An Interfaith Baptism in Secaucus

here’s a question, is their baptism now valid?

“a brave new world”

Does he comprehend the irony in this statement?

where faith becomes a salve to heal the world’s wounds

I continue to be struck by the absence of definite articles in so much revisionist writing.  Indeed they have thrown away the scandal of particularity.  They are not preaching THE faith.  Not Christianity.  No ONE truth.  But faith, truths.  Any and all faith or truth is good.  All equal.

Also, note how the burden is put on us.  We are to be the world’s savior by OUR faith.  OUR actions.  OUR work torwards reconciliation.

KJS is reported by ENS to have prayed:
Jefferts Schori called the congregations to “Receive Holy Spirit, and go out there to build a world of peace.” ... “May we be peace for the whole world.”
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_87939_ENG_HTM.htm

not “THE” Holy Spirit.  And peace is up to us.  Not Christ’s gift.
So scary…

In her article on evangelism and missions she wrote:
“Our very lives can be baptism, living water, new life born out of death, to those around us”
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/80050_87836_ENG_HTM.htm

—elfgirl

We should pray for all of these folk who are quite confused.  Also, we should pray that God will draw Aaron and Joseph to a saving knowledge of His Son Jesus Christ.

Baptism is the rite of becoming Christian.  It’s fine for interfaith friends to be there as witnesses, but I think their blessings at the baptism were inappropriate.  In particular, at these childrens’ baptisms they had the basic Islamic calls, which directly contradict Christianity, whispered into their ears.

I have Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist friends.  I am all in favor of living in peace and charity with them.  If invited to their family religious events, I respectfully observe but do not participate.  This is what should have happened at this baptism.

Is the baptism valid? Probably not since the Muslim guy spoke the Islamic creed into the babies’ ears, thus making them officially and by Islamic law, Muslims. This is not a neutral blessing. These very same words are the ones that converts say to express their faith in Islam and to renounce their former religion. There is no concept in Islam of one remaining part of any other faith after these words have been said.

The practice of saying these words to infants is an acknowledgement of their natural state as Muslims. Muslims believe that all children, all people are born Muslims. This act is inherantly an assertion of the superiority of Islam. 

In any Muslim country, these children would not be considered Christians who happen to have been blessed by a Muslim. They would not be considered Christians at all. However much these folks want to pretend that this is just a nice blessing of Christian children by a person of another faith, in the eyes of 99.999 percent of the worlds Muslims, excluding only the miniscule and statistically insignificant looney progressive minority, these babies are Muslims being raised as Christians in violation of all Islamic law.

Having said that, I wonder if there isnt a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of the word interfaith between the Muslim guy and the Christian one. Surely there are more neutral blessings or prayers to say over the children. Why did he choose the words of the Islamic creed? Could it be because, as a Muslim, he necessarily accepts the view that all are naturally Muslim and that the height of Islamic tolerance is to tolerate Christians as one would wayward children who just dont know any better when they insist that they are not in fact Muslims? 

On the other hand, while this Muslim is “tolerating” him, this Christian sap actually thinks that the Muslim considers the Christian faith to be equally as valid as his own….Right.

Clueless in Secaucus.  Who were the sponsors of the child who promised to raise the child in the Christian faith?  How is it that the parents could make the promises and the rest of the faith statements in the service given the non-interfaith statements in the service about the Lordship of Jesus Christ?

Lovely Secaucus, I know it well from my childhood (the lovely part is a bit sarcastic).  Lovely Secaucus, right in the belly of the theological cesspool known as the Diocese of Newark.

I guess while I am venting my spleen…

I can’t get over the condescension that is inherant in the idea that all people are born or natural members of a certain faith. In effect, any insistence to the contrary by members of other faiths is considered nothing but the result of willful ignorance or stubborness. Tolerance then becomes the attitude that one takes towards someone who insists that the world is flat when in fact it is round. It is a tolerance born out of pity for the fool who doesnt know the “facts” of his own nature. Poor thing. We must be kind and patient with them until they learn and accept what they really are.

