Home > Christianity, Music, Thoughts > Here, There, and Everywhere

Here, There, and Everywhere

“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.


I am enjoying listening to Danger Mouse’s new group, The Broken Bells. Hat tip to Derek Webb on that one.


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.)


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.


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.

  1. April 8, 2010 at 11:29 PM

    I cared to know! 😀

    • Kass
      April 8, 2010 at 11:36 PM

      Heh. Thanks! 🙂

  2. April 9, 2010 at 4:54 PM

    I think stay at home dad’s are great…when I was a baby my parents both worked-but on different days so that someone was always home with me. I have such an amazing bond with my dad which was most likely formed because he was home being the primary caregiver on those days that my mother was at work.

    As far as the baptism debate. When I went to Church, it was always the Catholic Church. The reason behind infant baptism was to wash away the original sin…if that person died before the ceremony could be performed then that person could not go to heaven. They would be stuck in purgatory…so therefore, it was important for the baby to be baptized as early as possible. But, the Catholics have a separate ceremony when the child decides to become a full member of the Church. Other Churches use Baptism as the person’s way of becoming a full member of the Church and accepting Jesus Christ…and that should be done at an age when the person is aware of the commitment.

    I don’t know if this makes sense…

    • Kass
      April 9, 2010 at 4:57 PM

      That makes total sense, especially since I’m a former Catholic. 🙂

      The Presbyterians in my denomination don’t see infant baptism the same way Catholics do. They see infant baptism as more of a promise of something than anything else. They say it’s more than symbolic but I don’t see the difference between it being called infant baptism or infant dedication.

      It’s not a big deal but it’s a theological point I can’t wrap my head around.

  3. April 12, 2010 at 8:23 PM

    I don’t think it’s so much of a case of “the Presbyterians in your denomination” as perhaps the ones in your particular church. Yes, there are a lot of people in the PCA who hold to what some call “baptism lite,” but as I read the confessional documents that the PCA at least gives lipservice to, I find something much more robust. You have spoken truth in that, for many (most?) in the PCA, a baptism is little more (if anything more) than a “baby dedication” in which the baby gets a little wet. But that is not what is taught in the Presbyterian confessions. According to our confession, baptism is not only a sign but also a seal of the covenant of grace, of washing from sin, and yes, of regeneration.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: