As "luck" would have it, there are a couple of threads about baptism today.

Five years ago today (it was the 13, but it was also Mother's Day), my daughter was baptized (credo-immersion-style).

"Wednesday" (five years ago), we were told that my husband had some sort of bowel obstruction with some other changes in the CT scan. "Yesterday (five years ago), his surgeon that did his "big surgery" stopped by to visit and read the Bible with us. We told him that Manda was going to be baptized in June and he said that he had seen the scan and that we should move up the baptism. A LOT...I could say more, but I think that "all over the place" is all I need to say.

It was short notice for our families, who are all out-of-town. But they all came to Manda's baptism. My dad (still recovering from heart surgery) was even able to make it.

She knew what baptism meant and why Christians should be baptized - but her first reason was that she wanted to be baptized while her dad was still alive.

It was a good family time and everything was very positive. Art's sister, Deb had told me that she was afraid that Art was putting on a "good face" when he talked to her. But after that night, and seeing Manda baptized, she told me that she knew that he was at peace - the peace was almost physical.

I remember the night, but not well. I remember the closeness of the family - blood family and church family. I remember my daughter's wet, shining face.

That was a very good night.

Read part one
Read part two
Read part three
Read part four
Read Part five
Read Part six

I've taken three sick days (most of them asleep), but yesterday I did meet with a man a the "Christian Reformed Church in North America" headquarters (that's about 10 miles from my house).

(something else that just happened...I got an email from my old church, next week on Wednesday night there's going to be a guest speaker who is involved in a "prayer and healing ministry" - only I can't find him anywhere on line and the person in charge of scheduling him told me that she's not aware of any affiliation, he's "just a humble man who goes around..." "Healing ministry..." right.

Anyway, the man at CRC said that he's aware of the "problem" at my old church and explained the government structure of the CRC. It's somewhat congregational, which means that everything gets started at the church level. If the conflict is not settled there, it goes to the classis level and from there to (I don't remember just where).

The problem is that most people would rather just leave than endure conflict.

Iron sharpens iron and avoiding conflict is avoiding being sharpened.

I have two choices. I can just leave - either the church or the denomination. That would be easiest and would create less conflict for my kids - who are still attending youth and college age events.

Or I can stay and duke it out. This makes a huge target out of my behind. Right now I feel like I don't belong anywhere and that's a problem. I need to be somewhere where I can fit and where I can work and where I can trust.

There's another option (background: the gentleman I talked to yesterday said that he had spoken of this issue with another pastor just Wednesday night - and that pastor is at a church about 4 blocks from my house).

I can attend another CRC and be under the authority of a CRC pastor while I take the steps that are needed at the church level of my old church. The first step is a letter to the board of elders and I will feel much more confident if I have the support and advice of a pastor.

I found out some things yesterday that I could vent about, but won't...at least just yet.

Actually, it was in the news yesterday, read the article here.

Gallaudet University, the nation's only liberal arts university for the deaf, has a new "president-elect". Jane K. Fernandes is scheduled to take on the office of president of the university in January. There's a hitch - the rest of the faculty has already taken a vote of "no-confidence" and students have been protesting her presidency for a week.

Her "crime"? Not being "deaf enough".

Last semester I wrote a research paper on the "Psychology of Deafness" and included a little bit about the deaf culture.

I wrote, "A dear friend has a father and a stepmother who are both profoundly deaf. His dad began losing his hearing early in life and his stepmother lost her hearing totally as the result of an illness. They relate how they have been included in social events for Deaf people, but then are excluded and snubbed when it becomes known that they both have verbal skills and neither one of them were born deaf."

It's the difference between being deaf (not being able to hear) and being Deaf (part of the deaf culture).

Fernandes has been totally deaf since birth - but her parents are hearing. She grew up in a hearing, speaking household and reads lips and speaks, rather than sign. She didn't learn to sign until she was 23 years old and signs fluently.

One of the professors said, "She does not represent truly our deaf community..."

Fernandes says that there is a "perfect Deaf person." This "perfect deaf person" is born deaf and is born to deaf parents. The perfect deaf person grows up signing and does not speak. The perfect deaf person attends deaf school, marries another deaf person and has deaf babies. This does not describe Fernandes.

Protesters say that Fernandes is not respected on campus and cannot speak for the majority of its students. One student says that, "She has not won us over in six years..."

