"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."

In deed it can be said that we strive to follow the admonition of Paul in Phillippians 1:8:

"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."

Our History and Liturgy

The Episcopal Church is a branch of the one, Holy, catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church instituted by Jesus Christ. It traces its history to the time of Christ. Before the sixteenth-century Reformation in Western Europe, the Episcopal Church and the Roman Catholic Church were one in the same. The Christian church in a given country or region at that time was customarily described as the church of the region, such as the Church of Gaul, the Church of Spain, or the Church of England (Latin: ecclesia anglicana). After the Reformation, the English national church continued to be called the "Church of England", but it repudiated the supremacy of the Pope. It retained to a high degree, however, its ancient liturgy and Episcopal organization.

The Episcopal Church in the United States is part of the wordwide Anglican Communion. With over seventy million members, the Anglican Communion is one of the three largest faiths in the world.

Protestant, Yet Catholic

The word "episcopal" is derived from the Greek "επίσκοπος", transliterated "ep�skopos", which is used in religious contexts to refer to a bishop. Episcopal churches are churches that use an episcopalian church governance, meaning that bishops are generally regarded as being in "Apostolic Succession" from the first followers of Jesus.

From the Bible we read that Christ entrusted the leadership of the community of believers, and the obligation to transmit and preserve the "deposit of faith" (tradition and scripture) to the apostles, and the apostles passed on this role by ordaining bishops after them. This is what apostolic succession truly is.

The important role of apostolic succession is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles teaching and authority would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession�his own generation, Timothy's generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

The unbrokenness of apostolic succession is significant because of Jesus Christ's promise that the "gates of hell" will not prevail against the Church (See Matthew 16:18). A disruption or end of apostolic succession would mean that this promise was not kept--which we know to be false.

Episcopalians (Anglicans) stand squarely in the Reformed tradition, yet consider their Church just as directly descended from the Early Church as the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. Episcopalians celebrate the "mass" in ancient ways nearly identical to the Roman Catholic tradition.

This lovely liturgy or ritual (used in similar forms by Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians and others) has been observed by Christians since ancient times. Indeed, it can be said that we follow Paul�s admonition: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter"(2 Thess. 2:15, cf. 1 Cor. 11:2). Many find comfort, peace and hope in these ancient traditions and prayers that have been performed by faithful Christians throughout the centuries.

Worship in the Episcopal Church is said to be "liturgical," which means that the congregation follows the service and prays together. This lovely ancient liturgy (or ritual) is the most effective vehicle for giving expression to the worship of heaven as it is described in the Book of Revelation in which the use of white robes and incense in a setting of considerable beauty is described.

Liturgical worship is dignified and respectful yet it empowers Christians to use all of their senses in worship - worship with the whole person and not just the mind.

Liturgy can be confusing, however, or difficult to follow for the first-time visitor. For this reason, Episcopalians use "The Book of Common Prayer" to make the ancient liturgy easy to follow.

Worship in One's Own Language

Anglicans believe that Christians should be able to worship God and read the Bible in their native language, which for many Episcopalians, is English, rather than Latin or Greek, the two earlier, "official" languages of Christianity. Episcopalians use the Holy Bible and The Book of Common Prayer as translated into many tongues throughout the world. In the 1960s, when Roman Catholicism adopted a vernacular mass, many translations of the latin prayers followed the form of translations already in The Book of Common Prayer.

All Are Welcome

All baptized Christians-no matter what age, and no matter of what Christian denomination-are welcome to "receive communion," that is, eat the bread and drink the wine with the congregation, regardless of which Christian Church they were baptized in.

Following Christian tradition, Episcopalians my take communion in one of three ways: 1) the supplicant may receive the host (bread) into the mouth directly and then drink the wine 2) the supplicant may receive the host into their right hand and then drink the wine 3) the supplicant may receive the host by "intinction" --receiving the host in one's right hand and then dipping the host into the wine. After communion, it is tradition to make the ancient "sign of the cross" in homage to Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Scripture, Tradition, and Reason

The Bible teaches us in parables and weaves a sometimes difficult to understand history of religious experience and understanding:

The Anglican approach to reading and interpreting the Bible was first articulated by Richard Hooker, also in the 16th Century. While Christians universally acknowledge the Holy Bible as the Word of God and completely sufficient to our reconciliation to God, what the Bible says must always speak to us in our own time and place.

