Dating with Different Denominations

[RomansFiveEight]

I want to address; since it hasn't been addressed yet, the comment "We do communion once a quarter to make it more special".

That might be the prevailing belief but if your congregation has it's roots in early Methodism (regardless of which flavor it is now), chances are the quarterly communion was established because of Circuit Riders. Basically, Pastors on horseback who went from church to church. Weekly communion is the practice in the Anglican church and the preferred practice of early Methodists. John Wesley, our founder (he's my profile picture) encouraged Methodists to take communion every day, every week at minimum and himself sometimes took communion several times per day. However as the church grew across this sparsely populated and huge country called the United States; it became necessary for churches to be served by lay persons and for a circuit rider to come at occasion to serve communion, baptize, etc. It might be that you only saw an Ordained Methodist Pastor (Elder) once a month, once every six weeks, or even once a quarter. Over time, some churches just 'clung to' this tradition.

To Paraphrase Wesley (who himself addresses the 'it makes it more special' schtick), if communion isn't special each and every time you take it; the problem isn't with communion, it's with the one taking it.

It's the Real Presence of Jesus Christ; the most tangible way we have to experience God's grace in our hands and on our tongues; it's Christ with us in a profound way and in the same way he established with his Disciples. Locking Jesus up in a cupboard and taking him out once in a while isn't making Jesus more special! Not to be harsh, of course; but really consider what communion means to you and why it shouldn't be even more special when it's taken every week.

As a Pastor myself, in a church that doesn't monthly communion (and is moving closer to weekly communion), I can tell you that people certainly shuffle up to communion and "go through the motions", and others no matter how often we do it seem profoundly impacted. The issue, again, isn't with the practice of communion, but in the one receiving it. Those who simply go through the motions will always go through the motions lest their hearts are warmed. And those for whom Communion has a profound impact will only be further impacted the more frequently it's made available to them.

I serve a two-point charge. That means during lent, I was taking communion 3x a week (twice on Sunday, once during the week during a weekly communion lenten service), and it sure was special.

 

[circuitrider]

The "make it more special theology" through infrequency is just bad theology.

Lets sing less hymns to make them more special. Or, lets only read the Bible once a quarter to make Bible reading more special. Only tell your children you love them once a month to make that more special. Only eat once a week to make food more special. You get the idea.

Our Sunday morning service now communes twice a month. We commune once a month on Saturday night and every Sunday evening in our contemporary service. So I usually average communing about seven times month. I'd like to eventually have weekly communion in each of our services because I believe in the duty of constant communion with God.

 

[JCFantasy23]

The "make it more special theology" through infrequency is just bad theology.

Lets sing less hymns to make them more special. Or, lets only read the Bible once a quarter to make Bible reading more special. Only tell your children you love them once a month to make that more special. Only eat once a week to make food more special. You get the idea.

I know, right? That's why I don't buy into that reasoning.

 

[circuitrider]

I know, right? That's why I don't buy into that reasoning.

Part of the history of infrequent communion is that the Elders in Geneva decided to go to quarterly communion to look less Roman Catholic. They did so over the firm objections of John Calvin himself who argued also for regular weekly communion.

The only reasons for less than weekly communion are really issues of tradition or pragmatism such as in the case of the early circuit riders who couldn't get to a church that often.

 

[Dave-W]

Does UMC doctrine require communion to be served by ordained clergy?

 

[circuitrider]

Does UMC doctrine require communion to be served by ordained clergy?

The UMC requires ordained Elders or commissioned licensed local pastors officiate communion. After the consecration of communion by the pastor and congregation anyone present can assist in serving the elements.

An ordained Elder can serve communion anywhere. A Licensed Local Pastor is limited to officiating communion in the charge (local church or churches) that she/he is appointed to serve.

 

[John Johnston]

I hate to tell you this but as a UMC pastor I can tell you that United Methodists baptize infants all the time. I can't imagine why your church doesn't. I baptize probably a dozen infants a year and maybe one or two adults a year. Most Methodists were baptized as infants.

Also most UMC churches have communion on average of once a month but the United Methodist Church is encouraging much greater frequency of communion. The church I pastor has communion twice a month in our largest service and every Sunday in our Sunday evening service.

The church you grew up in does not appear to be acting in a way that is actually Methodist. I'm not sure why.

As to why we baptize infants, we do so because of John Wesley's own teaching about God's prevenient grace. That is God loves us and cares about us from our birth and always wants a relationship with us. I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to baptize infants. It is a gift from God and a means of God's grace.

I believe that baptism is an out ward expression of our belief in Jesus Christ and the acceptance of His atonement and a out ward commitment to serve Christ in holiness and righteousness.

I don't believe a baby can make the commitments that are to be made at the point of baptism. I don't understand what a baby is getting out of or committing to when being baptized. Baptism is a very special sacrament between you and Christ and a baby can't make that commitment.

I guess you need to tell me what a baby is getting out of baptism when the baby has no idea what is going on and can not accept the benefits of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

I am open to hear what those that believe in baby baptism has to say about what baptism does for the baby or how the baby is showing an outward commitment to Jesus Christ and acceptance of His atonement.

When I was baptized it was a special time between me and the Lord that I could not have experienced as a baby.

These are my beliefs.

John

 

[GraceSeeker]

Baptism is a very special sacrament between you and Christ and a baby can't make that commitment.

What difference does that make? Baptism is NOT something that we humans do, not a statement that we make. Baptism is something that God does in us; it is his statement of saying that we are welcome in his family. Since God is the actor, and we are the recipient of his grace, it is totally appropriate for anyone who is going to be living within the community that God is creating.

These are my beliefs.

John

That's right, they are YOUR beliefs, and beliefs you share with Baptists.

But they are NOT the beliefs of Methodists, Nazarenes, Wesleyans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Catholics or Greek Orthodox. And as best as I can tell, they are beliefs that do NOT conform to the practices of the New Testament church.

 

[circuitrider]

I believe that baptism is an out ward expression of our belief in Jesus Christ and the acceptance of His atonement and a out ward commitment to serve Christ in holiness and righteousness.

I don't believe a baby can make the commitments that are to be made at the point of baptism. I don't understand what a baby is getting out of or committing to when being baptized. Baptism is a very special sacrament between you and Christ and a baby can't make that commitment.

I don't know Nazarene doctrine fully enough to be sure, but I don't think the above represents official Nazarene theology.

Baptism isn't about the individual making a commitment to God. It is about God choosing us and marking us as his own. Baptism for Wesleyan Christians is an act of God and not the individual. I'd argue that if is it something you do than it doesn't have much value as human beings have nothing to offer God but God has God's Grace and love to offer us.

 

[JCFantasy23]

When I was baptized it was a special time between me and the Lord that I could not have experienced as a baby.

These are my beliefs.

John

John,

I completely get what you mean and feel the same - I'm happy that I did an adult baptism. It was a wonderful day, one of the best in my life. I'm a Methodist, and know that Methodists baptize children, but I know what you're saying so you're not alone in that.

 

[circuitrider]

John,

I completely get what you mean and feel the same - I'm happy that I did an adult baptism. It was a wonderful day, one of the best in my life. I'm a Methodist, and know that Methodists baptize children, but I know what you're saying so you're not alone in that.

I have no doubt that adult baptism can be a very special event in the life of a Christian. But if you look at Church history, the long time practice of the Church was to baptize infants and then have confirmation as an experience of the person making a public profession of faith when reaching an age of understanding.

I confirmed five young people last Sunday. They affirmed their own baptismal and membership vows, received the laying on of hands and were anointed with oil. It is a very meaningful ceremony and doesn't require one to put off their baptism for years and years to have a profession of faith experience.

Leaving baptism until you want to take an adult profession is like telling a child that they aren't a member of the family until they can articulate an adult understanding of what it means to be part of the family.

In baptism we become part of God's family. In confirmation we publically declare our own faith. That is actually a much older practice than holding off on baptism.

 

[GraceSeeker]

When I was baptized it was a special time between me and the Lord that I could not have experienced as a baby.

John, I completely get what you mean and feel the same - I'm happy that I did an adult baptism. It was a wonderful day, one of the best in my life. I'm a Methodist, and know that Methodists baptize children, but I know what you're saying so you're not alone in that.

John, JC, what I hear you saying is that baptism is something YOU experience, presumably on a level that speaks to you, and that it is this experience, a result of a decision you have made and a faith you have affirmed -- not the grace of God -- which makes baptism efficacious. Can you, please, explain to me how the experience you just described would be more present in baptism than in confirmation? How is making a decision that you wish to make a faith statement that acknowledges your relationship to God as witnessed to by adult baptism is more efficacious than making a decision that you wish to affirm that you have personally claimed the faith into which you were previously baptized?

And, even if there is a difference, is it because there is a problem with doing infant baptism? Or, is it because we don't take confirmation seriously?

BTW, having married a woman raised in the Disciples of Christ Church, I am aware that many young people raised in adult baptism congregations don't approach the process there significantly differently than one sometimes people dealing with confirmation. They have a pastor's class, go through the motions because some adult authority (pastor or parents) tell them that it is that time in life for them to do so, and then drop out as soon as they have done so. Of course this isn't all. It isn't all in any group. But that is what leads me to suggest that the efficacious nature of an event is NOT in the emotional response we have to it, but in what God does. And whether baptize as an infant, a youth, or an adult the value is in what God does, and our reaction to it of taking it seriously is the blessing that God offers to us if we care to receive it. Some, those who have been raised within the faith knowing that God has already made a declaration of his love and acceptance of them into his family seem to me to have the best of both worlds. There is never a time in which they would sense anything other than God's omnipresent love, and they are also free to affirm their own valuing of that gift of grace in their lives when they desire to and feel capable of making such an affirmation.

 

[JCFantasy23]

John, JC, what I hear you saying is that baptism is something YOU experience, presumably on a level that speaks to you, and that it is this experience, a result of a decision you have made and a faith you have affirmed -- not the grace of God -- which makes baptism efficacious. Can you, please, explain to me how the experience you just described would be more present in baptism than in confirmation? How is making a decision that you wish to make a faith statement that acknowledges your relationship to God as witnessed to by adult baptism is more efficacious than making a decision that you wish to affirm that you have personally claimed the faith into which you were previously baptized?

Yes, it was a beautiful experience. I've been a Christian my entire life, but my parents didn't have me baptized. I'm not sure what else you're wanting to me say in response to this - yes, it would have been just as valid if I had been a child, yes, I'm glad I had this experience with God where I can remember it happening, not when I was a child where people would just tell me stories of it or show me a paper certificate so I'd know it had been done. Confirmation may have done similar, it's not something I've had done. In my mind I saw it as another special moment I could spend with God in a meaningful way, a public declaration like a wedding, it was beautiful. I prayed about it, felt called to do it, brought my family to witness it (my father and brother hadn't been in church over 15 years), and it was definitely a special day.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Yes, it was a beautiful experience. I've been a Christian my entire life, but my parents didn't have me baptized. I'm not sure what else you're wanting to me say in response to this.

I'm not *wanting* you to say anything in particular. I do want John to hear that his comment that "baptism is a very special sacrament between you and Christ and a baby can't make that commitment" may not be particularly relevant to a Methodist understanding of baptism, and to respect our theology as being just as valid as his own.

As for your baptism, I'm glad you had a beautiful experience. I love the way you described it:

In my mind I saw it as another special moment I could spend with God in a meaningful way, a public declaration like a wedding, it was beautiful. I prayed about it, felt called to do it, brought my family to witness it (my father and brother hadn't been in church over 15 years), and it was definitely a special day.

 

[circuitrider]

I'm not *wanting* you to say anything in particular. I do want John to hear that his comment that "baptism is a very special sacrament between you and Christ and a baby can't make that commitment" may not be particularly relevant to a Methodist understanding of baptism, and to respect our theology as being just as valid as his own.

As for your baptism, I'm glad you had a beautiful experience. I love the way you described it:

An important point! In parts of the US that are heavy with Baptists the idea gets floated around that baptism of infants is less meaningful or less valid than adult baptism. That does not fit a Methodist context at all since baptism at any age is a gift from God. A profession of faith is a separate thing from baptism even though it baptism and a profession of faith can happen close together for those who are baptized as adults or at confirmation.

 

[Maid Marie]

I don't believe a baby can make the commitments that are to be made at the point of baptism. I don't understand what a baby is getting out of or committing to when being baptized. Baptism is a very special sacrament between you and Christ and a baby can't make that commitment.

I guess you need to tell me what a baby is getting out of baptism when the baby has no idea what is going on and can not accept the benefits of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

The parents make that commitment on behalf of the child. It will be reflected in how that child is raised. As the child grows, it can accept the benefits of the atonement. What that baby is getting out of baptism is God's grace in his or her young life from a very early age and the joy of being a part of God's family from the start. I was baptized when I was a year old and I consider it one of the greatest blessings that they gave me.

 

[Maid Marie]

I don't know Nazarene doctrine fully enough to be sure, but I don't think the above represents official Nazarene theology.

Our polity allows for either infant baptism or infant dedication with believer's baptism.

 

[circuitrider]

Our polity allows for either infant baptism or infant dedication with believer's baptism.

But your theology doesn't do what John is doing, which is rule out infant baptism. Correct?

What I see in John's theology is that he is calling baptism a sacrament while treating it like an ordinance. A sacrament is not a commitment between you and God. It is unmerited favor (Grace) from God. A sacrament is about what God does and not about what we do.

 

[Maid Marie]

But your theology doesn't do what John is doing, which is rule out infant baptism. Correct?

What I see in John's theology is that he is calling baptism a sacrament while treating it like an ordinance. A sacrament is not a commitment between you and God. It is unmerited favor (Grace) from God. A sacrament is about what God does and not about what we do.

Correct, our polity does not rule out infant baptism.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

We do believers baptism too; we just don't use any water, we call it Confirmation, and it's preceded by months of theological education and service!

I think Confirmation is an important reminder. For Methodists; Baptism isn't a "once and done", it's a lifetime thing. We don't rebaptize, for the same reason we DO confirm. Baptism is God saying "yes". Throughout our lives, we'll have opportunities to say "yes" in return. Confirmation is one of those times, and for some, the first time. Confirmation often occurs at about the point kids in other denominations would be Baptized. It uses the same liturgy; and I like to remind them that they are claiming their Baptism for themselves.