Abigail and Bethany Baptized

[sparkles]

Me too. I was 5 years old when I was "saved" from the pits of hell. A year later, I was baptized and became a member of our church. Of course it was my decision.

ETA: Screw you, Steve. You cannot even mention that Mel's parents came? How about a nice picture of them with their granddaughters and saying how nice it was that they traveled from wherever for this special occasion?

Maybe Anna and Christopher are nesting at home. I kind of hope that it bothers Stevehovah that they would not make a trip to church because they would rather take it easy because Weeble #3 is due soon.

Welcome, dlw.

Steve almost never mentions anyone outside of the immediate family. But unless he's gotten permission to include them, leaving them out is actually the right thing to do, as it's respecting their privacy. That's giving Steve the benefit of the doubt though. More likely, they're just not worthy in his mind.

He did say that they kept Joseph's engagement and wedding to Elissa private until after the fact out of respect for her family, but most of us here think he was just trying to cut his losses in the event of another bride coming to her senses.

[PennySycamore]

I personally think it's extremely young. A four-year-old probably can't even read the Bible and neither of them can comprehend scripture, in my opinion.

If you're going to leave it to the child to make the choice, as opposed to infant baptism, it seems to me it's better to make sure they are old enough to comprehend what they are doing.

As much as these fundies like to liken child-like behavior to sin, can you imagine how often that word is tossed around AFTER they are baptized?

To me, baptism at 3 or 4 *is* infant baptism, except that actual infant baptism is more honest. A 3 or 4 year old hasn't attained the age of reason yet.

[nelliebelle1197]

Me too. I was 5 years old when I was "saved" from the pits of hell. A year later, I was baptized and became a member of our church. Of course it was my decision.

ETA: Screw you, Steve. You cannot even mention that Mel's parents came? How about a nice picture of them with their granddaughters and saying how nice it was that they traveled from wherever for this special occasion?

Maybe Anna and Christopher are nesting at home. I kind of hope that it bothers Stevehovah that they would not make a trip to church because they would rather take it easy because Weeble #3 is due soon.

Welcome, dlw.

Melanie is from the area. Her parents did not travel far. The Maxwells, unlike other bloggers, are pretty discreet about posting info on others. I really think it is because the blog is really an advertisement, not a true family blog.

[Dru]

Thanks! I've actually been reading here for along time, just don't really post!

I think her parents are actually the couple sitting with Steve at the table in the last photo. They are also in some of the shots of the church and one of the fellowship pictures (her mom). I think they are a nice looking couple and their family seems so much more mainstream, fun and lively, while still being devout Christians.

Yes, Melanie's parents are the ones sitting with Steve in the last pic. Curious that the only pic I see of Melanie is her shoulder and arm in the background pic of her mom talking to another couple.

I'm amused by the awful photoshopping job done to cover up B's tummy in the pic where her swim shirt pulled up.

ETA- It looks like Melanie's sister Anna was there as well. You can see her in the fourth picture holding Drew, and then again with Melanie and their dad (I think) in the background. She wore jeans. I bet that burned Steve's ass.

[Coconut Flan]

To me, baptism at 3 or 4 *is* infant baptism, except that actual infant baptism is more honest. A 3 or 4 year old hasn't attained the age of reason yet.

That was a light bulb moment for me and it really shouldn't have needed to be one. I think I have discovered my brain bifurcates into the catholic/orthodox side and the protestant side.

Catholics and I believe orthodox (where is Arete Jo?) treat baptisms up until age 7 as basically infant baptisms. They are done on the parents' say so and don't require any classes for the children because they aren't considered to have reached the age of reason. Beginning at age 7, for Catholics, children have to go to RCIA for children before receiving any sacraments.

[16strong]

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet or not, and it's just something I noticed because the pic looked weird,but in the pics of Bethany being baptised, her shirt rode up. So naturally, concerned about modesty, the Maxwells MS Painted over her belly. :?

[kpmom]

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet or not, and it's just something I noticed because the pic looked weird,but in the pics of Bethany being baptised, her shirt rode up. So naturally, concerned about modesty, the Maxwells MS Painted over her belly. :?

Ridiculous. I'm surprised they didn't make the girls wear two shirts. It appears Abbey's shirt rode up too just a tiny bit in the 8th picture down. But, it doesn't look like it was painted over. They must have not noticed it.

I'm not a Maxwell defender by any stretch, but I'm wondering if this baptism of very young children is much different from my own experience preparing for my first communion as a Catholic school girl of 7 years old?

We had to study and repeat rote answers about the Catholic church and the sacrament of communion in order to prepare, but i doubt we really understood the significance of it.

Maybe most religions bring their young into the fold at very young ages, before they have the ability to think for themselves.

Of course in Maxhell, one never does develop that ability.

[Arete]

That was a light bulb moment for me and it really shouldn't have needed to be one. I think I have discovered my brain bifurcates into the catholic/orthodox side and the protestant side.

Catholics and I believe orthodox (where is Arete Jo?) treat baptisms up until age 7 as basically infant baptisms. They are done on the parents' say so and don't require any classes for the children because they aren't considered to have reached the age of reason. Beginning at age 7, for Catholics, children have to go to RCIA for children before receiving any sacraments.

Up to about age 4 the Orthodox baptize on parents say so, as most baptism are infant or toddler baptisms. Due to the spread of the Greek community in particular all over the world, it is not unusual for parents to postpone baptism until this age in order to ensure that special loved ones from another country could come to whatever country the kid is in. I don't know what happens between 6-17, but these baptism usually involve the children of converts, and it often is at the discretion of the individual converting priest and bishop how to handle. They most definitely have to meet with a priest for him to determine if they understand the commitment and to try and discern if coercion is involved. Baptism in this age range represent a very small number of baptisms in the Orthodox church.

[Arete]

I'm not a Maxwell defender by any stretch, but I'm wondering if this baptism of very young children is much different from my own experience preparing for my first communion as a Catholic school girl of 7 years old?

We had to study and repeat rote answers about the Catholic church and the sacrament of communion in order to prepare, but i doubt we really understood the significance of it.

I obviously have no issue with baptizing young children in principle, but I do raise an eyebrow with people like the Maxwells for the following reason: They do not recognize the validity of an infant baptism, on the grounds that an infant does not understand the significance or commitment of becoming a Christian. Point taken up to here. But they can't have it both ways. They can't say infant baptism is invalid, then turn around and say that a four year old and a six year old understand the spiritual and moral significance of a decision like that.

[anjulibai]

So Steve mentioned in the comments that the church wasn't theirs - they did borrow it just for the baptisms. So nothing has really changed.

Anyone else notice that the other girl is wearing an old-style Maxwell frumper? Makes me wonder if the Maxwells will ever decide to go back to them.

[SPHASH]

So Steve mentioned in the comments that the church wasn't theirs - they did borrow it just for the baptisms. So nothing has really changed.

Anyone else notice that the other girl is wearing an old-style Maxwell frumper? Makes me wonder if the Maxwells will ever decide to go back to them.

I'm sure Ruthie will wear them, since NR Anna does.

[kaschmit]

Sorry if this mentioned was before, I think they edited out Bethany's tummy with some pretty crude microsoft paint or something:

Im honestly very cool with woman choosing modesty, or even parents deciding their young girls should be modest while in the home, but a 4-year-old's tummy?! That tummy should be tickled and raspberried, not censored! Its so innocent. They are the ones making it weird.. a 4-year old!

[johnhugh]

It wasn't me, but hey Stevie,

"Randy and Vanessa says:

February 26, 2015 at 1:58 pm"

Should that not have been edited to "R and Venessa says"? Something to thinkabout. :naughty:

[uber frau]

I don't think Randy has the same meaning in the US. ::lol::

Otherwise someone as sex obsessed as Steve (even contrasting buttons send him into a frenzy) would have noticed it.

[treemom]

I don't think Randy has the same meaning in the US. ::lol::

Otherwise someone as sex obsessed as Steve (even contrasting buttons send him into a frenzy) would have noticed it.

Yes it does.

[anjulibai]

Randy does mean horny in the US, but it's also a common name. I have a cousin named Randy.

[BullyJBG]

I grew up Mennonite, and yeah the youngest baptism I ever saw there was 10. And even THAT was carefully scrutinized. In the Baptist church I currently attend, I've seen as young as 6, but yes, that's what they do; make sure they have an interview with the pastor and deacons, to be sure the child understands what they are doing. Did Grandpa Steve do that, or just impulsively decide to do it as soon as the the idea was presented to him? I can imagine; "Grandpa I want to be baptized" "Me too" "Oh that's wonderful, praise God, let's do it".

The fact that Bethany had to be held by her dad in the tank shows that she's too young, IMO. Then again, I remember at about 6 or 7, my Sunday school teacher took our class on a tour of the baptism tank. It's about 5 feet deep, so you just see it and know why we do this "when you're older and bigger". I was 17 when I WAS baptized.

Time will tell just how young Christina, Drew, Josh, Ruthanne, and the next little one "choose" baptism.

On a good note, the fact that another girl was baptized(and she looks about 10ish) shows that there ARE still other families with them at the assisted-living church. Hopefully some others are invited like single men that could be for Sarah. I wonder if they, in times of fellowship, drop names of those who may be possibilities?

[Arete]

My problem with these baptisms is not their ages but the role of the fathers. There is no priest or pastor here who is interviewing the children to determine what they do or do not understand about a commitment like this. It is daddy making the spiritual calls for all family members. Despite the load of goods Steve shills, every man is not a leader or theologian. You are certainly not qualified to give spiritual guidance just because you are a man who has fathered children. I've thrown this gauntlet down before and will again-I dare the likes of Maxwell or Botkin to show a Biblical justification for elevating the father of a home to family priest. What they practice in terms of the primacy of the biological father is crazy idolatrous.

[PrairieGirl]

Sorry if this mentioned was before, I think they edited out Bethany's tummy with some pretty crude microsoft paint or something:

Im honestly very cool with woman choosing modesty, or even parents deciding their young girls should be modest while in the home, but a 4-year-old's tummy?! That tummy should be tickled and raspberried, not censored! Its so innocent. They are the ones making it weird.. a 4-year old!

This is actually a very sweet picture of a daddy and his 4-year-old. It's too bad that it was taken in a baptismal pool with the 4-year-old's cute belly being edited out for modesty purposes. :?

[MamaJunebug]

My problem with these baptisms is not their ages but the role of the fathers. There is no priest or pastor here who is interviewing the children to determine what they do or do not understand about a commitment like this. It is daddy making the spiritual calls for all family members. Despite the load of goods Steve shills, every man is not a leader or theologian. You are certainly not qualified to give spiritual guidance just because you are a man who has fathered children. I've thrown this gauntlet down before and will again-I dare the likes of Maxwell or Botkin to show a Biblical justification for elevating the father of a home to family priest. What they practice in terms of the primacy of the biological father is.Nothing really to add, just quoting it because I totally agree with it.

Not Biblical, but Martin Luther *did* write about "the priesthood of all believers" in the context of encouraging individuals to think beyond the craven treatment that uneducated parish priests too often practiced. Luther wrote his Small Catechism as a way of the spiritual leader of the home to teach to his [sic] household members, but never never did he call the father the intercessor between God and any other human. The intercessor is Jesus.

One of my most sadly unforgettable days on teh interwebs was when a potential e-friend showed her true beliefs, telling me that she as a woman was unworthy to approach the altar to receive Holy Communion. She - in no uncertain terms - said that she would very happily wait for her husband, or their pre-teen son, or in the absence of both of those, another male "elder" of the church, to bring the bread and juice to her in her pew.

[nausicaa]

I obviously have no issue with baptizing young children in principle, but I do raise an eyebrow with people like the Maxwells for the following reason: They do not recognize the validity of an infant baptism, on the grounds that an infant does not understand the significance or commitment of becoming a Christian. Point taken up to here. But they can't have it both ways. They can't say infant baptism is invalid, then turn around and say that a four year old and a six year old understand the spiritual and moral significance of a decision like that.

Exactly. I was raised Catholic and am currently an agnostic sort of Episcopalian, so I have no theological issue with infant baptism, or the baptism of very young children. And actually, credo-baptism has always made more sense to me upon examination, so I don't have much of a dog in this fight. But it seems really odd that these evangelicals, for whom credo-baptism is a major tenet of their faith and the basis for TONS of denominational divisions over the years, are playing so fast and loose with the idea of deliberate faith.

It seems to yet again highlight the superficiality of Steve's so tightly held views. As if the Maxwells run from infant baptism just because it seems papist, without ever actually examining WHY they hold that view.

[VodouDoll]

My problem with these baptisms is not their ages but the role of the fathers. There is no priest or pastor here who is interviewing the children to determine what they do or do not understand about a commitment like this. It is daddy making the spiritual calls for all family members. Despite the load of goods Steve shills, every man is not a leader or theologian. You are certainly not qualified to give spiritual guidance just because you are a man who has fathered children. I've thrown this gauntlet down before and will again-I dare the likes of Maxwell or Botkin to show a Biblical justification for elevating the father of a home to family priest. What they practice in terms of the primacy of the biological father is crazy idolatrous.

Steve says that a man listening to anyone but himself when it comes to his interpretation of scripture and his family's religious practices and beliefs is the equivalent of eating food someone else already chewed. Educated clergy and millennia of Bible scholarship dismissed as nothing but diseased backwash. Maxwell arrogance at its finest.

[EmiGirl]

Steve says that a man listening to anyone but himself when it comes to his interpretation of scripture and his family's religious practices and beliefs is the equivalent of eating food someone else already chewed. Educated clergy and millennia of Bible scholarship dismissed as nothing but diseased backwash. Maxwell arrogance at its finest.

And of course women are too stupid to interpret the Bible.

[slickcat79]

So, Christopher is a "professional" photographer, and the rest of the family teaches all kinds of tech classes...and the best they can do to edit the oh-so-defrauding 4yo belly shot is a random triangle in MS Paint? :cray-cray:

[sparkles]

Christopher. Dude. I'm working on a tiny, low-res JPEG grabbed from the web and in under 5 minutes I got something better without a lot of trouble. Get a clue.