Episcopalians believe that every Christian must build an understanding and relationship with God's Word in the Bible, and to do that, God has given us intelligence and our own experience, which we refer to as "Reason." The Bible tells us "I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things�" (Eccl. 7: 25)

Based on the text of the Bible itself, and what Christians have taught us about it through the ages, we then must sort out our own understanding of it as it relates to our own lives.

The need to build your own relationship with God and a personal understanding of the scriptures is also based on the fact that the King James translation of the Bible was based on an imperfect set of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. Scholars now know that the "Textus Receptus" (from which the King James Version was translated from) contains errors, which means the King James Version contains errors. This is in direct contradiction to the claim that the King James Bible is the only authoritative version. In the most extreme fundamentalist claim, the KJV is the only completely preserved version in the world. So if you want the most accurate knowledge of God's Word, you would have to read English.

The KJV actually was revised many times between the date of its first publication in 1611 and the publication of the Revised Version, which was published between 1881-1885 There have been at least five subsequent revisions to the KJV since. Which do you follow?

1. Coverdale Bible (1535) / The Great Bible (1539) (both Bibles done by Coverdale)
2. Geneva Bible (the Bible of the Pilgrims) (1557-1560)
3. Bishop's Bible (1568)
4. King James Version (a.k.a., Authorized Version; original version, 1611; Dr. Benjamin Blayney's final revision, 1769)
5. New King James Version (1982)

For some additional details on the NKJV, see http://www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html.

Due to the errors in the Hebrew and Greek texts from which the KJV were translated, the KJV contains some texts that are not consistent with Jesus' genuine teachings and other genuine New Testament teachings, as represented in the earliest Greek texts of the New Testament. For example:

• In Matthew 19:29 and Mark 10:29, the earliest and best available Greek manuscripts conclusively show that the words "or wife" (Greek: e gunaika, Strong's: #2228 and #1135) were not in the original Greek text and are contrary to Jesus' consistent, genuine teachings about marriage. Note: See a thorough examination of Jesus' teachings and other New Testament teachings regarding marriage and separation at http://www.bibletexts.com/terms/divorce.htm.
• In Matthew 5:22, "without a cause" (Greek: eike, Strong's: #1500) was not in the original Greek text of Matthew. Note: See a textual commentary of "Mat 5:22" at http://www.bibletexts.com/verses/v-mat.htm. See also S&H 369:31-32.
• In some cases whole verses or large parts of verses, such as 1 John 5:7-8 (as noted above), were added at the behest of church authorities who, according to some very reputable scholars, presented to Erasmus forged manuscripts in order to include texts that justified their teachings. Note: See a textual commentary of "1Jo 5:7-8"

Sisters in the Priesthood

There is not one scripture in the Holy Bible that forbids women from preaching. On the contrary, there are many verses that encourage both men and women to preach the Gospel. The Bible teaches that God is not a respecter of persons, and He will use any and all who will yield to Him, regardless of race, age, or sex. In understanding this Biblical truth we must learn to differentiate between the historical traditions of men vs. the Word of God on the subject.

The crying need of the hour is for more laborers. It is a trick of the enemy to try to down rate thousands of our faithful laborers just because they were born females.

It is an undeniable fact that God has called and anointed thousands of women to preach the Gospel. Many gospel organizations have hundreds of licensed and ordained women who are preaching, teaching, evangelizing, pastoring, and doing mission work with the signs following their ministry. God is using them for the salvation of the lost, deliverance from sin, gifts of the Spirit, and infilling of the Holy Spirit.

The Bible says, "Touch not mine anointed and do my prophets no harm." And may we be reminded of the Scripture in Acts 5:39, "If it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God."

When someone says, "God does not call women to preach," it is like saying that God does not baptize with the Holy Spirit today. We know better, because we have witnessed and experienced it with our own ears and eyes.

One would be hesitant to condemn female preachers, lest one be found to be fighting against God, and be committing the vile sin of attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil:

• Women preachers are a fulfillment of Bible prophesy (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17-18).
• The Bible declares that women will prophesy: 1 Cor. 11:5, "For every woman that prayeth or prophesieth...."
• Both the Hebrew (Nebrah), and Greek (Proph) used for prophetess means (female preacher).
• The word "Prophet" means a public expounder.
• The word "Prophesy" means to speak forth, or flow forth. The Bible says in 1 Cor. 14:3, "But he that prophesieth speaketh unto MEN to edification, and exhortation and comfort."
• The dictionary says, prophesy is "to speak under divine inspiration...to preach."

