Top

Jesus and the Kids

Written by Jason Evans : May 14, 2008

We’ve tossed out several Bible story books in our home. In a Western world painted with pictures of Middle Eastern “terrorists,” the last thing we want is for our children to forget that Jesus looked a lot more like bin Laden than their white dad. We realized this one evening when reading out loud one such book that had been given to us as a gift. Our daughter quipped to her brother, “Maybe you’ll look like Jesus when you grow up!” Jesus did have blond hair in the cartoon, just like her brother. I quickly pulled out a news magazine with photos from Iraq. “I’m pretty sure Jesus looked a lot more like that guy than this cartoon drawing.” Their faces were puzzled. The book was in the trash by the time the kids were in bed.

In great part, my wife and I have practiced “church” the way we have due to our children. When I resigned from professional ministry, my wife was pregnant with our first child, our daughter. Around that same time, I had the privilege of interviewing author and pastor Chris Seay of Ecclesia in Houston, TX. He said something that I thought was quite profound. Out of all the interviews I’ve conducted, his words have stuck with me more than most:

We tend to subdivide the Body in a way that has no natural relationships or interaction because we’re built on felt-need models. Instead, single people need to learn from married people; young marrieds without kids should learn from married people with kids; and married people with kids should learn from married people with grown kids.
(read the article)

I don’t know if Seay would have drawn the conclusion I did from that statement, but it was as if the light was turned on for me. I realized that my Christian experience had primarily been “subdivided” just as Seay explained. As a leader of young people, I often saw the complete disconnect between parents and their children in regards to the child’s spiritual development. That was my responsibility.

Every Sunday morning, we all head in our varied directions. The elderly go to their senior’s study. The children go to Sunday School. Teenagers go to youth group. In an era of obsession with a programmatic approach to ministry, we had completely diced up the Body of Christ. No wonder our divorce rates were as high as any other groups! No wonder young people left after high school, never to return!
With my own child on the way, I wanted to do things different. Not just for my own need as a protective parent, but as a person wanting to provide a Christian paradigm that better prepared my children to be missional people and allow them to learn about life from people from a variety of stages and experience.

Since then, as we’ve met in more egalitarian modes over the years, there have not been any great “solutions” of what to do with children during meetings, worship, and prayer. A long time ago, I stopped trying to do anything about kids during our meetings. It bugs some people. Mostly young, single adults. They’ll get over it. Kids are honest. They don’t pretend to be holy when they aren’t. They don’t pretend to be interested in conversations that go nowhere. But attempting to talk over the noise or putting them in front of a movie isn’t the answer. The answer doesn’t even exist in those moments when a community meets. It is in the rest of life.

We, as parents, need to take back our right to be our children’s spiritual directors. We owe it to our children. I have told families in our community that it is our responsibility as a community to help them be more radical followers of Jesus so that they may do the same for their children. Of course, we welcome children in our meetings. We are a spiritual family. With joy, we work through each of our limitations and abilities, no matter what age or capacity. But we are conscious of the fact that we have to support and empower parents to be just that: parents.

What we discovered is that many of us don’t know where to start with our children. Other people had done it for us for generations. Christian bookstores aren’t much help in resourcing us either. They sell terrible children’s music and offer cheesy white-Jesus story books that typically pull out oversimplified moral platitudes from complex narratives.

The first time I read to my children the story of Noah and the Ark, they were appalled! I decided to read the classic Bible story–that exists on everything from wallpaper to night lights–out of the Message version. I stopped midway through the story, looked up and asked, “What do you guys think about this so far?” With jaw on the floor and eyes wide open, my son replied, “God is mean!”

This storytelling set us into a week-long conversation that we continued to come back to. Was God mean? What does this say about justice? What do we know about God’s promises to us because of this story? What does this tell us about what God thinks about Creation? Our four year old son and six year old daughter wrestled with these uncertainties and came to their own conclusions that were often different from each others and mine. Of course, I told them what I believed about this story but it didn’t make Noah and the Ark a cute story anymore!

Why do I share these stories? Because we need to be deliberate about sharing ideas, stories and resources with each other as parents trying to raise kids that are growing up in a globalized, post-Christendom world. Because we need to root our kids in the fact that biblical narrative is supposed to inform reality today in every context. Because we can’t depend on programs and products to do it for us anymore (not that we ever should have). Because when we’ve dissected ourselves into age-specific quadrants, we’ve been prone to make the biblical story no more than feel-good solutions for minor life problems, rather than an over-arching story that we form our entire lives around. Chances are, your children are more prepared for this than you are.