I am all for honesty. All religions claim to be the one true religion. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. I believe that Christianity is the one true religion and that those who reject it are often in some form of denial. But no other religion takes it as far as Islam does. All other major religions assume that membership in a given faith is not a natural condition, that one must either freely adopt that faith or be initiated into it as a child. In this view, when others refuse to accept that faith, they are merely insisting on having a different set of ideals. They are not insisting that they are something other than what they truly are, like a dog insisting that it is a cat. Personally, I am glad that my religion is free of this concept.

Secaucus does have good factory outlet stores and no sales tax.

That’s my non sequitur for the day. 

An interfaith baptism

The dolts in the Diocese of Newark that publicized this blasphemy on the Internet are truly clueless!  Baptism is a Christian sacrament.  An “interfaith” baptism is an absolute oxymoron.  There is no such thing. 

Following the twins’ rite of baptism, Barenblat came to the font to pray

Rashin then stepped forward. He whispered the adhan (call to prayer) and sura fatiha (first sura of the Qur’an)

So was it an “interfaith baptism” or not?  In either case the Jewish and Muslims prayers were highly inappropriate.

As was the case in Seattle with the Islamic TEC priestess, these heretics can’t blame Greg, Kendall or Brad for publicizing their blasphemy.  The official diocesan communications in Olympia and Newark released these stories with photographs.

I’m in agreement with Katherine and Peidmont on this one! I pray that these two young lads grow up and see the light of Christ in spite of their parents poor form of baptism on their behalf! As they gro and form thier own thoughts and pions may they be formed around the one true Triune God and His Word!

I think that Jim Naughton was glad that the islamopalian priest got inhibited. Does that story end there? No. The above “baptism” shows that ecumensm run amok, turned universalism is alive and well. If the conservatives hadn’t found out that she had not transferred her residency to Olympia and that she had canonical residency with Bp Wolf, she would still be wearing her collar.  The above “celebration” publicized in the diocesan shows that if a priest in Newark want to practice islamopalianism, he or she would similarly praised as in Olympia.

I know this is a little off-subject but when I was still a liberal and going to my parent’s liberal UMC, the pastor would usually baptize in the name of the “Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer” instead of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I’ve wondered for a while now if these are valid baptisms.

Baptism is a Christian sacrament

Piedmont, while I agree that an inter faith baptism is not possible especially as the Muslim faith must be regarded by any true christian as a preversion of God’s being and Word) I will not that John the Baptist was baptising individuals prior to the Son own Baptism and it seems to have been a Jewish rite in some way.

I could be wrong….and if I am I will be happy for the correction.

RSB

RSB

I continue to be struck by the absence of definite articles in so much revisionist writing.

KJS:
I think Jesus as way — that’s certainly what it means to be on a spiritual journey.
Receive Holy Spirit, and go out there to build a world of peace.
May we be peace for the whole world.

Bart:
Mongo, why would Hedley Lamarr care about “where the choo-choo go”?
Mongo:
Don’t know. Mongo only pawn in game of life.

MattJP,
You ask a good question:

I know this is a little off-subject but when I was still a liberal and going to my parent’s liberal UMC, the pastor would usually baptize in the name of the “Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer” instead of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I’ve wondered for a while now if these are valid baptisms.

Here is what Jesus said:

Matthew 28:19
  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

I think that this was not a good idea, but I suspect the “defect” in the baptism is that the parents and sponsors, who promised to raise the boys in the “full stature of Christ” and made affirmations that Christ is Lord, will raise them with the “all paths lead to God” mantra.
The article, if I read it correctly, says that the Jewish and Muslim prayers were offered after the sacramental action.  In a way, they become “extras” like presenting gifts (and we have to believe that these two men offered prayer for the boys in all sincere affection for them and for their families).
Resolution 11 of the Lambeth Conference of 1888 (“Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral”) includes: “The Apostles’ Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself—Baptism and the Supper of the Lord—ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.”
If the unadulterated Apostle’s Creed was the language of the Baptismal Covenant, and the boys were baptized with water in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I would believe that their baptisms are valid, despite whatever else went on.

MattJP, no, I don’t think those baptisms are valid.