Therefore we learn from the original translation, from the Bible interpretation, and from the dictionary, that to prophesy means more than to tell the future, but it is to speak publicly about the past, present, or future. It is to preach under the anointing of the Holy Spirit.

The Old and New Testament prophets and prophetesses were preachers of God's Word.

Even if the words prophet and preacher could be separated, how could anyone prophesy to bring exhortation, comfort and edification to the church, if she were forbidden to speak in church and was to keep silent?

Would God inspire and anoint someone to do something that was wrong and sinful?

God called and used women preachers in the Old Testament.

• DEBORAH - Judges 4:4-5. Deborah was a Judge for both civil and criminal cases. The children of Israel came to her for judgment. She was the chief ruler of Israel for 40 years, giving orders to the Generals and all the army. She did the work of an evangelist, prophetess, Judge, and a preacher. God gave her authority over the mighty (Judges 5:13).
• MIRIAM - Exodus 15:20; Numbers 12:1; Micah 6:4. She was a Prophetess and a Song Leader in Israel.
• HULDAH - 2 Kings 22:14. Five men went to Sister Huldah and communed with her. She spoke to a congregation of men concerning the book of the Law. A female preached to a man's congregation, and her message was taken to the nation and produced a revival.
• MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ'S MOTHER - Isaiah 8:3. She was a prophetess.

God called and used women preachers in the New Testament.

• The first message of the Resurrection of Christ was spoken by WOMEN to a group of men.
• ANNA - Luke 2:36-38. She must have prophesied in church, because she did not depart from the temple.
• Phillip had 4 DAUGHTERS who prophesied. Acts 21:9.
• PRISCILLA assisted Paul in his revival meeting and even taught Apollos in the way of the Lord more perfectly
• PHEBE - Romans 16:1-2. Paul commended Phebe to the Church at Rome and requested that they assist her in her business. She was one of Paul's assistants in the work of the Lord and delivered the Book of Romans to the people from the hand of Paul.

There is no sound reason why a woman or man should not preach the Gospel. There is a desperate need in the church for more workers. Laborers are few, and God will use any and all who will go for Him. Some say God will not use a woman to preach, because "The woman was deceived," but remember Romans 5:12: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world." It seems to indicate that Adam was just as guilty as Eve in the fall of man. If anyone should be kept from preaching because of sin, it would be Adam. But God does not forbid anyone from preaching, because of Adam's or Eve's sin.

1 Cor. 14: 34-35 does not say anything about women preachers. If Paul intended this verse as a general rule to bar all women from speaking in church, then they cannot teach Sunday School, testify, pray, sing, or even make announcements inside a church --which would contradict the rest of the Bible (Acts 2:4; Acts 2:16-18).

Paul was rather dealing with a particular problem in the church. Women were not educated as were the men in that day; therefore the women would talk back and forth to their husbands in church and ask questions concerning the sermon. Paul said, "If they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." If they want to talk things over let them wait until they get home. This rule is still good for the church today, where people are talking and causing confusion in the church service. They should not speak in church. (Not in the back of the church either before or after services.)

If a woman cannot speak in church, then she cannot speak in Sunday School, prayer meeting, Bible study, young people's service, etc. --for who can deny that Sunday School, Bible study, Prayer meeting, and Youth work are parts of church? Christ's Church is not a building, but rather it is found where two or three are gathered together in His name, whether at a street meeting, in a tent, a home, church, classroom or anywhere else.

1 Timothy 2:12 is not a blanket rule for all women of all churches. If it were, then the women could not speak at all, for the same verse that tells them not to teach also tells them to be silent.

If all women had to keep silent in church, then that would be promoting disobedience to God, for they could not teach, pray, testify, sing, exhort, do personal work, or anything that involves speaking in church.

Whenever an interpretation to a verse contradicts the rest of the teaching of the Bible, we know this interpretation is incorrect, for the Holy Spirit will never contradict His own Word.

This is the chief verse that is used to oppose women preaching and yet it says nothing about preaching, nor does it say anything about a public worship or church service. But, on the contrary, this verse is giving instructions to wives as to how they were to conduct themselves in regard to their husband. Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:35, "And if they will LEARN anything, let them ask their husbands at home." Now he states in 1 Tim. 2:12 that the woman should not usurp authority over the man. Paul is dealing with more of a home problem at the time rather than a church problem. We agree that marriage is a partnership and a woman should not usurp authority over the marriage by herself.