Jason Evans, along with Brooke and their two kids, are a part of an intentional community called the Hawthorn House. He is a co-founder of the Ecclesia Collective, a group of people committed to nurturing grassroots expressions of the Kingdom in San Diego, CA. Before the EC, Jason and Brooke helped start Matthew's House, a cluster of house churches at the north end of San Diego county.


If you appreciate articles like this, consider making a donation to help Jesus Manifesto pay the bills.



Print This Article Print This Article

for further reading . . .

Comments

Viewing 25 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Good post, important stuff! The way we do it in our house church is to have a meal ("Jesus-dinner"/the Lord´s meal) in the center of our church. This makes it easier (not easy...) to welcome the children in the middle of the Messiah´s body, instead of sending them away when we do the important stuff (Jesus doesn´t seem to like that kind of behavior...). We have a short time of thanks-giving and someone reminding us of Jesus in the middle of the meal, but only for a few minutes. Besides this, we also meet in the evenings when the children are sleep so that we get to study the Bible, make decisions, share our need etc in a whole-hearted way.
    • ^
    • v
    Wow, awesome article. Thank you! We've had a hard time finding a church where our little ones are accepted and included during the "important stuff". I've also puzzled why 1 Cor. 10 ? is cited as the reason why children should not participate in the "Jesus meal" when the whole thrust of the passage is directed against those who divide the Body into classes.
    • ^
    • v
    Love the story, Jason.

    And I have FINALLY found a kids bible that I like too - the Jesus Storybook Bible, http://urltea.com/37hk, in which these things actually happen:

    1) the paintings of the figures are all brown skinned and also just kinda funky
    2) the stories are told as stories, without the need for a "so you see kids, the lesson of this story is..." crapshoot
    3) all the stories hint toward (or back to) Jesus

    I think this bible would be fantastic for adults too...

    Also, love this:"We, as parents, need to take back our right to be our children’s spiritual directors"
    • ^
    • v
    thank you for bringing up relevant issues/questions without 10 (overly)simple answers. Our small community has quite a few children, and we've worked on this for several years. agree that we don't just want programs to train our kids, but programs sure are put together well sometimes :and are easy to manage for the untrained...

    Like most things, a big part seems to be that we must not think our children's faith development is for "someone else" to take care of. We wouldn't do that with adults! We are ok beginning with our stories, living wiht ambiguity, embracing the questions....with our peers. But when it comes to children, we often still feel the need to get it all "right" and have all the answers. Am I ok telling my kids, "I don't know"?

    like everyone, our kids want us to love them and be authentic. I'm pretty sure they'll turn out ok and still love us if we can't explain everything about God or the Bible. Heck, I think they are just glad when we try. I guess I'm banking on that :)
    • ^
    • v
    hewhocutsdown's Seesmic video reply from Disqus.
    • ^
    • v
    By the way, Rich Melheim & the folks over at Faith Inkubators have been pushing away from the 'Sunday School' approach and emphasizing a family-oriented induction....

    http://www.faithink.com/

    I particularly got a kick out of their 10 foundations:

