Word. I had the privilege of baptizing, and then we celebrated around the Table with our risen Lord.

Christ is risen! He is risen indeed! Hallelujah!