It is also to be understood that if anyone, whether man or woman, is usurping authority over the leadership of the church, she or he is to be silent, and not to teach, or act in such a way that would create discord in the assembly.

Some have used Titus 1:6-7, "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children...", but there is a difference between a preacher and a bishop. For I was an Evangelist and now am a Pastor, but I am not a Bishop (Overseer), and most Pastors are not.

If God called a single man with no children to be a Bishop, as Paul was, surely this verse is not opposed to it, nor would this scripture oppose a woman Bishop if she was called of God for the work, as was Deborah.

What this verse does teach is that a person who is to be a Bishop must not have two living companions, either husbands or wives.

The Bible often speaks of "man" when it refers to both men and and women inclusively. The word "mankind" also includes both men and women. For an example of this word usage see 1 Cor. 13:1 - "Though I speak with the tongues of MEN and angels...." This word "MEN" includes women as well, for we do not have one language for men and another for women.

To condemn women preachers and women church workers is a serious offense, because God has stamped His approval on them by His Spirit over and over again, and who is man to fight against the Spirit of God?

To condemn women preachers and women church workers is in a sense to claim they are doing wrong and committing sin...and all those who support them and listen to them are having a part in that sin.

In light of the abundance of Biblical evidences, we admit women to every level of office in the church in fulfillment of the biblical prophesy in Acts 2:17:

"And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy..."

The Intercession of Saints

We do not consider the practice of asking Mary and saints in heaven to pray for us as communion dividing. It is important to note that we do not pray "to" Mary or any saints, but the Bible itself contains many references to invoking those in heaven and asking them to pray "for" or "with" us.

Thus, in Psalm 103 we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21). And in the opening verses of Psalms 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!"

Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). Thus the saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.

Angels do the same thing: "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4).

Jesus himself warned us not to offend small children, because their guardian angels have guaranteed intercessory access to the Father: "See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 18:10).

Because he is the only God-man and the Mediator of the New Covenant, Jesus is the only mediator between man and God (1 Tim. 2:5), but this in no way means we cannot or should not ask our fellow Christians to pray with us and for us (1 Tim. 2:1-4) --"prayer lists" are a vivid example of Christians praying with and for each other.

In particular, we should ask the intercession of those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, for the "prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16).

Passages from the early Church show not only clearly recognized biblical teaching that those in heaven can and do intercede for us, but that early Christians also applied this teaching in their own daily prayer life.

Why Christians Refer to Priests as "Father"

Members of some churches claim that when Christians address priests as "Father", they are engaging in an unbiblical practice that Jesus forbade: "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).

What critics ignore is that in the very next line we read in Matthew 23:10 "Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ" Does this mean we cannot address little boys as "Master so-and-so"? What about terms like "Master Sergeant", "Master of Ceremonies" or "Webmaster"? Are these people sinful?.

To understand the "acceptable and respectful" use of these terms one must read the scriptures in full context. In relation to the word "father", it now becomes clear that there are three Biblically "acceptable and respectful" uses of the word "father" in the Bible.

Biblical Use #1: Heavenly Father

An example of this use would be "Our father who art in Heaven".

Biblical Use #2: Earthly Father

Would God want us to deny a little boy or girl the opportunity to say "I love father" to their parent? What about "Father's Day", is that sinful? Can we not say "father-in-law"? The Bible tells us to "Honour thy father and thy mother". Common sense tells us that Jesus wasn't forbidding these uses of the word "father" which are a sign of love and respect .

Biblical Use #3: Religious or Church Father

Interestingly, Priests do not hold an official title of "father". The word "father" is used in the Church as an unofficial sign of respect and is consistent with the third Biblical teaching on the "acceptable and respectful" use of the term.

Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: "I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know" (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:20-21).

This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind" (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).

Priests follow the apostles' Biblical example by referring to members of their flock as "my son" or "my child". In order for there to be a "my son" logic tells us there has to be a "my father" See: (cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4). These three uses of the word "father" are clearly Biblical and tell us that Matt. 23:9 must be taken in context and in light of all the other evidences in the Bible.

