This post
probably should have happened first.
I'm
planning to dig in a little deeper, regarding baptism, for Sacramental
Saturday. For today, let's take a quick
look at Article of Faith #12 and what the Church of the Nazarene has to say:
XII.
Baptism
12. We believe that Christian baptism, commanded by our Lord, is a sacrament signifying acceptance of the benefits of the atonement of Jesus Christ, to be administered to believers and declarative of their faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior, and full purpose of obedience in holiness and righteousness.
Baptism being a symbol of the new covenant, young children may be baptized, upon request of parents or guardians who shall give assurance for them of necessary Christian training.
Baptism may be administered by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, according to the choice of the applicant.
(Matthew 3:1-7; 28:16-20; Acts 2:37-41; 8:35-39; 10:44-48; 16:29-34; 19:1- 6; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-28; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:18-22)
Let's
quickly review the qualifications we have for sacraments in the Protestant
Church.
#1
Sacraments must be instituted by Jesus.
According to Scripture, and this definition, baptism meets this
criteria.
#2 There
must be an outward sign or symbol. This
is definitely the case with baptism, however we do it, which is flexible in the
Church of the Nazarene (see paragraph 3).
#3 God
imparts grace to us through the sacraments.
I'm going to go with, "Yes, that definitely happens in
baptism," but I think our definition above is lacking when it comes to
what God does in this sacrament. It
feels as if the general idea here is that baptism is only an outward sign,
something that we do.
The line
that troubled me a little bit is the one about us, "signifying acceptance
of the benefits of the atonement of Jesus Christ". I think the intent here was good, and I think
this statement was made in an attempt to define what I feel is largely missing
in my third point, above. However, I
still think it misses the mark a little bit.
If baptism is simply about us signifying and declaring our faith; I'm
not sure how it differs from any other testimony we might give. And yet, we have chosen to declare baptism a
sacrament, which is pretty serious in the Protestant Church, if you think about
it, since we only have two, and even the most sacramental among us don't often
want to budge from that viewpoint.
Our stance
on the baptism of infants and young children is also interesting. I feel as if it states, rather plainly, that
this is a symbol and not much (if anything) more.
I grew up
in a different Protestant denomination that definitely viewed baptism as
symbolic only. I have often struggled
with my own baptism because of that, but that is probably a story better told
as this exploration of baptism progresses over the next few days. In the Church of the Nazarene, I really do
believe that, at least in theory, we believe that God extends grace to us,
through baptism, but I don't think we've articulated this well in the articles. I wonder what we might do to make baptism
less about us and more about God.
L.
you might appreciate reading through this older thread of discussion on communion and baptism...http://www.christianforums.com/threads/church-of-nazarene-and-meaning-of-sacraments.7821450/
ReplyDeleteThis was a really interesting comment thread. As I continue to ponder what we really mean by "sacrament" in the Wesleyan, Protestant way of defining such, it is good to explore what others are saying.
Delete