I want out!

This story must surely be one of the most ridiculous I’ve read in a while. It simply makes no sense to me at all.

Or does it simply reflect the level of (superstitious) ignorance that can be found in ‘Joe Public’? Or does it reflect the confusion and ignorance found in pew-sitters about the rites and practices of the church?

3 responses to “I want out!”

  1. The only positive thing about it is that he has thought through his religious position !
    I’ll be using this tomorrow as an example of the folly of man as opposed to God’ wisdom…

  2. Does he have a point about infant baptism?  It’s easy to have a pop about him wanting his baptism ‘undone’ but if often wondered why we baptise babies other than the need for some kind of naming ceremony?  We even say during infant baptism that it’s conditional on a later confirmation…  Isn’t baptism supposed to be a moment when someone makes a public declaration of considered faith?

  3. Stewart,
    Re: infant baptism. Yes, I would give tentative agreement to his issue of infant baptism. It’s an issue I’ve explored here and elsewhere so I’ll not rehash it now. However, it is not a naming ceremony (however much people look upon it as that – that’s the ‘superstition’ bit coming through) and it is most certainly not conditional. The words used allow for a later declaration of faith on the part of the infant, but the infant’s baptism has meaning in and of itself, without condition and even without that later declaration.
    I do, however, think that there is a need for a greater understanding of baptism within church members, and I also think there is a need for a stronger theology of infant baptism if it is to be defended as a CofS rite. At the moment I think it’s a bit too wishy-washy and not helped by the variety of practices found within the CofS. Allowing ‘sponsors’ of a child just reminds me of the machinations of our national teams to get eligible players.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *