Karl Barth and Infant Baptism - Source: Learning Jesus Christ through the Heidelberg Catechism

"The real reason for the persistent adherence to infant baptism is quite simply the fact that without it the church would suddenly be in a remarkably embarrassing position. Every individual would then have to decide whether he wanted to be a Christian. But how many Christians would there be in that case? The whole concept of a national church (or national religion) would be shaken. That must not happen; and so one proposes argument upon argument for infant baptism and yet cannot speak convincingly because fundamentally he has a bad conscience. The introduction of adult baptism in itself would of course not reform the church which needs reforming. The adherence to infant baptism is only one - a very important one - of many symptoms that the church is not alive and bold, that it is afraid to walk on the water like Peter to meet the Lord, that it therefore does not seek a sure foundation but only deceptive props.

The consequence of this adherence to infant baptism is the devaluation of baptism by so-called confirmation, in which baptism is supposed to be confirmed by faith, in which therefore the confession and desire which ought to precede baptism are supposed to be made up for later. Fifteen years later one is supposed to confirm his faith. This procedure is impossible. But it cannot be avoided so long as we hold to infant baptism, which is indeed incomplete without this subsequent confirmation.

Another consequence is necessarily the formation of a mass church, the Christian character of which is never examined at all, a church which therefore cannot realize the comfort that comes from having been baptised. Under these circumstances, one need not be surprised at the stream of indifference and secularism which flows through our church.“

BREXIT – EXIT – EX

Source: Click here.

Tim Farron’s recent resignation from his leadership position has attracted some unhelpful, if not hysterical, media attention, bordering on the banal when viewed in the wider scheme of things. Someone obviously got a bit bored! The whole thing (recorded here) left me fertummelt. But perhaps I should be asking myself, hey, ‘what was all that about’?, as Stephen Fry might have put it!

One would have thought that there were (or, should have been) more urgent things going on in the world of British journalism during the recent election campaign. Minoring on majors and majoring on minors will inevitable result in disaster!

As I am reflecting in bright day light, I am getting more pink by the minute. Nowadays one is ashamed to blush! One has to stay cool!

The sorry episode seems to me [if my thinking is straight, I certainly would not wish to bend the truth] that a new litmus test must be applied to anyone wishing to access or hold on to public office, as the thought police will be after you! ‘Don’t ask – don’t tell’ is no longer an option, now that so many journalists are far more skilled than the Spanish Inquisition! The knives are out, and even the pope can do nothing about it! Farron’s endearingly naïve ineptitude proved to be a stepping stone in his political downfall, but ironically, it will have helped some poorly paid and self-righteous journalist decked with Schadenfreude to reach higher heights, or, lower depths! Better be bold!

I have no problems with egological politicians being paxmarised, but Farron’s ego registers pretty low on the political Richter scale, judging by his performance in the House of Commons! For a politician he strikes me as genuinely humble, completely lacking the killer instinct! Much of what he stands for is commendable, but he lacks gravitas and duplicty! But that no longer matters in a world obsessed with – stop! Mustn’t go there!

Perhaps Farron now realises that “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please the anti-liberal media at any time”. Those who are intolerant of the tolerant cannot and will not be pleased, ever, but they should not be appeased! I am waiting for the BBC to interview an imam on whether gay sex is a sin!!! Okay, dream on! I would not want this to end in a nightmare!

Source: Click here.

Farron views himself as a Christian, but his understanding of human sexuality sits ill at ease with the Bible! Like so many Anglicans, he is muddled, but such ignorance is culpable, as the Bible is quite clear. Uncle Richard can explain this much better than I can. 1:0 to the atheists!

Doing so many Farronian U-turns would leave lesser mortals like myself in a real spin. I still have no idea what Farron actually believes, though his voting record does provide some insight.

Justin Welby may have helped Farron to face the whole issue head-on from two opposite directions at the same time, as this article shows. Both/and double-talk, rather than either/or hate-speech will always provide fodder for the neighing horses.

Farron’s resignation (historic, because of its content) speech was duly witnessed by an embarrassed coterie who politely applauded (they had no choice). It made me cringe! At any rate, who needs such friends, one may ask? A friend in need is – a pain!

Farron felt pressurised to resign which was deplorable as he is a very talented politician, and I would have wanted him to stay on, but it was not to be. If he sacrificed his ambitions for conscience’s sake, then he deserves our respect. At any rate, it proved to be another bad day for democracy!

To offend or not to offend? That's the question, but what's the answer?

Andrew Turner's reported response (sincerely meant, no doubt, but I cannot vouch for that!) obviously unleashed some unmitigated fury among some [never mind the wider world], and the whole issue has now become a litmus test for public office. Tim Farron, of course, can explain this far better than I could ever hope to! If only he had stayed in his closet! I daren’t quote the Almighty, who, at any rate, can speak for Himself! And we all know what happened to the Son of God when He didn't keep quiet!

Free speech is now no longer a cherished value! Just a wrong phrase is enough to shut down any debate on anything! How to win an argument without having to argue!

As a Christian I am of course - by default – biased, unlike the rest, who are extremely tolerant, unfailingly courteous and benignly neutral towards those who keep stumm. Very nice, indeed! 

How grateful one ought to be to such folks: ‘It’s a Great Day to Be Alive’, to coin a phrase! So I must quote an old and dead infidel to jump to my defence who was supposed to have said (and if not, he should have said it!): “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” (Voltaire)

Presumably I won't be able to stand for parliament if I say that 'Corbynites' are wrong and a danger to society. I am sure my very thoughts will outrage the thought police! My views on right wing politics are even more unprintable!

