Infant Baptism: A work in progress
I decided to do some research into the Church of the Nazarene and Infant Baptism. I went to the Trevecca Archives, a place that hardly ever sees the light of a human face, the other day and I found out some interesting things, but I believe I might have opened a book that has yet to be written. Here are my findings:
- Infant Baptism was in the first Manuals of the Church of the Nazarene, beginning in 1908.
- It was also found in works prior to the 1908 beginning year of formality. There were "manuals" written by the people who would later become Nazarenes from 1898-1908.
- Infant Baptism stands ALONE alongside the Baptism of Believers in the Manual from 1908-1936.
- In 1936, Baby/Yound Child Dedication iss INTRODUCED into the Manual.
- Infant Baptism and Dedication stand together from 1936-1972.
- In 1972, Infant Baptism is REMOVED from the Manual.
- In 1980, Infant Baptism is RE-INTRODUCED into the Manual alogside Dedication, as it has held that place to the current day.
- The Minutes of the General Assembly 1936, only provides the fact that Dedication was added, but no explanation was made. It only says the Act was proposed and approved.
- The Minutes of the General Assembly 1972 says nothing of taking Infant Baptism out of the Manual. I looked at 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1980, and none of them show an action taken that strikes the Infant Baptism Ritual from the Manual. It just appears in the 1968 Manual and it is not there in the 1972 Manual.
- The Minutes of the General Assembly 1980 only provides the fact that Infant Baptism will be added back into the Manual.
- I found a book, put together by General Middendorf in 1997, called The Church Rituals Handbook, in which he gives a brief history of Infant Baptism and its place in the Church of the Nazarene. Interestingly, he DEFENDS Infant Baptism as a blessed ritual of the Church that should be practiced!
- Middendorf also uses some big Nazarene names to help in the defense of Infant Baptism, i.e. Dunning, Wakefield, Wiley, Grider, and Staples.
- Here is a quote, taken from that work (p. 21), of H. Ray Dunning:
"Furthermore, a genuine validity can be attached to infant baptism if it is seen as the
induction of the child into the covenant community with a concomitant commitment of the community to help guide the child 'in the nurture and admonition of the Lord'. It might, in fact, militate against the loss of children from the church by guarding against the church becoming spectators until the child experiences an adult conversion."
- I have sent Middendorf an email, asking where he did most of his research for this Church Rituals Handbook.
- I have also sent an email to the Nazarene Archives in Kansas City requesting the minutes from the committee meetings that decided the fate of Infant Baptism in 1936, 1972, and 1980.
- I want names, districts, and dialogue that pushed the General Assembly to move as it did.
So this is a work in progress. I'm sure there will be more to come. Any information out there is greatly appreciated!
God be praised!
Joseph
- Infant Baptism was in the first Manuals of the Church of the Nazarene, beginning in 1908.
- It was also found in works prior to the 1908 beginning year of formality. There were "manuals" written by the people who would later become Nazarenes from 1898-1908.
- Infant Baptism stands ALONE alongside the Baptism of Believers in the Manual from 1908-1936.
- In 1936, Baby/Yound Child Dedication iss INTRODUCED into the Manual.
- Infant Baptism and Dedication stand together from 1936-1972.
- In 1972, Infant Baptism is REMOVED from the Manual.
- In 1980, Infant Baptism is RE-INTRODUCED into the Manual alogside Dedication, as it has held that place to the current day.
- The Minutes of the General Assembly 1936, only provides the fact that Dedication was added, but no explanation was made. It only says the Act was proposed and approved.
- The Minutes of the General Assembly 1972 says nothing of taking Infant Baptism out of the Manual. I looked at 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1980, and none of them show an action taken that strikes the Infant Baptism Ritual from the Manual. It just appears in the 1968 Manual and it is not there in the 1972 Manual.
- The Minutes of the General Assembly 1980 only provides the fact that Infant Baptism will be added back into the Manual.
- I found a book, put together by General Middendorf in 1997, called The Church Rituals Handbook, in which he gives a brief history of Infant Baptism and its place in the Church of the Nazarene. Interestingly, he DEFENDS Infant Baptism as a blessed ritual of the Church that should be practiced!
- Middendorf also uses some big Nazarene names to help in the defense of Infant Baptism, i.e. Dunning, Wakefield, Wiley, Grider, and Staples.
- Here is a quote, taken from that work (p. 21), of H. Ray Dunning:
"Furthermore, a genuine validity can be attached to infant baptism if it is seen as the
induction of the child into the covenant community with a concomitant commitment of the community to help guide the child 'in the nurture and admonition of the Lord'. It might, in fact, militate against the loss of children from the church by guarding against the church becoming spectators until the child experiences an adult conversion."
- I have sent Middendorf an email, asking where he did most of his research for this Church Rituals Handbook.
- I have also sent an email to the Nazarene Archives in Kansas City requesting the minutes from the committee meetings that decided the fate of Infant Baptism in 1936, 1972, and 1980.
- I want names, districts, and dialogue that pushed the General Assembly to move as it did.
So this is a work in progress. I'm sure there will be more to come. Any information out there is greatly appreciated!
God be praised!
Joseph
posted by Joseph | 11:31 AM
11 Comments:
I'm not sure of the source, but I distinctly remember reading (probably in Called Unto Holiness) that infant baptism was a major point of contention during the merger negotiations way back in the beginning. I think the Southern group had some issues with it (which would, culturally make sense). I also recall that this was one issue that Bresee's folks just would not budge on. Maybe I'm wrong, but you might want to check.
Thanks for the tips.
I'm sure it was debated in the beginning as it is still evident in the Church today. What I am looking for is what was actually said in those debates. I want to know why some said, "Yes!" and some said, "No!" Those "merger negotiations" you speak of are the things I am looking for. I want hard copy minutes from those negotiation meetings.
"- I have also sent an email to the Nazarene Archives in Kansas City requesting the minutes from the committee meetings that decided the fate of Infant Baptism in 1936, 1972, and 1980."
SWEET!! I'm very interested in all this. I didn't even know it was in the manual until 2002 or so.
Wow - What a great resource! I look forward to reading that. Did you just know about that one off the top of your head?
Scott - this is something of a pet interest of Steve's...I'm not surprised at all at him busting this out and showing us all what a geek he is. (I mean 'geek' in the most positive of senses.)
I do what I can, brother. "Geek" is much more of an exaltation than an assult. Steve Ho-- uh, I mean, a certain Trevecca professor who should remain heretofore unnamed, described John Milbank as a geek, which he meant in an equally complimentary manner. (I've been at conferences w/ Milbank and I think this analysis is probably about right.) In any case, I wouldn't mind being in the same geek-club with Milbank. Just don't sprain any ankles, unless it's on the basketball court or something - geeks are always doing that sort of thing.
Just browsing the site and got hooked on the conversation. If you're interested, there's always the option of calling ole Stan up in KC and just talking to him. I've done that myself a few times trying to do research for various things. He's sometimes hard to catch but I've found him to be very pleasant and helpful.
I have done this and he has responded. His response is very interesting. Here it is:
"Dear Joseph:
The Nazarene Archives does not have committee minutes of the Judicial Committee for those years.
In earlier years, some of the GA committees were identical to the general church committees that met one or more times annually between General Assemblies, and consequently we have minutes of those general agencies, including the minutes for those meetings they conducted during the General Assembly.
But after the General Board was created in 1923, those committees no longer met; instead, they became departments of the General Board. And those types of records were no longer created—they became departmental minutes, instead, of the General Board. That is why my earlier e-mail stated that I might have some for specific years. But the years you’ve specified are outside those parameters. By 1932, the structure was essentially what it is today, and the committees that met during GA were simply GA committees. I’m not sure the GA committees ever file their minutes; I believe that usually the secretary of the committee simply records the actions that the committee takes and reports those actions to the General Secretary, often working off of a grid. Thus, no record of the rationales for decisions is usually maintained, as far as I know.
Stan"
What?! "I’m not sure the GA committees ever file their minutes; I believe that usually the secretary of the committee simply records the actions that the committee takes and reports those actions to the General Secretary, often working off of a grid. Thus, no record of the rationales for decisions is usually maintained, as far as I know."
Exactly the reason why we do not know or remember who we are! This is strikingly scary to read. We don't keep records of our theological dialogue, so of course we are going to forget, or not even know, why we make the decisions we make in the first place!
C'mon guys. Even the local church board keeps a record of proceedings. Is it too much to ask that a Judicial Committee be held to that same standard?
I think not.
Joseph
see, that's why blogs are so freakin' awesome...maybe these committees should start meeting via a blog. then it everyone would have to (slowly, deliberately) write what they want to say, the conversation would unfold slowly and contemplatively, and there would be a permanent record of it through the wonders of the internet! (let's just hope nobody destroys bloggers server rooms, or if so, that they do regular back-ups.)
Joseph - some anonymous person posted the following at Sanctifying Worship:
"Dr. Bradley Estep of Winter Haven First COTN did his dissertation on the history of baptism in the COTN. Mid to late 90's at Union Theological seminary in VA. It includes what you are looking for."
just so you know...
Baptists and evangelicals are absolutely correct...there is no SPECIFIC mention in the New Testament that the Apostles baptized infants. There are references to entire households being converted and baptized, but we orthodox cannot prove, just from Scripture, that these households had infants, and neither can Baptists and evangelicals prove, just from Scripture, that they did not.
One interesting point that Baptists/evangelicals should note is that although there is no specific mention of infant baptism in the Bible...neither is there a prohibition of infant baptism in the Bible. Christians are commanded by Christ to go into all the world and preach the Gospel and to baptize all nations. No age restrictions are mentioned. If Christ had intended his followers to understand that infants could not be baptized in the New Covenant, in a household conversion process as was the practice of the Jews of Christ's day in converting Gentile households to the Covenant of Abraham, it is strange that no mention is made of this prohibition.
So, the only real way to find out if Infant Baptism was practiced by the Apostles is to look at the writings of the early Christians, some of whom were disciples of the Apostles, such as Polycarp, and see what they said on this issue.
And here is a key point: Infant Baptism makes absolutely no sense if you believe that sinners can and must make an informed, mature decision to believe in order to be saved. Infants cannot make informed, mature decisions, so if this is the correct Doctrine of Justification/Salvation, Infant Baptism is clearly false teaching. But the (arminian) Baptist/evangelical Doctrine of Justification/Salvation is unscriptural. Being forced to make a decision to obtain a gift, makes the gift no longer free. This is salvation by works!
Baptism is a command of God. It is not a work of man. God says in plain, simple language, in multiple locations in the Bible, that he saves/forgives sins in Baptism. We orthodox Christians accept God's literal Word. We take our infants to be baptized because God says to do it. Our infants are not saved because we perform the act of bringing them to the baptismal font...they are saved by the power of God's Word pronounced at the time of the Baptism. Christians have believed this for 2,000 years!
There is no evidence that any Christian in the early Church believed that sinners are saved by making a free will decision and then are baptized solely as a public profession of faith. None.
Gary
Luther, Baptists, and Evangelicals
http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2013/06/the-origen-of-baptistevangelical.html
Post a Comment
<< Home