I no longer believe everything I used to about Christianity or the Christian life. Does this mean that I need to publicly recant for all the false beliefs I used to hold? I have this fear that twenty years down the road, my Arminian-baptist-baby dedicating-anyone can baptise me-praise music-premillennial past is going to catch up with me and I’m going to be accused of secretly still holding to those beliefs because I haven’t come out and said that I don’t.
So, do I need to recant?
No. You don’t.
But, just out of curiosity, who do you believe can baptize you?
In the Catholic Church, and the Episcopal Church I was taught that, in a pinch, anyone can baptize someone else.
Cally, I am assuming that you are saying this somewhat tongue in cheek.
If you are serious, may I suggest talking to your pastor about it?
God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
No, I don’t think so. But I am curious….what happened to White Washed Feminists? All of a sudden it seems like there’s this sorta capitulation to patriarchy? Or at least, an attempt to make nice? Which is fine, except, I wanna read the brilliant posts, the precise dissection, the clear-eyed questions again. What happened?
Lutherans too.
No, you don’t need to recant. If anything you believed was actually contrary to scripture and could possibly qualify as a sin, then of course you need to repent, but that’s between you and God…no one else’s bee’s wax.
Totally tongue in cheek, LOL!
Well, IMHO, should be an ordained minister and not some random Bible study leader doing it in someone’s backyard pool. Not sure what they’d do in a pinch… its probably the same as the Roman church.
LOL! Cally, if only ordained ministers can baptize, what will become of all the Christians in closed countries where no official clergy exists? Should they wait until North Korea or China or Saudi Arabia decides to allow ordained ministers into the country?
Just saying… =)
shadowspring, I understand your point. However, I think that you are making a false assumption – i.e. that there are no ordained pastors or official clergy in these countries.
I think that it is pretty safe to say that most Christians in the world are quite concerned about things like the ordination of pastors.
Cally, I thought that you were joking.
However, the price that Luther and others paid for recanting is no joking matter, as I am sure you know.
…I mean NOT recanting…
oops!
oops. Maybe I should recant.
Baptism is simply a testimony that you’re identifying with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection. Whoever assists need only be a ministering brethren.
Think about the Ethiopian eunuch. Philip was just a hitchhiker who explained the meaning of Is 53 to him. When his eyes were opened to salvation, the eunuch wanted to be baptized right then! I know Philip qualifies as ordained, but what if he wasn’t? Would he have said, “Let’s wait for the Sunday service!” Why quench the Spirit?” See here, there is water!” I believe any Holy Spirit indwelled believer can baptize a willing convert.
I understand that, which is why I find it so ridiculous that there are bloggers out there demanding recantation from people who, in the grand scheme of things, are quite insignificant.
FWIW, I’m only describing the way its done in my own tradition. I don’t know all the contingencies and what-if’s unfortunately, both those are good questions.
Momgodin, I believe that baptism is much more then just an outward testimony of an inward transformation- baptism identifies us with and unites us to Christ. It is the sign and seal of the covenant of Grace. It is one of the identifying markers of God’s people (as was circumcision in the Old Testament). It is the means God uses to initiate (for lack of a better word) people into the church. It is not salvific in any way, but it is much more then just a testimony.
I don’t know what Philip would’ve said. In Acts, we certainly see baptism happening immediately after conversion and I think that is the ideal way to do it. However, I also think that the events in Acts were happening in a unique time in Church history where it was easy to do stuff like that. What are we to do today? What if someone comes to faith in the middle of their work day.? Are they supposed to call up the local random pastor and demand to be baptized with water from the drinking fountain? I don’t mean this question to be at all snarky and I have a feeling this is the way I’m coming across. Just not sure how to phrase it another way… but it is a real question
Hi Cally,
No, you don’t need to recant.
What I have done is just given a forthright answer to those who ask when they notice my change in theology. We all change as we experience life and grow in grace but I don’t think that we need to recant for those changes! Things used to be so black/white for me and I know I was a pain in the rear but life has a way of softening a person and making them see the gray.
I used to be dogmatic about “dresses only” and a lot of such and when I came out of that mindset, I did do some ‘splaining about what led me to change me mind. But, I only did this when the topic came up or when I was asked by someone who was confused by my former stance on the issues.
Thanks for trying to help me understand you. Not snarky at all.
“It is the means God uses to initiate (for lack of a better word) people into the church. It is not salvific in any way, but it is much more then just a testimony.”
I wasn’t taught this. Do you have a reference?
We’re taught that being born again- by the Spirit- makes you a member of THE Church. (1 Cor 12:13)
Other memberships? liberty.
First off, when I mention church membership here, I mean membership in the catholic/universal Church (all believers in all times and in all places) and not membership in a specific congregation. In the book of Acts, you don’t have membership in the catholic church apart from baptism. You converted and you were baptized immediately. That is the visible symbol of church membership, whereas being born of the Spirit would be an invisible symbol. In other words, there should be no unbaptized members of the catholic church. Baptism isn’t optional.
What I am saying is that baptism is more than just a symbol. After reading your question this morning, I went back and did a little digging in my church’s statement of faith so that I could make sure that I had things right. I can post about it if you’d like to get a better idea of where I’m coming from. Just let me know.
Corrie, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. If asked directly by someone you know, you talk about what you used to believe versus what you believe now. But do you feel the need to put out a personal statement on your blog about your differences in beliefs?
My pastor grew up in an Independent Bible Church- about as fundamentalist as you can get. He’s now about as Reformed as you can get. He doesn’t hide his fundie background, but he’s never put a statement on his blog or in any of his books repudiating his former beliefs. When asked, he’s straightforward and honest. He’s a pretty well-known scholar of amillennialism in Reformed circles. Does he need to go step by step and say “Here is what I used to believe. I now believe that stuff is false. Here is what I now believe” in order for people to assume he no longer believes the fundie stuff? Am I making sense or have I had too much coffee this morning?
Cally,
As far as closed nations, I get my information mostly from Voice of the Martyrs, formerly known as Christian Mission to the Communist World. http://www.persecution.com/
I was specifically thinking of a story they ran about three teenaged Muslim converts who could get no Christians from official churches to baptise them or even allow them attend services.
It is against the law to share the gospel with Muslims and against the law for Muslims to convert to convert to Christianity. I think it was Egypt. The official church refused to acknowledge these converts because of the suffering it would bring down on their whole congregation.
These three boys baptised themselves by going to the beach and dunking themselves under the water after a prayer of faith and commitment.
I think those baptisms count for sure!
Growth and change happen. We all go through it if we are intelligent, introspective women. No need to recant. You traveled the road. It took you to a different place.
Shadowspring, I would heartily AGREE!! Good for them!
Everybody knows Cally does not have to recant. But if she lived before the Reformation, she would have had to, or faced the consequences.
And even among the Protestants, she would have needed to, or faced dire consequences, in certain instances, depending on what beliefs she was changing to.
We have Martin Luther and company to thank for this, but also the Anabaptists, and probably more so, on account of their great emphasis on freedom of conscience, and the effects their movement has had on those of us in the United States.
So we can take this as tongue in cheek, but there is a very sobering history behind all this. For example, when we get to heaven, we can ask Michael Sattler how it felt to have his tongue burned out of his mouth before he was tortured to death by the Roman Catholics. Or just pick up Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and see how people were treated who didn’t toe the line as they changed their beliefs about what the Bible actually taught about salvation and the Word of God. Many were killed for translating the Bible into the vernacular of the people.
Btw, Cally, how in the world, and why in God’s green earth, would you recant from “praise music,” anyway?
Okay, I feel really bad now. I, in no way, intended to disparage the history and the martyrdom of our beloved fathers and mothers of the faith. I cherish their lives and I pray to God that I would be able to stand before oppressors and confess the True Faith.
Perhaps “recant” is not the right word. I use it because I’ve seen it used elsewhere when people are calling for certain patriocentric leaders to answer for beliefs they used to hold (and might still hold) but that they have not come out against. The point of my post is to ask whether or not we really need to publish a list of teachings we no longer believe. Personally, I don’t think so, obviously…
As for praise music, well, let’s just say that once I discovered the theological richness of hymns and especially the Psalter, the “Christianity Lite” of modern-day praise music lost its appeal. This is a personal thing with me, not a statement against praise music.
Please don’t feel bad on my account, Cally. All I was saying we have the freedoms we have today on account of what others went through during some very dark times in history. They didn’t *need* to recant or face torture and death, either, according to how Scripture says the church should conduct itself, but they did face these things, on account of the sheer corruption of the Church leadership at that time.
“But do you feel the need to put out a personal statement on your blog about your differences in beliefs?”
Nope. That was a long time ago that I changed my beliefs on some of these issues but I did spend a lot of time when I first changed explaining and re-explaining my change. Now everyone knows I am “backslidden” or “not one of us”.
But, if I was a public teacher, writer of books and have set myself as a leader and my books and published writing contained opposite of what I now say on my blog or in other venues, I would most definitely do ALL that I can to be as honest and forthright and upfront about how I have changed so as not to cause confusion. I would not pretend that I never held those beliefs and act offended when someone said that I used to hold to and TEACH those beliefs.
“Perhaps “recant” is not the right word. I use it because I’ve seen it used elsewhere when people are calling for certain patriocentric leaders to answer for beliefs they used to hold (and might still hold) but that they have not come out against. The point of my post is to ask whether or not we really need to publish a list of teachings we no longer believe. Personally, I don’t think so, obviously…”
Ahhh…..I see.
I have never seen this word “recant” used. But, I have seen the confusion and frustration that comes along from reading a book where teachings are clearly laid out or a magazine article and then have the author act as if they didn’t hold to those teachings.
Yes, they should make an effort to let their followers know that they no longer hold to such and such that was written in a book they wrote and the reader bought!
I believe that a leader/teacher is held to a stricter standard in these cases because their published teachings are in black and white and they need to make any changes to those teachings in black and white.
It really wouldn’t be that hard at all for someone to do that.
A FAQ page would be a nice start.
Okay, I went back to where I thought I’d seen this particular word used and it appears that I made a mistake in the wording. “Recant” is not the right word… “renounce” is what was used specifically, although I think their meanings are the same.
I agree.