So Turner has committed the unforgivable sin; like Farron he may yet change his mind, if he catches the modern Zeitgeist! But never mind all the good he has done as a constituent MP! Only God can forgive him now! And as God only justifies the ungodly there is hope for Turner, this writer and all humanity! Can there be anything more important? 

Let us pray!

I gather that the recent ban on the Lord's Prayer (not John 17) in the cinema has caused a great deal of upset! What a surprise! Never mind anything else then! Is there nothing else we can talk about these days? It should think that the handkerchief industry could be boosted over night if the whole thing could only go viral! For crying out loud?! Who says that religion is bad for the economy?! By way of clarification, I am not referring to my comments, although they may make some people cry!

As I can neither recall my last visit to the pictures let alone reciting the Lord's Prayer, a practise which, so it can be argued, in direct contradiction to what Jesus Himself taught in Matthew 6:5ff., I am probably not qualified to say anything, but as I am not a Trappist monk, I might as well speak on!

It is well-known that the Church of England, an institution rooted in the 16^th century, rather than in New Testament soil, is desperate to swell its ranks by all sorts of means, mainly, though, through hatches, matches and dispatches, or, if you prefer, yells, bells and knells (click here if you don't believe me). And now the Lord's Prayer, featuring the archbishhop, out of all people! Why was I not consulted on this?

It is odd, to put it mildly, that Welby would encourage cinema goers to pray when he himself has just most recently expressed doubts about what God might be up to: 'Paris attacks: Archbishop Justin Welby admits 'doubt' over God's presence after tragedy'! His predecessor – according to Welby 'one of our best ever Archbishops' - notoriously portrayed God as 'pretty useless' on 9/11. Why anyone would wish to urge us to pray to that kind of God in the first place has left be completely bamboozled!

More odd, still, why did the early church never think of that?! Oh, I see, there were no archbishops then! But there was plenty of prayer – in the places of public entertainment – when the early Christians were thrown to the lions! If only I could pray like that myself!

Now as I am not an Anglican, I might as well become a Trappist monk, in my imagination, that is! For the time being! My Anglican friends may perhaps express their thanks to their God in the usual manner!

If any cinema wishes to advertise my comments, then this can be done – for free!
P.S. With my apologies to uncle Richard - "Richard Dawkins says UK cinemas should screen the Lord's Prayer"

To answer or not to answer - that is the question!

It is always interesting to engage with folks that differ from me, especially from a distance. At least I am safe at my desk from any possible cyber-attacks, I hope! Solipsists – let us all unite! Join me in the fight against the advocates of nauseating religious clap-trap.

The recent debate between David Robertson and Scott S. McKenna was interesting to say the least, but hardly seismic, leaving me with a few momentary shivers creeping down my sensitive spine, from which I have now thankfully fully recovered. Backbone is needed much these days! So I've got to stay strong!

In a neo-Kantian universe of ecclesiastical make-belief, dogmatic certainty has now become the unforgivable sin: Anythingism rules! So much is certain, of course! Anyone who says otherwise is a bigot and un-Christlike!

Robertson – the white man who does not speak with a forked tongue – does not need me to defend him, but on this occasion - notwithstanding his blunt manners (Luther has a lot to answer for) - I will make an exception! Robertson's position is clear; he is no chameleon theologian! That is rather refreshing! He likes everybody, so it seems, which is really nice! I hope that includes me, too! His Peter-Pan like zeal is endearing, though a touch naïve, but his courage I cannot match, as I don't mix in such distinguished circles! His motives, I have no doubt, are noble and sincere!

McKenna's kerygmatic pronouncements self-evidently bear little resemblance to apostolic Christianity and may well be symptomatic of a disorderly mind. For all his smooth talking, McKenna's grasp of the essential features of Christianity is woefully inadequate, to say the least. He would never have been admitted into the early church, let alone be let loose in a pulpit! He himself knows that, so I do not have to labour the point!

Did McKenna really subscribe to Calvinism with an honest conscience when he was ordained? Why does he not start his own church? Why do people pay this man who is peddling a Gnostic version of old-fashioned liberalism? If he has changed his mind, then he ought to go!

From the outset (in writing) I disagreed with Robertson's willingness to debate with a self-confessed Christian minister who has little regard for the Jesus of the Bible (another Christ is but a figment of the human imagination)! The decision to go ahead has no New Testament precedent.

Paul is more upsetting still than Robertson when he says, more bluntly, of course: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8) Presumably, McKenna does not agree with Paul, either!

McKenna should, in the words of Bonhoeffer, adopt a 'religionless Christianity'! When Christ has been relegated to the periphery, in the name of religion, then it is time to come out again. Robertson has done just that! May he be spared to do just keep on doing that!

'When nations are to perish in their sins, 'tis in the church the leprosy begins'. And so it is also with the Church of Scotland these days. The McKenna's of this world have a lot to answer for; they are self-confessed enemies of Christ. We must not shy away from saying so, but do it with tears, or not at all!

You'll get by with a little help from your friend!

Another unsolicited email has reached me. It's made my day! I have decided to out myself! No point in keeping it all to myself! The whole world might as well be told, including my cyber-friends, how proud I am of myself! My real friends know better, but never mind that! Now that I have friends in high places ... I could do with my ego being massaged! It's all official now. Let there be no misunderstanding! Yours truly has been endorsed by none other than the government, though I have not pledged my support to any political party! Who says the age of miracles is over? Think of it! Without me, the UK would be worse off! Time to update my CV! My country needs me - and my money! Rejoice, rejoice, rejoice, to quote auntie Maggie!