Worshiping together
26/10/14 05:22
Today is Reformation Sunday. It is a holiday observed primarily in congregations with Lutheran backgrounds. The tradition is to wear red. to mark the occasion. Our congregation has deep roots in the Reformation, but we have not made a practice of doing much in observation of Reformation Sunday. Unlike other reform movements in the church, the Protestant Reformation not only precipitated a split within Christianity, it created a tone and a mood of dissension that continued with additional splits and divisions into a wide variety of different expressions of faith. Once the Protestant Reformation got going there were a lot of differences of practice and belief. One of the big divisions in the community was over the practice of baptism. Many Protestant congregations continued the practice of the Roman Catholic church, baptizing all who were presented, regardless of age. The practice of baptizing by pouring or sprinkling water as a symbolic gesture was the most common form of baptism long before the Reformation. The new Testament reports baptism of entire families as they enter the church.
Some people developed a strong attachment to the making of a commitment at the time of baptism. From their point of view, baptism required a decision and a commitment and therefore should not be offered to children who are not yet old or mature enough to make their own independent decisions. In general the same congregations that opted for adult-only baptism also preferred full immersion. They became known as anabaptists. The name didn’t come from the practice of immersion or from the practice of baptizing only consenting adults, but rather from the practice of baptizing someone who had already been baptized. In other parts of the church (and in the tradition where our church stands), there was an adherence to the conviction that baptism, as a sacrament, was beyond human control. Once baptized, always baptized was the point of view and the practice of re-baptizing someone who had already been baptized demonstrated a lack of faith in the power of baptism. The argument was intense and there are still those who can take sides in the debate that continues to be divisive in some corners of the church.
What is clear in contemporary Christianity is that people of good faith and deep commitment live our their lives of faith on both sides of the debate. While it is easy for me to see where our congregation lies in the historical stream and I am very comfortable with the practices of our church. I am also deeply aware that there are good people of faith practicing their faith in a different context. A good example is our sister congregation in Costa Rica. In that church the practice is a dedication of infants to God without baptism and then the baptism of young teens when they are able to make their own decisions and commitments. I have participated in the deeply moving baptism ceremonies of our sister church.
What I have not knowingly done is to re-baptize someone who has already been baptized. In or corner of the church, the repeatable rite is confirmation. The confirmation of a baptism with the laying on of hands is our rite for the entrance into adult membership in the church. We repeat that rite at significant moments of recommitment to Christ and the church. I have participated in such a ceremony at the time of a change of name, or a fresh discovery of God’s call for an individual.
One church with its roots deep in the anabaptist tradition is the Mennonite Brethren Church. Members of this church attempt to live simple lives of faithful service. The name comes from Menno Simons, a Dutch priest who adopted anabaptist beliefs and led others to follow. Early in the history of the church, there was a split over the degree to which the faithful should embrace modern technologies and ways. Those preferring the most simple of lives have become to be known as Amish while those who prefer the name Mennonite tend to adopt more modern technologies and conveniences. There are plenty of conservative Mennonite congregations who require members to dress simply and require women to cover their heads, but in those corners of the church there would not be the rejection of modern conveniences such as telephones, automobiles and modern farming equipment.
In recent years, conservative Mennonites, primarily with roots in congregations located in southern Manitoba, have been sending missionaries to serve on the Cheyenne River reservation in central South Dakota. Their presence has been loving and caring for the indigenous people of the area. It is hard to tell if this is simply another wave of missionaries - which have had both positive and negative impacts. Part of my reaction when I first encountered them was to wonder if they are simply so conservative that they are attempting in the 21st century what our church attempted in the 19th century. As our church has learned from its history of mission work, we have tended to do less sending of our people with their cultural ways into other communities and more developing partnerships with the people who live in those communities and encouragement of local leadership. Regardless of these differences, the Mennonites have been good partners and have provided significant ministry, especially in the Cherry Creek area.
Yesterday, however, was not a day to look at theological differences, or differences in mission approach. It was a day of grief. We gathered for the funeral and burial of a 20-month-old child who had died in tragic circumstances. While we might not be able to come to agreement about theology or practice, we certainly could gather in our grief to worship God. And that is what we did. To an outsider it might have appeared to be a strange gathering of Native Americans, those of us with European backgrounds and ways of dress, and Mennonites with stricter forms of dress who have arrived very recently. As I drove home, I decided that it was my first Dakota/Mennonite funereal.