RSB, yes, it was a Jewish habit, and still is a Jewish requirement, that converts receive a ritual washing.  They still do this; I know because my neighbor’s wife was not Jewish when the children were born, and each of the babies was taken to a rabbi and made Jewish by prayers and washing.  When his wife converted, she also took a ritual bath.

B of us L2 was baptised by a Roman Catholic priest brought in by his Mom’s Unitarian church because the Unitarians thought the kids should have the opportunity to be baptised.  B was between 2nd and 4th grade at the time.  So was he considered Catholic by the Catholic priest?  We think so.  B never considered himself Roman Catholic.

“I continue to be struck by the absence of definite articles in so much revisionist writing”—-The Elves

The Elves rightly note that the omission of “the” (as in “be filled with Holy Spirit”) reflects the “scandal of particularity”—-revisionist shame at the notion that there is only one Holy Spirit.

But speaking of being “filled with Holy Spirit” also depersonalizes the Holy Spirit—-as though He were a commodity like air, water, or gasoline.

How great an error one can propagate by omitting a tiny word.

Maybe it’s just me, but this seems like a lot of fuss over very little. Doesn’t the article say:

“Following the twins’ rite of baptism, Barenblat came to the font to pray… etc. etc.”

The way I read this, the babies were already blessed, baptized, chrismated - one would hope,  and handed back to mum and dad.

AFTER the baptism, the father’s friends - the rabbinic student and the Islamic scholar - came forward to offer their prayers, blessings, best wishes, call them what you wish.

Now, you might argue that standing in front of the baptismal font wasn’t the most appropriate place for this to happen, and I’d probably agree with you. But, other things being equal, I don’t think there’s any doubt that the children are legitimately baptized.

And, if the worst atrocity that I read about from the the Diocese of Newark today is the news that a Muslim and a Jew offered their prayers and blessings after the Christian baptism of two infants, I, for one, shall go to sleep tonight with words of praise and thanksgiving on my lips.

But no other religion takes it as far as Islam does. All other major religions assume that membership in a given faith is not a natural condition, that one must either freely adopt that faith or be initiated into it as a child. 

Actually, Orthodox Judaism takes it just as far, if not farther.  Orthodox Judaism has the concept of a “Jewish soul” which consciously or unconsciously longs to be united with God through acceptance of the mitzvot (commandments.)  A Jewish soul is inherited through the maternal line.  (Maybe it sits on the mitochondria?).  If you are born with a Jewish soul, then even if you are adopted by Christians, or raised by a Christian father, or by a mother who has converted to Christianity (or whose mother or grandmother or whatever converted to Christianity 200 years ago) then your soul will never be happy until you have become a full practicing member of the Jewish faith.  Hence there are missionary groups whose job it is to find those lost sheep who have “Jewish souls” and return them to the faith.  [Hence to say that Judaism is not a missionary religion is quite misleading.  It is extremely “evangelizing” towards those who it deems to have Jewish souls.]

If the person so targeted states that they do NOT feel themselves to be Jews (or proactively actually feel themselves to be Christian or some other religion) then they are, by definition, “self haters” who must be gentle (or in some cases, not so gently) brought to see the truth.

Athanasian—if it had simply been a matter of blessing (which is what the rabbinical student did), then I would agree that the baptism was merely unusual.  However, the Muslim cleric performed specifically Muslim ceremonies that make this child a Muslim too, so far as the much of the Islamic world is concerned.  And note the rector’s remark,  when asked if references to Mohammed should be excluded ” If he can live with my calling Jesus the Son of God, then I can live with him calling Mohammed the Prophet”, as if this were all some mere game of manners.  It was absolutely the duty of the priest to make sure that nothing was said which would undermine the solemn vows to Christ made during the child’s baptism—a duty at which he failed, miserably.

when I was still a liberal and going to my parent’s liberal UMC, the pastor would usually baptize in the name of the “Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer” instead of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I’ve wondered for a while now if these are valid baptisms.

Good question.  The necessary formula is “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”  However the Last Rites of the Roman Catholic chuch include (or included) the words “Depart Oh Christian soul out of this world.  In the name of God the Father who created you.  In the name of God the Son who redeemed you.  In the name of God the Holy Spirit who sanctified you.”  So I supposed a substitution of the words “Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier” might be legitimate.  Don’t know about “Sustainer” though.

Mark laughed and said, ‘Well, if he doesn’t mind me saying Jesus is the Son of God, then I guess I can live with him saying Muhammad is the Prophet of God!’”

I can hear the laughter now….I mean, its all just a big joke right?  Good Grief - where do they find these people?

Catholic Mom—In all my years as a member of an orthodox Jewish family, I never heard anything remotely like what you speak of.
Do you have any evidence that this is a general orthodox practice, or is it simply carried out by one or two eccentric groups?
Besides, to claim that certain individuals of Jewish descent are still Jewish does not “take things just as far, if not farther.”  There is absolutely nothing in Judaism that resembles the Islamic idea that we are all Muslims.
Please square your statement with the Talmudic instruction that when a rabbi is faced with a potential convert, he must make THREE serious attempts to dissuade him from conversion. (On the grounds that Gentiles are not called to assume the burdens of Judaism, and that no one should be encouraged to do so voluntarily).

In all my years as a member of an orthodox Jewish family, I never heard anything remotely like what you speak of.
Do you have any evidence that this is a general orthodox practice, or is it simply carried out by one or two eccentric groups?

I don’t want to take this thread off topic, but just google “Jewish Soul” and read any of the first 20 search items.

At the website askmoses.com where you can have direct online contact with a rabbi to ask a question (or access their extensive database)  the following is given as the answer to “Who is a Jew?”

All peoples of the world know who they are—they’re forthright about it. Koreans are Koreans, Norwegians are Norwegians, and Hyphenated-Americans are Hyphenated-Americans.

But what are Jews? “Who—or what—am I?” is a question every Jew has asked at least once in his lifetime. And sadly, they have reason to, because instead of definitions, they have doubt. Is being Jewish a race? Religion? Tradition? Ethnicity? Nationality? Geographic origin? None of the above?

Here’s what a Jew is: a Jew is a spiritual state of being. A Jew is any human being who has a Jewish soul, regardless of his or her race, lifestyle or professed religion. This soul is possessed by any man or woman who was born to a Jewish mother or has converted to Judaism according to the dictates of Jewish law. You can be as hip as Jerry Seinfeld, as religious as Moses, as left-wing as Barbra Streisand or as conservative as your uncle Irving—you’re still Jewish. You could be an environmentalist, an industrialist, a fundamentalist—you’re still Jewish. You could try as hard as you can to be just like your neighbors—you’re still Jewish. You could “convert” to Christianity, or run off to India to “become” Buddhist—you’re still Jewish.

To answer your other question:

Please square your statement with the Talmudic instruction that when a rabbi is faced with a potential convert, he must make THREE serious attempts to dissuade him from conversion. (On the grounds that Gentiles are not called to assume the burdens of Judaism, and that no one should be encouraged to do so voluntarily).

The two points are hardly contradictory.  The gentile is assumed not to have a Jewish soul.  Therefore it is not only needless but one might also say pointless for him/her to keep the mitzvot.  On the other hand, if the person continues to perserve against all discouragement, this indicates that,  somehow unbeknownst to the rest of the world, the person actually DOES have a Jewish soul and is being called back to his faith.

There are some situations that scream out for a Tom Wolfe to chronicle.  This is one of those situations.

“Church of our Saviour, Secaucus, was the site of a unique baptism recently when Aaron and Joseph, twin sons of Mary Beth and Thurman Hart, received the blessings and prayers of rabbinical student Rachel Barenblat and Islamic scholar Hussein Rashin during the service.” Hhhmmmm. A religious ‘tower of babel’, wouldnt you say?

  .  .  .  an Episcopal priest, an Islamic scholar and a rabbinical student stepped forward together to welcome two new souls into a brave new world where faith becomes a salve to heal the world’s wounds and to bind us together at the broken places. And that, after all, is both the reason for faith and its greatest example. 

Couldn’t help but be reminded of the pluriform truths of Frank Griswold (and now KJS).  He didn’t start this nonsense, but he sure pushed us a long way down this very strange ecumenical road.

