Fri 28 Dec 2007
A question inspired by this story of Jewish children secretly baptized, the question arises:
When two (or more) religions have intersecting domains of spiritual jurisdiction, as it were, what happens? What are the theological boundaries? The social implications? Are any religions in particular more (or less) “sticky” in their metaphysical persistence?
Posted by Josh Millard9 answers so far!
Okay, let's hear it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
What I don’t understand is how the OP could think something awful (beyond the deceit of going against his wishes) could come from someone being baptized in a tradition that the OP obviously doesn’t accept. Wouldn’t that be like if I baptized you into the Order of the Holy Unicorn, if you thought that the whole Holy Unicorn thing was bunk? The interpersonal stuff is the real sticking point here, not the religion, it seems.
Maybe he was trying to get his kids to fly under Jesus’s radar entirely, and he’s now worried that at the end times, the Nazarene will come to claim what’s His.
I’m a Unitarian. I’m pretty certain that our metaphysical persistence is just about as sticky as a Teflon skillet.
@corpse: y’know, I’m constantly tempted by Unitarianism. I’ve currently formed something of a Christological Universalism for my current theology, but that’s up for constant revision as time goes on. I’m currently fascinated by the writings of James Mulholland, for instance. The concept of divine human sacrifice being necessary for reconciliation with the creator just never gelled with me. I’m not really impressed or enamored by a god that required blood.
I would like to hear perspectives on this question from people who come from outside the Judeo-Christian tradition. Seems like many southeast Asian cultures have centuries of experience navigating this terrain. Look at the interplay of Shinto and Buddhism in Japan, for instance.
And speaking of the original AskMe, I’d be hella pissed if my MIL secretly baptized my kids. It’s disrespect of the profoundest sort.
“Die, heretic!”
I love that joke, but it does call out the divide between legalists, and the rest of us. The OP’s MIL was a religious legalist. Strict rules had to be followed in order for salvation to be achieved. In my personal view, that’s losing sight of the spirit of the sacrament. Legalists focus on dividing groups of people into Us and Them, whittling down until Us is as small a group as we can possibly make it. In the view of a legalist, any set of behaviors other than their own can “taint”
< tangent >
I personally believe that the purpose of religion should be to draw larger and larger inclusive circles of Us, finding our common ground, and then hearkening back to the core at the center. That’s what I love about the actual message and actions of Jesus. What a fantastic vision for humanity the Sermon on the Mount presents! It’s an impossible dream of perfection that’s unattainable, “Be perfect, then, as your Father in heaven”. But, at the same time, he was completely accepting of people who weren’t in that circle. On a personal level, he purposely sought out people the furthest from that inner core.
Being that I’m a (very bad) Zen buddhist who was raised Anglican & Baptist & Pentecostal before rejecting the Judeo-Christian tradition entirely, I find it wholly bizarre to discuss the traditional concept of a soul. It’s just a weird concept…if the soul is individual and continues to be after death, then what purpose does it serve? How are they created when the population increased, if not by the direct hand of the J-C God? If they are created by man during conception, then why is there any overwhelming spirituality attached to the concept? If there is battle for peoples’ souls going on, with two sides (Devil and God) warring (in a very passive-aggressive way, I must add) then who made up this board game? If God created everything, then he made up the game too, and therefore he can choose to win it at his will. Meaning that the wargame over souls, played by tweaking the inherent weak and sinful nature of man’s intentions, is ultimately his anyway. Therefore there is no point really to play the game for Lucifer or any man or woman.
Now, if you take this as just at its heart a non-religious way to control people and get them to obey specified rules for the good of society (at best) or the negative and controlling wishes of the rulemakers, then the whole thing makes a whole lot more sense, as far as how it came about and why it continues. Of course, that throws a lot of religion out the window, which is not a terribly popular thing.
It would be nice if all religions started their teachings with a rule of “respect others’ beliefs,” wouldn’t it?
Personally, I don’t believe any one religion has more “stickiness” than any other.
As far as the children being baptized in secret, the only way to address that is through direct communication between all involved. It might be unpleasant, but it might also open up a dialogue, clear the air, and let Grandma know there are boundaries to her behavior. It’s really up to the parents how the children are raised. It might be easier to keep silent and not make waves, but it also establishes a pattern of letting Grandma believe she can overstep boundaries with no consequences. What if little Johnny came home and said, “Grandma said I’m going to hell if I don’t accept Jesus into my heart. Is that true?” In that case, what is more important to the OP, letting the kids visit with Grandma or keeping them from being exposed to beliefs that run contrary to his own? Only he and his wife can decide that.
Eventually they are going to have to explain to the kids why Grandma (or a friend at school, etc.) believes one thing and Mom and Dad believe another, so they might want to start preparing answers to those types of questions. This will happen no matter what faith you are, I think it’s very rare to find a teenager who hasn’t questioned his/her parents’ faith.
Bit of a tangent, but here’s a piece on Freakonomics discussing, in part, goys employing mohel to handle their circumcision needs.