Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Yup.  That sounds like the kind of thing that goes on a lot around
    here.
    
    Richard
    

    The Cornerstone Baptist Church actions are justified *within* their own
    belief system.  After all, they think that anyone who does not conform
    to their idea of salvation will be damned.  So, from their perspective,
    they were following a higher calling.

    See Steve's note 660 on the ends justifying the means regarding the
    salvation of children.
    
    Ruth

I read the article in the paper with amusement.

It appears that this church believes that the simple act of baptism (even when
the subject doesn't really understand what is going on) will save either the
baptist or the baptisee. I assume that this is not mainstream thinking. If it
is I would appreciate an explanation on how this works.

Steve

    RE .1

    So would this be a fundamentalist church or and evangelical church?

    Eric

    >So would this be a fundamentalist church or an evangelical church?
    
    Yes.
    
    -- Mike

>    belief system.  After all, they think that anyone who does not conform
>    to their idea of salvation will be damned.  So, from their perspective,
 
     They were not following their own idea of salvation.

     However, based on the information presented I do question this particular
     incident.






    Jim

    >"No one can show me a passage in the Bible where it says parental
    >permission is required before a child is baptized."
    
    I beg to differ with Pastor Dan.  Aside from the fact that he is
    contravening the spirit of the Biblical commandment to honor one's
    father and one's mother (since he was having those children working
    behind the backs and contrary to the will of their parents), there is
    also a passage in the Bible that says something about lying being a
    no-no, and given that "outraged parents said they thought their kids
    were going to a carnival", it appears that somebody was doing some
    lying at some point.

    -- Mike

    Saved whether you consciously want to be or not; with or without parental
    knowledge or consent.
    
    Amazing.
    
    Richard

 Does the article specify the ages of the children involved?





 Jim

Given the little snippet and accepting it at face value, I
take this action to be totally inappropriate and deceitful.
If this were my pastor and I was on the board (or elders)
that makes decisions (such as when I chaired the Pastor
Parish relations committee at a Methodist Church), I would
certainly consider reprimanding or firing the Pastor.

The ages of the "children" are certainly relevant.  However,
baptism is not something that is entered into lightly nor
is it something that the family should be unaware of.  There's
no rush to baptize.

Obviously, this was not an Evangelical church.  :-)

Collis

Re: .9  Jim

> Does the article specify the ages of the children involved?

No.  I typed in the entire article (more like a "blurb", really) from
Newsweek.

To our Colorado Springs folks: was there anything about this in the local
papers?

				-- Bob

The Gazette carried a fairly lengthy article on this. 

Here is how I remember it, if anyone has the article or different recollections,
please chime in.

The article talked about two kids specifically, one was 8 and the other was
(I think) 9 or 10. The flier that was given out about the 'carnival' mentioned
in small print at the bottom that some baptisms might take place. The main
draw was a water fight in which water pistols would be given to the participants.

The children submitted to the ritual (including changing clothes, the kids 
said with the help of a church member, I believe the pastor denied this) 
because they were told if they didn't they might be 'stung to death by bees'.
When confronted with this the pastor said that they misunderstood some 
passages about the removal of the sting of death. 

I also got the impression that the church operated out of a bus, ie. it isn't
a Springs church, ie. it travels around the country.

I believe it was a fundamentalist church because they used the lure of 'fun'
to get the kids there! :^)

I'll try to retrieve the article, but I think I tossed it this morning :^(

Steve

 A number of churches operate "bus ministries" where buses operated by church 
 members (with the proper licenses) go into communities to pick up kids and
 bring them to church (with the parent's permission though I know of a number
 of cases where the parents could care less where their kids are).  Sounds like
 maybe the church in question here did something similar.


 At any rate, from the information presented here in the newsweek article and
 the summation from -.1, it sounds like somebody stepped a bit out of bounds
 here, to say the least.




 Jim

    re .6

    Jim,

    >>They were not following their own idea of salvation.

    I live practically next door to this church.  You can see it from my
    back yard.  They send their representatives into my neighborhood on a
    regular basis to "convert" the heathen infidels.  I have talked with
    these people.

    Their idea of salvation is very much in line with most fundamentalist
    and evangelical doctrines.  Christianity has some fine old traditions
    in the area of "compelling" people to convert.

    This topic fits so nicely with 660.  You see, this church had obviously
    taken the first step in the same line of reasoning.  So they did
    something that most of us find repugnant.  But, if one _actually_
    believes that people who do not "get saved" are destined for an
    eternity in pain and suffering, then by their reasoning, it would be
    better to err on the side of too much enthusiasm than too little.
    
    Ruth

>    >>They were not following their own idea of salvation.

 >   I live practically next door to this church.  You can see it from my
 >   back yard.  They send their representatives into my neighborhood on a
 >   regular basis to "convert" the heathen infidels.  I have talked with
 >   these people.

     I believe that for every "heathen infidel" that slams the door in the
     face of person interested in sharing the Gospel of Christ with them, there
     are 2 or 3 who are just waiting for the message of salvation.  I could
     share 2 incidents (one in which I was a direct participant) in which that
     was demonstrated just this week alone.




 >  Their idea of salvation is very much in line with most fundamentalist
 >   and evangelical doctrines.  Christianity has some fine old traditions
 >   in the area of "compelling" people to convert.

  
     My point of course was that they are following the command that Jesus 
     gave them, and that this idea of salvation is not theirs but God's (setting
     aside for a moment the issue addressed in the base note).

     


>    believes that people who do not "get saved" are destined for an
>    eternity in pain and suffering, then by their reasoning, it would be
>    better to err on the side of too much enthusiasm than too little.
    
 
     Agreed, but I *do* have a problem with this particular incident based on
     the information presented.





 Jim

Re:  .14

Now which is it, Ruth, fundamentalist or evangelical doctrines?

Since you live right next door to the church, you can probably
tell us something about it.  What do they say?  What do they
expect of members, etc.?

Collis

    .16
    
    To me, Collis, it's like asking, "What color is your goldfish?"
    
    Richard
    

re: .15

>     I believe that for every "heathen infidel" that slams the door in the
>     face of person interested in sharing the Gospel of Christ with them, there

I never slam the door. In fact, I invite them in, lock the door behind them and
settle in for a nice long debate. My goal is to convert THEM to atheism. It 
never happens, of course, but it at least prevents them from annoying my 
neighbors (they always leave the neighborhood immediately, I've never seen 
them try the next house).

For my scorecard, I win a minor victory when they are finally forced back to
the position that in order for it to make sense you just have to have faith
(abandon logic) and a major victory if I get condemned to hell. There are rules,
I am only allowed to argue rationally, ie. if I get emotional or loud I lose.

Before you jump all over me please understand, I have a lot of devoutly religious
friends that I would never try to change. Your faith and beliefs are a private
matter and, while I may not agree, I will respect them. And I don't start 
philosphical discussions, and I wouldn't go to a church to try to argue with 
people about religion. But when you get to my door it seems only fair that I
get to have a go just like you do.

That is why I asked permission before joining this conference, but I do enjoy
a good, well argued debate :^)

Steve

    re .16

    Collis,  

    >>Now which is it, Ruth, fundamentalist or evangelical doctrines?

    I know that you make a distinction between fundamentalist and
    evangelical.  My sister does this too.  I have read your notes on this
    topic, and quite honestly, I can't see what to me appears to be a wispy
    fine line on shifting sands.

    Out of respect for you, I will call you whatever label you prefer.  But
    to ask me to assess this extremely subtle (and in my opinion
    nonexistent) difference for a huge group of people is tacky.


    >>What do they say?  What do they expect of members, etc.?

    My parents attend this church whenever they visit me and they report
    that it is "good and Bible-based."  The missionaries who always arrive
    on my doorstep while I'm trying to cook dinner sound amazingly just
    like you.  No kiddin'.

    Ruth

Well, if you don't know if they are Fundamentalist or Evangelical,
it would be best not to label them as either.  That way you want
be asked to make distinctions that you can't make.

Perhaps next time they come knocking on your door, you can ask
them which (if either) they are.

I am certainly glad that they are a Bible-based church.  There is
ample Scripture in the Bible to provide a common basis for questioning
the baptisms involved (such as "counting the cost" - did these kids
really profess Christ after counting the cost - and then expect to
be baptized immediately?)

It does not surprise me that people who rely on the same external
authority would sound similar.  That, however, does not mean that we
may not disagree in a number of areas.

Collis

Note 678.20

>Well, if you don't know if they are Fundamentalist or Evangelical,
>it would be best not to label them as either.  That way you want
>be asked to make distinctions that you can't make.

Their typical answer: "We're Christians."  Tacitly, their answer is:
"We're *the real* Christians."

I really doubt these folks have attended the same schools of thought
as we, Collis. :-)

Richard

PS  Your reply to Ruth came across (to me) as a bit patronizing.  Don't
know if you realize that.

    re .20

    Collis,

    >>Well, if you don't know if they are Fundamentalist or Evangelical,
    >>it would be best not to label them as either.  That way you want
    >>be asked to make distinctions that you can't make.

    I did not label them as either in this note.  I'm not sure why you
    thought I did.  

    >>Perhaps next time they come knocking on your door, you can ask
    >>them which (if either) they are.

    What an amazing idea!  Collis to me this would be the equivalent of
    saying, "Uh, pardon me, could you tell me if you think angels dance on
    the left side of the pin or the right?"

    For all your talk about following The Bible so intently, could you tell
    me where the words "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" are so clearly
    defined therein?

    And if it isn't in The Bible, on whose authority are these definitions
    and distinctions true?  


    >>I am certainly glad that they are a Bible-based church.  There is
    >>ample Scripture in the Bible to provide a common basis for questioning
    >>the baptisms involved 

    There is also enough Scripture to back them up.

    "Go ye into all the world..."

    "Compel them ...."

    "Suffer the little children..."

    plus all of the threats of hellfire if they don't 

    ----->I hold that what they did was legitimate within their religious
    belief system and also legitimate within most
    fundamentalist/evangelical/conservative Christian belief systems.
     
    The Cornerstone Baptist Church is a normal Baptist church, operating
    within the parameters of their own belief system.

    Ruth

   >I did not label them as either in this note.  I'm not sure why you
   >thought I did.  

Because of this in .14

   >Their idea of salvation is very much in line with most fundamentalist
   >and evangelical doctrines. 

If you want to throw labels into the mix but don't want them to apply,
then it would help if you also specifically noted that they may not be
either fundamentalist or evangelical despite some similirities of
doctrine. 

     >>Perhaps next time they come knocking on your door, you can ask
     >>them which (if either) they are.

   >What an amazing idea!  Collis to me this would be the equivalent of
   >saying, "Uh, pardon me, could you tell me if you think angels dance on
   >the left side of the pin or the right?"

Give me a break, Ruth.  I suppose you think that asking a politician
who knocks on your door if he is a Democrat or a Republican (or affiliated
with some other political party) is also like asking if angels dance on
the left side of the pin or the right?

  >For all your talk about following The Bible so intently, could you tell
  >me where the words "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" are so clearly
  >defined therein?

If you tell me where Democrat or Republican are defined in the Constitution.
What nonsense!

  >The Cornerstone Baptist Church is a normal Baptist church, operating
  >within the parameters of their own belief system.

Define "normal".  If you consider the event described in the news article
as "normal" for a church (or even a Baptist church), you are dead wrong from
my perspective.  But I can see why you'd like to categorize it as normal.

Collis



 

    Where does one register as a fundamentalist or an evangelical?
    
    *<8*)
    
    Richard
    

    Collis,

    We're really talking around the issue here.  Could you make a list
    of specific doctrinal/philosophic differences between fundamentalist
    and evangelicals?  

    I'm just a tad frustrated, because of this lack of specificity.  You
    want me to correctly delineate between these two categories, yet offer
    no real method to do so.  (I did read the notes you pointed to on this
    previously, but did not find them very informative.)

    My feeling on this is that people do not want to call themselves
    "fundamentalist" because it is not trendy to do so.  I see a class
    distinction more than anything else.  People who have less money and
    less education tend to call themselves fundamentalist.  People with
    more money and education call themselves evangelical and people with
    even more money and education call themselves conservative.  

    I think you perceive that I am attacking you, but this is not my
    intent.  I don't agree with you, but I have much respect for you.  You
    are persistent, steadfast, and intelligent.  You are a beloved brother. 
    You can help me by working with me Collis, not against.

    I'd like to understand.  If you have time and don't mind doing so, how
    about if we take this conversation back to the note on defining
    fundamentalism?

    Your sister in Christ,

    Ruth

    re .24

    >> Define "normal".  If you consider the event described in the news
    >>article as "normal" for a church (or even a Baptist church), you are
    >>dead wrong from my perspective.  

    It is normal for _______ (fill in blank with PC word that means
    churches that are under bondage to the New Law) to judge and condemn
    their fellow humans, to scare and warp children by telling them God
    will send them to hell if they aren't good, to proclaim that they have
    the corner on God, and to use any means they think they can get away
    with (within the boundaries of their Law Book) to further their agenda.



    >>But I can see why you'd like to categorize it as normal.
     
    'Splain it to me.

    Ruth

    Can I suggest you agree to discuss things using words that you will not
    have to argue over the meaning of.

    Blessed are the peacemakers.
    
    Richard

Re:  .27

Thanks for the definition, Ruth.

  >...judge and condemn their fellow humans, 

A lot of us do step over that line at times (judging when we shouldn't).
Indeed there are churches (and church members) that fairly regularly
judge others when they should be loving others.

  >...to scare and warp children by telling them God will send them to hell 
  >if they aren't good, 

Are people still out there telling kids or anyone that being good will keep
them from going to hell?  Old lies die hard.

Of course, sharing the *truth* about heaven and hell is quite normal.

  >...to proclaim that they have the corner on God, 

I certainly have no objection to someone claiming that they know who God
is.  Of course, they could be wrong.  I know God both because He has told
me (and you) not only what He is, but what He isn't - which contradicts
much of what others say He is.

  >...and to use any means they think they can get away with (within the 
  >boundaries of their Law Book) to further their agenda.

This is a real problem, as I see it.  I disagree with you that "normal"
churches do this as a way of life.  I think that such behavior is the
exception and not the norm.  

Collis

  >Explain it to me.

If your desire is to bash conservative churches, you will take this
one example, apply the appropriate labels, claim that this church
is typical (normal) and, therefore, that conservative churches are
a disgrace (in some way or another).

If you wish to deal with this incident, you will avoid using
labels, you will refrain from claiming that this incident is
typical without clear and pressing evidence, and you will listen
to those conservatives who, like you, feel that this behavior
was totally inappropriate.

Perhaps you have not thought of the impact of how you say things
and who gets lumped into what.

Collis 

Note 678.31

>If you wish to deal with this incident, you will avoid using
>labels, you will refrain from claiming that this incident is
>typical without clear and pressing evidence, and you will listen
>to those conservatives who, like you, feel that this behavior
>was totally inappropriate.

Perhaps we could call a spade "a traditionally black, leaf-like emblem
found on the corner of playing cards, not to be confused with a club,
heart or diamond."

Richard

    Collis,  

    re .31

    I did not say this incident was typical or even a normal occurrence.

    What I said was that it was within the parameters of this church's
    belief system.  