It was the right ceremony for the community on that day. The Mennonites brought their beautiful and simple a cappella singing. We from our church background brought a rich tradition of preaching and biblical interpretation. Our Dakota partners brought their prayers and deep spirituality. We all brought our grief and offered it to God, who is not troubled by our differences.
Some people developed a strong attachment to the making of a commitment at the time of baptism. From their point of view, baptism required a decision and a commitment and therefore should not be offered to children who are not yet old or mature enough to make their own independent decisions. In general the same congregations that opted for adult-only baptism also preferred full immersion. They became known as anabaptists. The name didn’t come from the practice of immersion or from the practice of baptizing only consenting adults, but rather from the practice of baptizing someone who had already been baptized. In other parts of the church (and in the tradition where our church stands), there was an adherence to the conviction that baptism, as a sacrament, was beyond human control. Once baptized, always baptized was the point of view and the practice of re-baptizing someone who had already been baptized demonstrated a lack of faith in the power of baptism. The argument was intense and there are still those who can take sides in the debate that continues to be divisive in some corners of the church.
What is clear in contemporary Christianity is that people of good faith and deep commitment live our their lives of faith on both sides of the debate. While it is easy for me to see where our congregation lies in the historical stream and I am very comfortable with the practices of our church. I am also deeply aware that there are good people of faith practicing their faith in a different context. A good example is our sister congregation in Costa Rica. In that church the practice is a dedication of infants to God without baptism and then the baptism of young teens when they are able to make their own decisions and commitments. I have participated in the deeply moving baptism ceremonies of our sister church.
What I have not knowingly done is to re-baptize someone who has already been baptized. In or corner of the church, the repeatable rite is confirmation. The confirmation of a baptism with the laying on of hands is our rite for the entrance into adult membership in the church. We repeat that rite at significant moments of recommitment to Christ and the church. I have participated in such a ceremony at the time of a change of name, or a fresh discovery of God’s call for an individual.
One church with its roots deep in the anabaptist tradition is the Mennonite Brethren Church. Members of this church attempt to live simple lives of faithful service. The name comes from Menno Simons, a Dutch priest who adopted anabaptist beliefs and led others to follow. Early in the history of the church, there was a split over the degree to which the faithful should embrace modern technologies and ways. Those preferring the most simple of lives have become to be known as Amish while those who prefer the name Mennonite tend to adopt more modern technologies and conveniences. There are plenty of conservative Mennonite congregations who require members to dress simply and require women to cover their heads, but in those corners of the church there would not be the rejection of modern conveniences such as telephones, automobiles and modern farming equipment.
In recent years, conservative Mennonites, primarily with roots in congregations located in southern Manitoba, have been sending missionaries to serve on the Cheyenne River reservation in central South Dakota. Their presence has been loving and caring for the indigenous people of the area. It is hard to tell if this is simply another wave of missionaries - which have had both positive and negative impacts. Part of my reaction when I first encountered them was to wonder if they are simply so conservative that they are attempting in the 21st century what our church attempted in the 19th century. As our church has learned from its history of mission work, we have tended to do less sending of our people with their cultural ways into other communities and more developing partnerships with the people who live in those communities and encouragement of local leadership. Regardless of these differences, the Mennonites have been good partners and have provided significant ministry, especially in the Cherry Creek area.
Yesterday, however, was not a day to look at theological differences, or differences in mission approach. It was a day of grief. We gathered for the funeral and burial of a 20-month-old child who had died in tragic circumstances. While we might not be able to come to agreement about theology or practice, we certainly could gather in our grief to worship God. And that is what we did. To an outsider it might have appeared to be a strange gathering of Native Americans, those of us with European backgrounds and ways of dress, and Mennonites with stricter forms of dress who have arrived very recently. As I drove home, I decided that it was my first Dakota/Mennonite funereal.
It was the right ceremony for the community on that day. The Mennonites brought their beautiful and simple a cappella singing. We from our church background brought a rich tradition of preaching and biblical interpretation. Our Dakota partners brought their prayers and deep spirituality. We all brought our grief and offered it to God, who is not troubled by our differences.