I have a 3 ½ year
old and a newborn who have not been baptized.
Is baptism
necessary?
Every Christian tradition handles baptism differently. I encourage
you to contact your pastor for guidance on teachings and expectations
affecting your congregation.
Here is how I would approach the matter. Long ago, when infant
mortality was high and superstition reigned, the Church taught
that baptism was necessary for
avoiding hell. I think we have moved beyond such superstition. Now, we understand
baptism as entry into the Christian community, in which parents make solemn vows
to raise their child as a Christian, godparents agree to do their part, and the
congregation accepts certain obligations toward the child. In that context—caring
parents, attentive godparents and a responsible community—the child can
receive appropriate Christian nurture.
I encourage baptism at the earliest possible age, therefore, not to win God's
favor and thereby to avoid hell, but to begin the child—indeed the entire
family—on this lifelong Christian journey.
Traditions that believe in “believer's baptism,” occurring at age
12 or later, still have a service of dedication for younger children. The promises
at dedication are similar to those made at an infant baptism.
(Return
to Top)
There are many people in my life from different
cultures and religions. My problem is when I hear one knock the
other. All these people are highly educated, but this happens
more often than I would have expected in this group. My Christian
friends, I have to say, are the worst. They tell me not to go
into the homes of my Hindu or Buddhist friends because of the
statues and altars. I don't pray at them, and only look at them
for their beauty.
Religious intolerance is a frightening force. It seems to come
about when a religion proclaims itself the only pathway to God
and all others as inherently wrong, if not evil. A more enlightened
point of view is that God gave us many pathways to our Creator.
Each tends to arise in a certain culture, although their claims
sound universal. That gets confusing. How can you be loyal to
God as you understand God, while others pursue the same God in
different ways? The key, it seems to me, is to remember that
religion is our creation, not God's, and that we ought not to
worship an idol made of our own hands.
(Return
to Top)
I got married for life and wanted
my marriage to work out, but my husband did not. He put in
for the divorce,
and it will be final as of 12/23/2005. My question is, who will
be responsible under God for this marriage and divorce? Can I
remarry and be in good standing with God now, or will I have
to wait until my husband dies so I can remarry?
Every Christian tradition views divorce and remarriage differently.
I urge you to ask your pastor how your congregation or denomination
understands the matter.
My view is that divorce happens. I've never met a couple that went into marriage
intending it to end in divorce. We are imperfect, however, and in our imperfection,
we don't always succeed in keeping the promises we make. Rather than assign blame
and worry about whom God will hold more accountable, I encourage you to learn
from the experience and prepare yourself to live a healthy life after the divorce,
as a single person or, if it happens this way, in a new marriage.
In my tradition (Episcopal Church), remarriage after divorce is permitted within
certain limits. It requires permission of the bishop, and that permission usually
is sought only after a significant amount of premarital counseling. A responsible
pastor will discourage remarriage too soon after divorce, will want to identify
lessons learned, will consult with the couple on how a new marriage will impact
children, will verify that the former marriage doesn't impede the new, and will
discourage a pattern of multiple divorces and remarriages. If the pastor determines
that issues of addiction or abuse contributed to the divorce, the pastor will
want to be sure that these issues have been addressed.
(Return
to Top)
Many "Christians" on
the religious right are pro-war, pro-death penalty
and pro-tax
cuts for the
rich. Would Jesus agree? If not,
does that make him a liberal?
You ask a good and provocative question. Here is my way of looking
at it.
The examples you gave are matters of public policy. They are political questions
about which reasonable and faithful people can disagree. In a democracy, the
only way to resolve them is through the ballot box, not the pulpit. Voters will
be influenced by their faith, and during debates, some politicians inevitably
will claim the moral and religious high ground in order to woo voters.
For the most part, Jesus didn't address political questions, at least in the
democratic manner that we might value. He lived in an oppressive imperial environment,
where public policy was dictated from afar. Jewish religious leaders had certain
latitude in governing, which they exercised cautiously in order to avoid challenging
Caesar. Jesus was offended by their hypocrisy in mediating the Law of Moses;
he had little to say about their collaboration with Rome.
At the same time, Jesus' teachings focused on the two matters that most concern
government, namely, wealth and power. Thus, in your third example, he didn't
address tax cuts for the wealthy, but he did urge the wealthy to give away their
wealth. He didn't address war as such, but he did tell his followers to love
their enemies and to live in peace. If there was a precedent for his teachings,
it was the prophets, who railed against their theocratic government for its injustice.
I doubt that Jesus would accept either label, “conservative” or “liberal.” I
think of him as a “radical,” in the sense of getting to the root
of things. In that vein, all parties show a substantial need for repentance.
(Return
to Top)
Like
nationalism, religion divides us and has been responsible
for more wars than any other cause.
It has been used to justify genocide throughout history. The
Church has promoted ignorance and
punished the Truth since its
inception. Could the world's religions, the source of so much
death and destruction, be not of God, but of Satan?
People make wars, usually for predictable reasons, such as greed,
fear, lust and power. They use whatever rationale and weapons
they can find. Reasons range from feeling threatened to wanting
what someone else has to racial and tribal aggression. Weapons,
of course, have developed over time. Whenever one party develops
a new weapon, every other party wants it.
Wanting to make war is one thing. Having the financial and personnel resources
to do so is something else. Two of the more potent sources of money and people
are nationalism and religion. Each has the power to organize people into cohesive
units, to raise funds, to deploy significant motivators like superstition, pride
and ideology, and each has recognized leaders touting potent punishments for
non-conformity.
Those same sources—nation and religion—also have the capacity
to make peace, to advance culture, to promote justice, to tame savage wills and
to bring about necessary change. It all depends on how and by whom they are deployed.
Because leaders of nations and religions have such power at their disposal, they
are unusually susceptible to the blandishments of evil. Read Luke's account of
Satan testing Jesus in the wilderness. Power, wealth and acclaim are potent temptations
to all leaders. Most dangerous of all is when nation and religion, or state and
church, are in the same hands. Then the soil is fertile for mischief.
(Return
to Top)
The
Bible says that if you remarry after divorce, it is a sin.
My mother has remarried and is very happy. Will she be
forgiven
if she does not repent? I know she will not repent,
because that would mean leaving my stepfather.
I
think we need to be discerning about what Scripture says concerning
marriage, divorce and other matters of sexuality
and gender. Such matters weighed heavily on ancient Israel, because
a quasi-nomadic and tribal people needed clarity about family,
lineage and ownership of property. Under what conditions could
a person divorce—and thereby confuse the normal transmission
of property? What happened to a family's bloodline in divorce
and remarriage, or in the death of one’s spouse?
We live in a different world and bring to it different perspectives. That includes
evolving perspectives on what truly constitutes sin (that is, alienation from
God). While no one encourages divorce, I think we have come to accept it as a
fact of life and not an offense against God. An estimated 50% of first-time marriages
end in divorce. Sometimes couples marry too young (the divorce rate for marriages
started under age 20 is 82%). Other factors include physical and emotional abuse,
incest, addictions and sources of stress such as job loss, illness and infidelity.
Simply declaring divorce a sin doesn't resolve such issues. Not all couples can
work through their issues successfully.
Like marriage, divorce is not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly. It is
a traumatic event and has lifelong repercussions. Most divorced persons remarry,
and their second marriages tend to be successful.
If you are struggling with your mother's remarriage, I encourage you not to approach
it as a matter of sin and repentance. Being judged by one's child isn't likely
to lead anywhere positive. Rather, I suggest that you keep in relationship with
your mother and accept her decisions about her life as her business, not yours.
(Return
to Top)