Baptism

What is the meaning of the word "baptism"? The Encyclop�dia Britannica defines baptism this way:
"a sacrament of admission to the Christian Church. The forms and rituals of the various churches vary, but Baptism almost invariably involves the use of water and the Trinitarian invocation, 'I baptize you: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.'...�

The word "baptism" is derived from the Greek word, "bapto", or "baptizo", meaning "to wash", "to dip" or "to immerse". The first time the word baptize was used in the context of religion occurred as a result of its incorporation into the Jewish culture in Greece. The Jewish faith was somewhat complicated with ceremonies, rituals, festivals, and laws. The term baptize was used to describe the ritual known as "ceremonial washing". Today we would not say, "Go baptize your hands before you eat." Instead, we would say, "Go wash your hands before you eat." The term baptize was used anciently to describe this function of washing. Paul speaks of "the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior" (Titus 3:5f; compare Eph.5:26; 1 Cor. 6:11; Heb. 10:22) Saul's baptism involved a washing (Acts 22:16; Lk. 11:38). It signifies, therefore, that washing is of the essential idea behind the sacrament of baptism.

Scripture uses the term baptize both literally and figuratively. It is employed in a metaphorical sense in Acts 1:5, where the abundance of the grace of the Holy Ghost is signified, and also in Luke 12:50, where the term is referred to the sufferings of Christ in His Passion. Otherwise in the New Testament, the root word from which baptism is derived is used to designate the "laving with water", and it is employed, when speaking of Jewish lustrations, and of the baptism of John, as well as of the Christian sacrament of baptism (Hebrews 6:2; Mark 7:4).

Archaeological evidence of the earliest Christian baptisms does not depict baptism by immersion. If the recipient of the sacrament is in a river, he is shown standing in the river while water is poured over his head from a cup or shell. Tile mosaics in ancient churches and paintings in the catacombs depict baptism by pouring. Baptisteries in early cemeteries are clear witnesses to baptisms by infusion. The entire record of the early Church�as shown in the New Testament, in other writings, and in monumental evidence�indicates the mode of baptism was not restricted to immersion.

Other archaeological evidence confirms the same thing. An early Christian baptistery was found in a church in Jesus� hometown of Nazareth, yet this baptistery, which dates from the second century, was too small and narrow in which to immerse a person.

Baptism can be administered by pouring water on the head of, or immersion of, the candidate and saying at the same time: �I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.� Priests or deacons administer baptism, though in a case of necessity anyone may baptize. The Priest or deacon and/or recipient could, but do not need to stand in water during the administration of the sacrament of baptism as some sects claim. In fact, a requirement to physically "stand in water" cannot be scripturally supported.

Some so-called fundamentalists attempt to criticize the Christian Church's practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a "born again" experience --that is, after one has "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior."

As fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true Biblical sense of the word), but an ordinance. As an "ordinance" it doesn't convey the true grace it Biblically symbolizes; rather, it is merely a "public manifestation of the person's action". Since, as fundamentalists see it, only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the "age of reason". Interestingly, this "age of reason" differs between fundamentalist groups as the Bible gives no "age of reason" in relation to the sacrament of baptism.

Since the New Testament era, Christ's Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament (not an "ordinance") which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin-only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Christ Calls All to Baptism

The historic Christian Church has always held that Christ's law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).

More detail is given in Luke's account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, 'Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God'" (Luke 18:15-16).

Now fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"-children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?

Infant Baptism Replaces the Jewish Law of Circumcision

Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11-12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul's reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" --that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

Were Only Adults Baptized in the Holy Bible?

Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning-there were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.

Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never-not even once-find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

Specific Biblical References to Infant Baptism?

But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul's preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.

Present Church practice accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal terpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

No Cry of "Invention!"

None of the Fathers or councils of the early Church were claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when-exactly-an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?

But fundamentalists try to ignore the historical writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism. They attempt to sidestep appeals to history by saying baptism requires faith and, since children are incapable of having faith, they cannot be baptized. It is true that Christ prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19-20), but his general law on the necessity of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. Although infants are included in the law he establishes, requirements of that law that are impossible to meet because of their age are not applicable to them. They cannot be expected to be instructed and have faith when they are incapable of receiving instruction or manifesting faith. The same was true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.

Furthermore, the Bible never says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants"; it simply says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation." Yet fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation. He can thus scarcely criticize the Church for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as Anglicans believe, baptism is an "instrument of salvation".

It becomes apparent, then, that the fundamentalist position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the Bible's strictures, but of the demands of fundamentalism's idea of salvation. In reality, the Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Further, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who criticize the Church's teaching on infant baptism. The Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).