A valid baptism? Shame on us for thinking such a thing, eh?  Augustine wrote, and I’m glad he did, that the validity of the sacrament doesn’t depend on the moral state of the priest, etc., but I really think that a priest is pushing that envelope just a bit too hard when he puts the holy “Lord God, Lamb of God, only Son of the Father…” on equal ground with an Arabic warlord.  As if there were no contradiction between the two messages?  “Did Paul die for your sins?”  If not Paul, then definitely not Muhammet (or Maimonides, for that matter.)

The most telling part is the priest’s own words:
“There are places where this world is being torn apart by charlatans claiming to speak for God,” Hart later wrote in his blog, “but here in a small town in New Jersey, an Episcopal priest, an Islamic scholar and a rabbinical student stepped forward together to welcome two new souls into a brave new world where faith becomes a salve
“Faith” is not, to him, the “substance of things hoped for,the evidence of things not seen,” but another buzz word for what Mz. Schori calls “holy spirit:”  A nice, compliant, socialised attitude in preparation for a conceptualised “brave new world” wherein dwelleth antichrist.”  Maybe I’m too radical.  Maybe I hope so.  Y’all please come look over this edit I did on Mz. Schori’s thing on Baptism & leave me your notes:  http://smplsoul.blogspot.com  Thanx!

Re: on the question of a valid baptism.  In the Catholic Church a person baptized under any formula other than in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is not considered validly baptized.  Some years ago it came to light that a priest in Australia had baptized quite a number of persons in the name of Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer.  The Bishop declared the baptisms invalid and the people had to be rebaptized.

Since I don’t believe in infant sprinkling, it is easy for me to say that this rite didn’t hurt the baby, it didn’t hurt the Muslims or Jews and I am sure it could not hurt the Episcopalian Church.

In our highly individualized society, the last thing we need is do- it- yourself liturgies.

There would be no problem at all here if Greg Griffith had not publicized it.

At long last, Mr. Griffith, have you no shame?

At long last, Mr. Griffith, have you no shame?

Well sure.

Oh wait.

No.

Wait.

...

Nope.

It’s Griffin!

You know, the mythical creature with the body of a lion (i.e., hot and smelly) and the head of an eagle (i.e., carrion eater, bottom feeder).

A Christian father and a Shinto (culturally, not doctrinally) mother approached me (the rector) about baptism.  The dad asked, “If my son is baptized, does that make him a Christian in the sense that he is excluded from being Shinto?”  After investigating Shinto, I replied, “Yes.”  “Then I don’t want him baptized,” the father said.  I took this not as a defeat but as a victory.  The child could still accept Christ later in life and the exclusive nature of Christian faith was clearly articulated and accepted. 

We decided to dress the boy in white and plan a very nice, heartfelt Thanksgiving for the Birth of a Child as a part of the main Sunday service and it was fine.  We sang the Magnificat with much gusto.  The child has not been united with Christ’s death and resurrection—yet.  But somewhere down the line he’s going to discover that when the moment arose, his parents took baptism seriously enough that they didn’t subject him to it mindlessly.  Maybe then he’ll ask what’s so special about this guy from Nazareth anyway.

Jill,

Thanks for the links.  Those stories were long forgotten in this old grey head.

Matt, re: validity of your baptism in UMC, if you were to convert to Orthodoxy, you would need to be rebaptised before chrismation.  If you had been baptised in the name of “The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” you would only be christmated.  So, in the Orthodox Church, no, it isn’t valid although we do accept as valid baptisms in most Christian churches.

Athanasian,

The Muslim did not just say a prayer. He performed the Muslim equivalent of baptism on the twins. The children were therefore initiated into another faith after their baptism.

In the eyes of many Christians such an initiation might certainly be seen as a nullification of the baptism, since a child cannot be both Christian and some other faith at the same time.

In the eyes of all but the smallest most progressive minority of Muslims, the Muslim rite definitely nullified the baptism. They will consider the children to be Muslims and only Muslims.

The Jewish prayer of blessing didn’t cause any harm because no rite was performed that would under any other circumstances would make a child Jewish. i don’t have a problem with it. Its the Muslim initiation rite that is the problem here and its a big one.