    Ten Foundations of Faith Inkbuators

    1. Jesus Christ is the only Son of the Living God.
    2. The Bible is the only text book you need for Christian education.
    3. A living, loving Christian role model in the home is by far the best delivery system for passing on the Christian faith.
    4. Christian parents are charged with the honor and responsibility to raise their children to know Jesus. The church should help them, but not do the job for them.
    5. The family is a church (“wherever two or three are gathered in my name…”) and must be inspired, challenged, and trained to model all the functions of the church (education, proclamation, prayer, acts of loving service, etc.) in the home.
    6. Everything you do in church on Sunday should go home in bite-sized chunks Monday – Saturday to continue and deepen the discussion between parents and children.
    7. You gotta open the kid before you open the book. – Rich Melheim
    8. Good teaching is one-fourth preparation and three-fourths theater. – Gail Godwin
    9. "It's a sin to bore a kid with the Gospel" – Jim Rayburn
    10. The passing on of the faith to the next generation is much too important a task to be left in the hands of those who are paid to do it. – April Ulrich Larsen
    • ^
    • v
    As a father of three I'm completely with you on this. I have sat through many a glaring look from fellow Church people as they wondered why my toddlers couldn't manage to be as quiet as people 50 times their age. If the Church is to be truly catholic, truly universal, it must be a Church for all people. Not just a church for for the mature, not just a church for the quiet, not just a church for the mentally advanced or even for the mentally sound, but a Church open to all and accessible to all who have heard the call to assemble in God's presence and to be counted as His own. Children can be disruptive, yes, but so can snoring old people. The church to be the Church must always resist the temptation to be a club of similar thinking, similar looking, and similarly mature people. Children are not just future adults or even just future Christians. They are people now, and as my children are baptized into the Church they are Christians now, in all their quirks and immaturities. They are not all they may be one day, but neither am I. And it is so arrogant of some to think that because they can sit still and be quiet that God is so much more approving of their presence. But for God's grace we would all be jumping around and acting like monkeys, and I wonder if to God we sometimes do appear that way. Children have a function in the body, as the apostle Paul said that we all have a gift. If the way we do Church does not seem conducive to the presence of Children then the answer is not to exclude the children. This issue is so important and I think many Churches will face serious judgment over this. The adults in many churches are like those who embraced the rich man in the book of James. Their maturity is their wealth and they look down upon a child who cannot measure up and consign him to some low seat in the house (children's church). What does the James passage say in conclusion of this matter? It says judgment is without mercy to those who show no mercy.
    • ^
    • v
    I have a question for Luke and Jason. You both seems to view the children (the baptized children?) as disciples. Since even baptist baptize children these days, this doesn´t say what tradition you belong to, so I wonder if you think children should be baptized, and if children should be seen as disciples?

    I was baptized at the eight, something I "regret" these days. I think our children should be welcomed into the community of the church without being baptized, and I think baptism should be linked to a radical conversion, turning from the world to Jesus, being ready to follow him to the cross etc. In my view, no one should be baptized before being ready and able to give up her/his life for Jesus, and therefor I think a child cannot be a follower of rabbi Jesus. I hold to a radical baptist position in regard to this.
    • ^
    • v
    I was hoping Jason would get to this before I did but here I am. I was brought up in a bible church/baptist tradition, but was baptized into the presbyterian church as an early teenager and am now in the episcopalian tradition. My children were all baptized as infants as this is my conviction, and I do view them as disciples. My hope is that their learning to be disciples of Jesus is as much a natural part of their growing process as learning to walk, talk and eat.
    I guess I have a rather Romanist view of baptism. I think it initiates a genuine union with Jesus Christ. Not that the water is magic or anything, but the promise of God is attached to baptism in such a way that it is effective. Much the same way that a marriage ceremony creates a mystical bond between a man and a woman, so a baptism creates a mystical bond between God and the one who is baptized.. Some marriages end in divorce and some baptisms may end in apostasy, but the baptism is no less real or effective than the marriage. If you marry someone, you are really married. And if you are baptized, whether you may feel like it or not, you really belong to Christ. Am I ready to die for Jesus? Yes, I think I am. But when I am so sure of my faith I need to remember that Jesus set forth a child as the preeminent example of what our faith ought to be. If I waited until I was spiritually mature before being baptized, I would have missed out on many valuable years of walking and talking with God. My baptism is a reminder to me that God sought me out before I sought him out. Way back in my past when I really didn't give Him a thought, he thought of me. And if my children grow to serve Him with all their might, I hope their baptisms will remind them that before they loved God, He loved them and sought them out and was working in their parents lives and in the lives of those who went before us, to prepare a way for them to walk in.
    • ^
    • v
    Good question, Jonas. Sorry for a delayed response. I differ from Luke's response. Although, I'm not convinced God really minds either way to be honest. Luke explains his heritage and expression in a beautiful manner for which I completely appreciate and respect.

    To answer for myself, some of Jesus' last words to his followers were, make disciples and baptize them. So, they way I see it, discipleship precedes baptism. Do I see my kids as disciples? Yes. They're my disciples. When they decide to be a disciple of Jesus' I will baptize them. I think one of my children will probably make this quite young. And I'm okay with that. I think the other one is going to wait for quite awhile. And I'm good with that too.

    "Radical conversion" is a loaded term. My experience has been that radical emotional experiences most often lead to a slow, life-long conversion. Maybe that's why I see Luke's experience as valid as well.

    Anabaptists got their title because of their practice of re-baptizing folks that had already been baptized as infants. Most had a problem with the baptizing practices of Anabaptists because it messed with how taxation was monitored. A household was taxed based on how many children bad been baptized in the Church.

    I say this because what we have often assumed only to be about a right way to baptize folks was much more if you "read between the lines". Anabaptists were making an economic and political statement as well. How do our rituals today do the same thing? What are we missing out on when we concern ourselves only with orthodoxy?

    ... That was longer then I had planned. Thanks for asking!
    • ^
    • v
    Luke/Jason. Thanks. I am familiar with both of your positions. In one way, though, despite being a (kind of) baptist, I might regard Lukes position as more coherent. I´m not sure about Jasons interpretation about the anabaptists. I have studied historic anabaptism a lot and read their writings, and what you bring up might be a part of their motivation, but it at least wasn´t what they were emphasizing or arguing from (sounds more yoderian to my ears, which is fine to me, but not the same thing as historic anabaptism).

    To follow Jesus is life-changing and might lead to death on a cross or similar means of execution. We should not invite people to this following before we regard them as responsible people that are able to make these kind of life-changing decisions. If one is not encouraged to marry (to mess with Luke´s metaphor), one should definitely not be encouraged to leave everything to follow Jesus. The one baptized should be at least theoretically able to obey the teachings of Jesus (Matt 28:18-20), which includes things as how we treat "our" property, how we can be a mature participator of reconciliation/church discipline (Matt 5, 18), and a builder of the church (1 Kor 14:26-, Ef 4). I cannot see that there is room biblically for separating baptism from full inclusion into the Messiah´s body (1 Kor 12). (Sorry for proof texting... :(
    • ^
    • v
    Jonas, your position that a Christian must be mature from the start seems to me to be against the spirit of Luke 18:17 which says that Whosoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein. I can't agree that we should not invite anyone who is not a mature and able adult to follow Jesus. What about the mentally challenged or the disabled? Yes, following Jesus may lead to death, but for those outside the Church, like those outside the ark, death is for certain.

    I think children are able to keep the commands that you cite, only I think they do so at an age and ability appropriate level. Paul says in 2 Thess 3:10 that if any will not work he should not eat. If we expected our infants to work at the same level and ability as an adult before providing them with food, then they would all die. But infants do work, and a they do have a responsibility to keep Paul's command and Jesus' commands, they just do so at a level and with an ability that is appropriate to their age.
    • ^
    • v
    Luke. I have never said or thought that a "Christian" must be mature from the start. I think the starting point for the journey with the Messiah is to turn from the world, letting go of everything else. We turn around and begin moving in another direction. That is were we begin. This is what it means to become like a child, to be born again. But this is only the beginning of a long process, it has nothing to do with maturity. You spoke above of "learning to be disciples".

    Regarding children and others that we would not put the burden of being responsible for life-changing decision upon, I think that they will be included into God´s kingdom without conversion, obedience or faithfulness to Jesus. Therefore I have no reason to expand the concepts of "faith" and "obedience" so that they include children in the way catholics and protestant have to do. To say that my four year old son should take up his cross and follow Jesus and leave his father and mother and everything he owns "at a level and with an ability appropriate to his age" sounds (to put i mildly) a little strange to me.
    • ^
    • v
    If God will include them, why should we exclude them?
    • ^
    • v
    I have said several times that they should be included. I think I am even more inclusive ;). I don´t demand their baptism for them to be able to participate. When we celebrate the Lord´s supper (a full meal, of course), our (un-baptized) children are totally included.
    • ^
    • v
    Hi Jonas, I think that way of doing "church" - a full meal around a table- is really awesome. I wish our tradition (episcopal) would do that more, although our little local congregation did something similar on Maundy Thursday.

    I think the reason you would differ with Luke and myself (he's my husband) is because we have differing opinions on what Baptism actually is. It is our conviction and within the anglican tradition, that when parents are converted to the Christian faith, their entire household is baptized- to us it is the rite of passage from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. But for the children of these converts, who later want to make public a personal choice to follow Jesus, we have the sacrament of confirmation, where they are presented before the bishop that he/she may lay hands on them and they may be commissioned to exercise their spiritual gifts.Yet even before this time they are given freedom to assert their faith at every Communion service by reciting the Nicene or Apostle's Creed with the rest of the congregation. To some, this may seem like vain repetition, but we believe that when we are gathered together, we are in company with all of heaven and earth, and when we say the creed, we are spitting in the devil's eye, so to speak.

