The Bible is silent on a certain parts of our life. Some things are easily derived, some things, not so easy. Some people will casually accept as obvious that the Bible will not comment on everything, because they do not expect it. Other people will turn and twist the Bible to make it ask and answer a question it never intended.
Searching for answers when the Bible is silent can be a difficult thing. One thing I believe is key in the process is you have to ask yourself if are you comfortable giving authority to the Church’s history. Uh-oh. That sounds C-C-C-atholic! If, when I say this, I assume that the Holy Spirit has been active in the life of the church since it was formed, does that make you more comfortable? To put it another way, if we sought to affirm what God has affirmed the past 2000 years through the community of faith we call the church, would that be a good place to look for answers? I find it odd that many people do not have this in mind when they read Scripture anyway. To me, it only makes sense. But, I guess we could try to re-create the wheel with every generation, because that is not self-serving or anything.
How should we respond to scriptural silence? I want to keep that thought out there as I dig into a related example involving the salvation of children.
Have you ever found it odd that conversions to Christianity, as described in the Scriptures, are only conveyed as experiences of adults? From a exegetical perspective, the Bible offers very little regarding the salvation experiences of children.
I often wish there was a book in the Bible about parenting. Its one thing to read and understand and apply for myself, but to explain Christ’s death and resurrection to a child seems like something I could use some coaching on! If anything, from the biblical account, kids became part of the community of faith because dad did, not because of individualized decisions. That was not part of their cultural consciousness. So the Bible’s model REALLY doesn’t fit with what we do now…but I think you would agree this is not an instance where we want to go back to the NT model (yes I said it).
Of course, what precipitated this is that I am the father of three small children. So I have a stake in this little quandary. If the truth of kingdom of God is best received by a child (which, according to Jesus, it is), how do I describe it to them? I certainly don’t do it like a college professor. But it doesn’t really fit in Barney and Friends either.
Nothing creates more of a sense of wonder and guilt for me like the faith-dripped prayers of a 4 yr old. When my child asks if Jesus died on a cross, what do I say? Is going through a sinner’s prayer 50 times like I did spiritually fruitful for a child?
The church has espoused much regarding “ages of accountability.” But this seems to be an attempt to answer a dilemma that springs out of a NEED to have a ‘conversion.’ Enter: my unconventional assumption…
In the New Testament, we had first century Christians, (adults). As the next generation was born, they could, in effect, be part of the Christian community their entire life. Some of those “go-to” verses on salvation seem to make less sense in this context. (“That if you confess with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that Christ raised him from the dead you will be saved.”)
Do children who grow up understanding who Christ was and embrace him all along the way have a “conversion”? Or is it more a process of immersion (excuse the pun) that can grow deeper and deeper?
What is inherent in this conversation is really a revamping of the theology of salvation that the evangelical church preaches. The conversion of a first century person seems easier to define because of the contrast between who the person was before, and who they became after. But for my 4 year old, who she is now will only grow deeper, I assume. I’m not saying we are born inherently good, but I don’t think we need to have a “conversion” to maintain a doctrine of the sinful nature and be ‘saved.’ (part of the kingdom of God).
So even though I have not baptized my kids as infants (not sure why I haven’t) I do view them as being “IN”! In light of scriptural silence on conversions, infant baptism makes a ton more sense to me. Not that I fully understand what they DO, but I understand why they began to be performed.
Meghan and I will continue to feed the kids and answer questions and share things as the children are able to receive them . But I am not going to be looking for a time when I need to hand them a tract. I just don’t think this is valid. Of course, I’m not talking about if my kid rejects Christ; that would be different. I’m talking about the kid who grows up and learns and changes and is stretched but who is, from minute one in this world, saved (God’s child).
If I am way off, please let me know why. Seriously, parenting is tough. I don’t want to screw up any more than I already do…and this would be an intentional screw up…not good. Thanks.
Advertisement
July 9, 2009 at 7:10 pm
We parent our kids in much the same way as you describe – we don’t “push” for some kind of recitation of a sinner’s prayer. But our kids are curious about Bible stories and they ask all the right questions (all kids do – they’re smart). This one from my daughter when she was seven was quite a doozy: “But HOW did Jesus dying on the cross forgive our sins? That doesn’t make any sense.”
I told her she was asking questions that theologians have grappled with for centuries (theories of atonement) – we talked about some of the metaphors the Bible uses but ultimately had to say, “I don’t know how – but that’s what we believe, partly because that’s what Christians have confessed for centuries.” (There’s your argument from tradition, which I wholeheartedly agree with).
If you’re interested, I wrote a paper on the role of tradition in biblical hermeneutics a few months ago – I could email it to you.
Thanks for your thoughts, Dan.