Bigotry rarely flows in one direction and the bias by the "Deaf" toward the merely "deaf" is well documented. But this is more than bias.

If the university board caves in to the protesters, this would be outright discrimination - not for being impaired; there is the same level of impairment - but for not being "Deaf", but rather being merely "deaf".

It's a cultural thing...

Allergy season = miserable
Lots of benadryl = wow
Face down in my pillow for four hours = me

Today we visited a "Presbyterian Church in America" church.

My first time every in a Presbyterian church. I've looked at the theology and the basic "what we believe" statements and they line up for me.

I don't know much about the day to day workings of this denomination, but I liked the church:
- they used hymnals
- they sang "doxology"
- they celebrate the Lord's Supper every week
- they have a choir
- they use music (not just words - real music. This is important because I'm a low alto, but I sight read; I can't use my "ear" to find the notes)

They start at 9:30 (why do so many Reformed churches start at the :30's?), which works for me, but the kids are used to sleeping late (my son often works until 11:00 at night) - but it works.

We'll go back next week.

Joshua 11:20 For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

Over and over the Bible tells us about God hardening hearts, from Pharoh to the people in the Promised Land, to those who listened to Jesus...is it just human pride that insists on believing that we are the ones in control, not God?

Consider this prayer that is prayed a lot: "Lord, please change his(or her) heart so that he(or she) will accept you." If we really believe in "free will", how can we pray that God violate that person's free will by changing he or her heart?

There is a columnist that I read on a regular basis and even I find it strange that I like her writing - Susan Estrich. At her best (from my point of view) she's a liberal who has some ideas that sound like me. At her worst, she is amusing.

Today I read an article byEstrich about the situation at Duke and comparing it to another rape case. There are not many similarities in the cases - the one that Estrich wanted to point out was that in neither case has the name of the accuser been released.

In the Duke case, a woman is the accuser, in Houston the victim is a male.
In the Duke case, there are no eye-witnesses (not directly involved), in Houston there are two.
In the Duke case, there are "injuries consistent with rape", in Houston, the victim almost died.

I'll say up front that I don't think that the accusers should be named - but I think that it would be a good think if the accused were also not named.

Here's a quote from Estrich: "if it turns out that the woman in the Duke case misidentified her assailant, charges should be dropped. If it turns out she fabricated the story, she should be charged with lying. But until that is determined, she is as much entitled to the presumption of innocence as are the accused."

Stop and think about that...the "victim" should not be named because she is "as nuch entitled to the presumption of innocence..." So why are the accused named before they are found guilty?

If these young men are innocent, their names have been released to the world. Should not the "presumption of innocence" also protect them from having their names released?

from the Great Lakes Brewing Company...very nice...

5-1-05One of my commenters, Milly said, "I personally don’t believe in it nor does my husband, however, both my children were for my in-laws. I just can’t find it in the Bible. Being COC if it isn’t in don’t add it. I also think that when John was Baptizing he might have Baptized children. It just doesn’t say it."

The more I read and study, the more I'm coming to realize that if we read the New Testament in isolation, we miss the roots that New Testament theology is grounded in.

If you consider the convenant relationship that God has with His people and how God has commanded that the covenant sign be applied to His people, then you may be asking the wrong question.

You ask, "where does the Bible say that we should baptize infants?"
I ask, "where does the Bible say to stop applying the sign and seal of the covenant to infants?"

How do we arrive at that question? Here are more questions:

In the Old Testament, who was the covenant (promise) for? (Gen 17:10)

In the New Testament, who was the covenant (promise) for? (Acts 2:39)

In the Old Testament, who was responsible for applying the sign and who was it applied to? (Gen 17:13 tells us that Abraham -head of household- was and that every male in the household was to have the sign applied)

In the New Testament, who was responsible for applying the sign and who was it applied to? (Acts 16:140-15 tells us that Lydia believed and her household was baptized)

Who are we seeds of? (Gal 3:29)

Many of the early Christians were Jews. They had a rich history of a covenant with God, that included applying the sign and seal of the covenant to their children. How would a believing Jew head of household have felt - seeing Lydia's household baptised, while his own children were being excluded from having the sing applied to them, as the sign and the seal of the covenant of Abraham had been applied to him when he was eight days old?

Where would he have found the command in Scripture to stop applying the sign and seal to his children - as Jews had done for 2,000 years?