    But to you, it seems, baptism is what confirmation is to us, or they somewhat overlap, I guess, and I certainly respect where you are coming from too.
    • ^
    • v
    Thanks Sara, good explanation. I am familiar with your view (I think), and I am myself not fully anabaptist. So far, I don´t view childrens baptism as nothing (as a radical baptist position might), but as something that at least need to be repaired or complemented. For my own part, I think of my baptism at eight as "repaired" or completed when I some years ago decided to join a covenant with a few other disciples. (I have been influenced by James McClendon on this one.) This is pretty close to confirmation, maybe, although I am more critical towards childrens baptism and would never baptize my children. But I am not convinced on my own position, sometimes I lean towards a more thorough anabaptist view.

    Luke. I see where you are coming from and we can leave it at that. I appreciated the dialogue. I am not sure, though, that historic anabaptism without anabaptism (and with this, a degree of separatism) is anabaptism at all...
    • ^
    • v
    I think I see what you're getting at. It seems like an oxymoron to claim a relation with Anabaptism yet not advocate re-baptism. But we are not in the same historical situation. Catholics and Protestants don't kill each other and Anabaptists for believing differently, nor does the claim for being the "one, true church" sound quite as loudly from any quarter (although the new Pope might be trying to recover that attitude). So we are free to discuss doctrinal issues across denominational lines and weigh them according to biblical merit and reason, quite apart from the political mess they were associated with in the 15th century. As I see it, and please tell me if I'm wrong, the Anabaptists rejected infant baptism for two main reasons. 1. They saw it as an unholy union with a false church, hence the need to be re-baptized into the "true" church. 2. This led to a belief that the decision to follow Jesus and be baptized should be a personal, individual, and voluntary one.
    What if, however, we removed the oppressive situation that brought about the first objection and replaced it with an ecclessiology that both affirmed personal responsibility and relationship with Jesus and communal identity? The objection to infant baptism would at least be weakened, and the question would be, on which emphasis does baptism fall, the personal or the communal? (And then we could throw other ideas into the mix as well- concepts of property, leadership, discipline, etc.) This is getting fun. :)
    • ^
    • v
    I've been avoiding getting into this discussion...because it could theoretically go on forever. :)

    While the Anabaptists rejected infant baptism for the reasons you mention, I would argue that their primary reason (and this bears out in their writings I think) is that John, Jesus, and the Apostles only ever taught and practiced a believer's baptism.

    These days, it is certainly true that rejection of infant baptism is weaker. I, as a Mennonite pastor, would never require that someone be rebaptized before becoming a member. I could, however, never in good conscience practice infant baptism, for all sorts of biblical and theological reasons.

    In every way, I affirm the decision of the Anabaptists to push re-baptism. It was the right choice. Even if one could make a good biblical case for infant baptism (which unless one makes a link to circumcision, I'm not sure that is possible), the practice had taken on all sorts of bad baggage.
    • ^
    • v
    Why would you presuppose that the biblical teaching on baptism excludes children? Perhaps the biblical teaching excludes those over 70. Perhaps the biblical teaching excludes short people. Perhaps the blblical teaching excludes fat people. The bible doesn't specifically say, and there is no compelling reason given in the scripture to exclude children.

    The ana-baptists, like the baptists and others today may think they are rejecting infant baptism on biblical grounds, but I guess I think they need to re-evaluate their intellectual commitments. Exclusive believer's baptism is not biblical. It's a 16th century novelty rooted in extra-biblical assumptions about human reason and an admittedly justified detestation of catholics and other protestants.
    • ^
    • v
    Oh c'mon. It isn't quite THAT easy to dismiss the idea of a believer's baptism. You should try a little harder. ;)
    • ^
    • v
    This conversation is getting pretty skinny. Pretty soon we'll be down to one word per line.
    As I said in my original post, I was brought up in a baptist household and was baptized as a believer so I don't think I'm blinded by my traditions on this. I'm not trying to easily dismiss anything. I've argued my position as passionately and gracefully as seemed possible. I'm aware that your site is predominantly baptist and I'm not here to be an antagonist. I'm here because I know that my own tradition and community have an awful lot to learn from the faithfulness of the radical reformation and the continued faithfulness of those who, like your church, and those who regularly post here, are with all their might taking seriously the idea of following Jesus. For me, because I see it taught everywhere in scripture, a commitment to infant baptism is part and parcel of that faith. Though there are larger theological issues at stake behind the arguments for infant baptism, like covenant theology and such, I'm convinced that one does not need highly developed theological paradigms to engage in right praxis. I had a paradigm shift in my adult life that converted me from a member of the military to a pacifist, But now, looking back, I can see that if I had only taken the scripture more seriously to begin with, the pacifism was right there all along in black and white. I think the same is true of infant baptism. Like pacifism, it is there in the scripture for those who have eyes to see it.

