“To lead a better life, I need my love to be here.”
I have a bunch of things I feel like writing about but they’re not topically related so here’s my mishmashed post.
Music.
I am enjoying listening to Danger Mouse’s new group, The Broken Bells. Hat tip to Derek Webb on that one.
Theology.
Up on The Resurgence blog this week:
Question 74 – Should infants, too, be baptized?
Answer – Yes. Infants as well as adults belong to God’s covenant and congregation. (Gen. 17:7; Matt. 19:14) Through Christ’s blood the redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to adults. (Ps. 22:11; Is. 44:1-3; Acts 2:38, 39; 16:31) Therefore, by baptism, as sign of the covenant, they must be grafted into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers. (Acts 10:47; I Cor. 7:14) This was done in the old covenant by circumcision (Gen. 17:9-14), in place of which baptism was instituted in the new covenant. (Col. 2: 11-13)
I seriously struggle with the idea of infant baptism also known as paedobaptism. I am a member of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and appreciate that I do not need to agree with the concept of paedobaptism to be a member of the covenant community. I’m not even fully convinced that I hold to covenant theology but that’s too broad of a matter to tackle within the subject of paedobaptism.
The best case I’ve seen for infant baptism has been presented by Greg Bahnsen here. But again, it’s not that I’m not open to viewing infant baptism as scriptural or that I am adamantly opposed to it per se but I find that there is a clearer Biblical case for believer’s (or as some have called it, “professor’s”) baptism.
Perhaps, however, if I fully subscribed to covenant theology and saw baptism as a replacement for circumcision, then infant baptism would make logical sense. As a Christian who previously subscribed to dispensational theology, the jump to covenant theology is not easy. (Here’s a chart for a comparison between the two. However, I did stumble upon this, and from a quick glance, it would seem like I agree more with New Covenant Theology.)
Scripture.
Relevant Magazine had an article on the most misused verse in the Bible:
Jeremiah 29:11 that says, “‘For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.”
I thought the article had great insight, especially given that as humans, we have a tendency to look at God as a vending machine: pop our prayer request in the coin slot and wait for our requested result. The author expounds on the context surrounding this oft-quoted verse which shows this verse is not telling readers that God will give us whatever we desire.
Stay-at-home dads.
Matthew Paul Turner at JesusNeedsNewPR tweeted a link to Nicole Wick’s post about Mark Driscoll who bashed stay-at-home dads.
The video is a little old but I was surprised to hear this view from Driscoll given the fact that I usually agree with him. The fact that he was only willing to make “rare exceptions” for men to stay at home to take care of the family was rather appalling to me. In this economic climate and culture, it’s possible for wives to have a better-paying and steadier job than their husbands. In that case, the right way for a husband and father to provide for his family is to let his wife bring in the necessary income for them so that he can be at home rearing the children. (We are assuming in this scenario that the parents have decided they will live off of one income so that one of the parents can be home to raise the children.) An ideal situation would be for a mom to be at home with her children (should she choose to do so) but that is not always the case and I don’t believe that it must always be the case. Driscoll is way off the mark here.
Miscellaneous.
I think there’s more a-brewin’ in my head but the words are all jumbled and I can’t get them out coherently. Some other things going on:
I’ll begin editing on my novel soon so that will be quite a challenge. (See hard copy mess in right photo.)- I’ll be leading the women’s weekday Bible study during the summer so that’s another exciting thing on the horizon.
- I’ll also be part of a book club in which we’ll we reading Ed Welch’s When People Are Big and God Is Small. I read through it for the third time last year but highly enjoy the book and find that it’s chock full of wisdom to the point where I don’t mind reading through it again.
- My husband and I may be going on a trip to Cancun during the summer with my paternal cousins, which I’m highly looking forward to so that I can establish solid relationships with them.
Perhaps you didn’t care to know all that but it made me feel better to type it out.
In the discussion of paedobaptism (aka infant baptism), I’ve debated in my head whether I find the practice to be Biblically justified. It’s not that I don’t want to understand how it’s a Biblical practice, I just don’t see how. For the past three years since becoming a member of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), I’ve read several articles and discussions at length and have listened to a full sermon on why a church says the practice is Biblical. The issue has gained theological steam in my mind as I watch several church members and dear friends baptize their infants. These events have me contemplating whether this is a necessary event I would like my family to participate in should I ever be blessed with a baby. (Heaven knows I won’t be up to the task of figuring this deep theological stuff out with pregnancy brain.)
This Journey Is My Own 