    This is why I put the pointer back to note 660.  This is an extreme
    condition, but nevertheless within the logical boundaries of the
    typical conservative Christian doctrines.

    And by thinking that I just want to "bash" conservative thought, you
    are missing the point entirely.  Entirely, Collis.

    My point is that much of the conservative Christian belief system falls
    apart whenever it is pushed to a boundary condition.  

    Most of us find the Cornerstone Pastor's actions repulsive.  This is
    our heart speaking.  But, if we *really* believed in the conservative
    Christian doctrine of God sending people to hell, we'd be giving the
    man a medal.  Look, he just lead two souls away from eternal damnation.
    He's a hero.  

    Ruth

    Ruth, could you just explain your views of baptism, sin, and salvation
    rather the attributing other views to others and then mocking them.
    
    Are these concepts relevant to you or are they merely inconsequential
    things that only merit your sarcasm?
    
    Pat

    Patrick,
    
    	What motivates such tersely worded and closed-ended inquiries
    from you?
    
    Richard
    

  >This is our heart speaking.  But, if we *really* believed in the 
  >conservative Christian doctrine of God sending people to hell, we'd 
  >be giving the man a medal.  Look, he just lead two souls away from 
  >eternal damnation.  He's a hero.  

*I* believe that God sends people to hell and I'm not giving the man
a medal.  You're way off base here.

We had a discussion a little while ago where it was indicated that the
ends do not justify the means.  Not that baptizing kids is going to
save them (but that's another discussion).  I believe that even the
Roman Catholic Church acknowledges that people who have been baptized
can be lost.

And I actually was not attempting to question your motives.  However, I
sure do question what you said and the way you said it.  It may well
have been unintentional, but the inferences that I pointed out are
all there and they are all perfectly clear.  If you want to avoid these
inferences, then you need to be more diligent in how you phrase things.
I expect, however, that the inferences set perfectly well with you
and that you have no great desire to not have them there.

What I hear you saying now is that this is NOT a normal occurence (does
that make it an abnormal occurence) from a normal church which is
perfectly consistent with the church's beliefs and structure.

  >My point is that much of the conservative Christian belief system falls
  >apart whenever it is pushed to a boundary condition.  

You're painting with much too wide of a brush.  Which beliefs?  
(Fundamentalist or Evangelical :-) :-) )  The belief that there is a
God that punishes people who reject Him?

The problem is not with the belief.  The problem is with the people who
pursue wrong avenues.  This can happen with *any* belief.  I'm perfectly
willing to show you how any belief can be twisted so that inappropriate
action is taken.  Departing from the truth of God's wrath does not solve
the problem; people will do wrong things at times whether it is based
on truth or lies.

Collis

Re:  .32

I typically call spades shovels.

    O, but there's a difference between spades and shovels.  And we *must*
    refer to them by the signifier they choose to be identified by.
    
    Lumping spades and shovels together might be perceived as bashing.
    
    Hoe, hoe, hoe!
    
    Richard
    

    RE .34
    
    ..."sarcasm..."mocking"   ?????
    
    Patrick,  my goodness, how on earth do you *get* these ideas?  Ask
    someone who knows me here if I am the type to mock.
    
    Ruth

    Ruth, that's just the point, I don't know you.  Your entries are just
    words on a screen to me, as mine are to you.
    
    Are baptism, sin, and salvation relevant to you and your Christian
    perspective?              

    That's an interesting comment, Patrick.  Perhaps if you thought of the
    people who you intereact with here as flesh and blood human beings,
    rather than as "just words on a screen", then that might inspire your
    communication style in this notes file to be less terse and abrasive.
    
    -- Mike

    I haven't bothered to read all the notes here so if I repeat something,
    I'm sorry.  I'm just too tired to read all the banter on this.
    
    Cornerstone Baptist Church is a fundamental, legalistic church first
    and foremost.  I had a friend who attended there who got an ulcer from
    worrying about everything she did.
    