    Anyway, I see you have changed the praxis article to a new one, so I'll take that as a hint that we are done with this subject. I hope I didn't distract too much from Jason's excellent article.
    • ^
    • v
    Three things:

    1) Being brought up baptist doesn't mean you understand all the theology behind the idea of a "believer's baptism."
    2) I really doubt most readers here are baptist. I'm a Mennonite (which is really a very different sort of thing than a baptist). I'm not sure what tradition our co-editor Kim is, but I know that Mike is Methodist. Our readers are very diverse.
    3) I really find it interesting that you think paedobaptism is such a no-brainer. Is it really THAT cut-and-dried in your favor? And is it really as prevalent as PACIFISM? Really?

    I'm a pretty informed guy. The assumption that paedobaptism is the norm is based upon the practice of household baptism. But there are only a couple instances of this recorded and it isn't really that spelled out what it entailed.

    My basic take is this: for John, baptism was a cermonial washing ritual signifying repentance. Almost every scholar I've ever read would tend to rule children out on this one. In later accounts, we read of baptism being linked with repentance. Any sort of system that assumes children were baptized are building an argument of silence. Every other instance ties baptism with repentance and the actual accounts only specifically mention adults.

    So the claim that paedobaptism is simply a cut-and-dried case of good praxis (like nonviolence) is a really huge claim, man. I'm not saying that paedobaptism is unbiblical. But I am saying it doesn't just fall from the Scriptures as an assumed, ready-formed practice.

    To me, the face value of the accounts lends itself to believer's baptism. But I think theology plays into where one lands on this. And that's fine. From my perspective, it all comes down to how one integrates the old and new covenants.
    • ^
    • v
    Well kudos to you for your inclusion of the children in the Lord's supper. I couldn't agree more on that point. I didn't mean that you excluded your children from everything, only from baptism, which in my understanding is technically an exclusion from the body. 1 Cor 12:13 says we are baptized into "one body." While involving children in the life of the church is great and necessary, in my thinking they are still excluded in a crucial sense because they have not been made part of the "one body." My point above was that if (as you believe - I don't know, and am uncertain on this) God automatically includes children as members of his body, why would we withhold the sign of that present reality?

    I suspect we won't come to agreement on this so unless you want to keep at it, maybe we should let it go. I do love the ana-baptist traditions. In my opinion, they were the only faithful reformation element. But I think they were wrong on baptism. Withholding baptism from my children would seem to me to be preventing them from a fruitful and critical relationship with Jesus in their most formative years.
    • ^
    • v
    My take on John the baptist is that he was a prophet. Jesus says as much. And the basic task of the prophets was always to call the people back to faithfulness. The Old Covenant included infants in it's rituals. When the prophets called the nation to repentance that didn't mean that from that point forward infants were no longer admissible. In the same way, there is no logical reason that John, acting as an OId Testament prophet and calling the people to repentance would have intended the exclusion of infants. Did he baptize infants? Absolutely! The scripture says plainly that ALL came to him to be baptized. To posit that there were no infants in the whole region of Judea is just beyond reason.

    Further, John's baptism is clearly not proselyte baptism. He was baptizing Jews. His baptism was a typical symbolic prophetic act meant to illustrate his call to repentance. And the imagery he is importing is that of the red sea crossing. Paul makes the connection between the red sea and baptism in 1 Cor 10 and treats it as an obvious fact. I don't think the point was lost on John's multitudes. Like Moses, John was calling ALL the people (including the children of course!) out into the wilderness to pass through the water. Did he mean to analyze each individual and determine if they were genuinely repentant? No, of course not. Even if he wanted to disciple those multitudes it would have been impossible. In the likeness of those who crossed the red sea, some would inherit the kingdom and some would die in the wilderness. Some would pass through into judgment and some into life, just as some passed through the sea into life (faithful Israel) and some passed through the sea into death (unfaithful Israel). The relevant point here though is that children passed through the sea with their parents, and John would have known that, and so would not and could not have hesitated to baptize an infant in his call to repentance.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

  • The Ecclesia Collective » Blog Archive » Jesus and the Kids - Resources

    June 9, 2008 at 10:59 am

    [...] aren’t) and was hoping to begin sharing some of those. But after the article was posted on Jesus Manifesto ...

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus
Bottom