    I have mixed feelings on this kind of thing.  I believe that even a
    child of 8 or 10 years of age can understand what they are doing in
    relation to accepting Jesus into their hearts and following in baptism. 
    I was 8 when I was saved, so I know from which I speak.  It is possible
    and I think that a child concerning their spiritual well being has the
    right to decide these things for him/herself.  (Funny that some here
    wouldn't question the child's right without parental consent if this
    was an abortion!)  Anyway...despite all this.  My church always has a
    child go home and discuss his salvation with his parents and ask if
    they have any problem with he/she being baptized.  If the parents wish
    to talk about it with the church, the staff is readily available.  If
    not and the parents don't want their child baptised, we recommend that
    the child wait until they are of an age of consent where they can
    follow in baptism.
    
    Jill

Note 678.42
    
>   (Funny that some here
>   wouldn't question the child's right without parental consent if this
>   was an abortion!)

I would!  I'm an advocate of no sex for unmarried teens.  See note 361.22
and entries that follow.

Richard

    Er.  The flip side of not allowing a child to have an abortion without
    parental consent is compelling a child to have an abortion by parental
    override.
    
    							Ann B.

    .44
    
    I've heard of that situation.  By its very nature, I guess I'm not
    likely to know any who's experienced it.
    
    Richard
    

Re: .42

Jill,

These kids had NO idea what was going on. They thought that they would be stung
to death by bees if they didn't participate!

Steve

    Hi Steve,
    
    I'm not talking specifically about these kids.  I don't agree with
    what Cornerstone Baptist did.  I was talking in broader terms.  I'm 
    not sure parents have the right to decide when a child is ready for 
    things of a spiritual nature.  The heart is between God and that child.  
    My parents never said when I couldn't or could be baptised.  I 
    chose to wait util I was in junior high school before I decided to 
    be baptised.  My point is if the child is old enough to realize the 
    consequences of his/her action and wants to change that, I think that's 
    the child's choice.  Belief are personal to each individual, even
    children.
    
    Now...specifically I don't agree with Cornerstone's methods.  I
    don't believe this kind of stuff should be in the fine print.
    I don't believe in scaring anybody into the kingdom.  I believe
    people will come willingly, they have to come willingly or it
    means nothing.  Which brings up a interesting point.  If baptism 
    is supposed to mean something to the individual.  If it has to be 
    a personal conviction.  And if these kids didn't have that...weren't 
    they simply dunked and not baptised.  On the down side I hate to 
    see a child's decision ignored because of a bad experience.   I 
    hope the children seek out answers to the confusion this situation 
    may have caused.
    
    Jill

re .47

Jill, 

I apologize, I didn't realize you were looking at a higher level.

A question from curiosity. You said that a child could make the decision to
be baptised (or not) and that was fine with you. What if your 12 year old made
a decision to join another religion, such as Islam, or to denounce God entirely.
Would you intervene then?

Steve

    
    Steve, I don't think there is much I could do.  I could reason with
    them, but I couldn't make up their mind for them.  I guess I would
    attend with them to see what they were learning and if I felt it
    was harmful I might curtail some of the activities they could go to.
    Even my parents decided what I could and couldn't go to.  I would 
    show them love and I would be diligent in my prayers for them.  But
    if they prayed to Allah and read the Koran, I don't think I could
    honestly do anything to stop them.  I would still try to have what
    I believe are the right influences in their life.  That's not easy
    to do with a resistant 12 yr. old.  Sometimes despite wanting to
    protect them you have to let them make their mistakes and learn
    from them.  Since I don't have kids, I was using my 12 yr. old
    niece as a mindset.  
    
    Jill

    re .40
    
    Patrick, 
    
       > Are baptism, sin, and salvation relevant to you and your Christian
       > perspective?
    
    Yes.  But if you want me to elaborate you'll have to ask me *sweetly*.
    
    Ruth