The various writings of the New Testament have an interesting approach to the first century culture and to culture and politics in general.
At a certain level, there is a deliberate lack of engagement with local culture and politics. Jesus does not attempt to overthrow the Roman government and when challenged regarding Roman taxes, has a famous response about giving to God the things of God and giving to Caesar the things of Caesar. In a similar way, Paul makes no attempt to overthrow the first century institution of slavery, but does pressure Philemon to free his runaway slave, Onesimus.
On a different level, there is a direct and confrontational approach to culture and politics. Jesus forgives tax collectors and prostitutes and confronts religious hypocrites and the control of Jewish leaders. In personal interactions, he tells an adulterous woman to "go and sin no more" and gets a tax collector to promise to repay everything he has stolen. In a similar way, Paul confronts the jealousy and gluttony of the church in Corinth and insists that they are to be a model of the kingdom of God.
So how are Christians to engage in their culture and community? I want to lay out some principles from the New Testament readings.
1. It begins with the heart. There is such a human desire to change other people. But one cannot engage as a Christian in the community unless one begins with their own life, recognizing their own selfishness, self-deception, jealousy, ego. The world changed in the first century because people changed, because individuals committed to joining the Kingdom of God, not because they tried to enforce "religious" actions on others. If I want to be an agent of change, then the first person I should hope to see changed is me.
2. It relies on the Holy Spirit and God's power and sovereignty. God changes people; my life is changed as I allow the Holy Spirit to work. Paul repeatedly tells believers to pray and "not be anxious." Change comes not through a legalistic set of resolutions but through genuine concern and love for others, seeing others through God's eyes.
3. The church has authority only over the church! In I Corinthians 5, Paul confronts a very human desire to tell others what to do. There, in verses 12-13, he asks, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the Church?" If one says, "I am a believer and want to be part of your believing community," then it is appropriate to say, "Our community of believers has both rights and responsibilities." It is only within the community of believers that Paul lays out expectations for truth, love, honesty and generally healthy community behavior.
4. The most common threat to the body of Christ seems to come from religious authorities! Throughout the New Testament the direct conflict to the young church comes first from Jewish religious leaders and later, occasionally, from pagan religious leaders (such as the followers of Diana in Ephesus, see Acts 19:23-41.) It might be pointed out that religious leaders have often worked out a way to profit financially from their religion and so find true religion a threat.
In the United States, Christianity has suffered greatly at the hands of religious leaders who claimed to represent Christian beliefs and then used those beliefs for political gain. I recall Richard Nixon, in 1972, getting Billy Graham to endorse him; Nixon also presented himself to the Explo '72 crowd as a Christian president who fully supported the evangelistic goals of Campus Crusade. (I was there.)
I could list numerous examples that followed. Routinely religious leaders (see item 4!) have used Christianity as a way to gain power, bully those who don't believe (item 3), pressure people to be anxious and frightened (#2), while routinely living personal lives of greed, jealousy, lust and abuse (#1.)
The only comment I might make about current US politics is already said in this link. However, let me give a more general example of how not to engage in culture change.
A US television network tells people there is "a war on Christmas." It encourages its viewers to get angry and fight against this war. (See items #2 and #3.) As it encourages Christians to speak up to "preserve Christmas", the network's ratings go up and certain "Christian" leaders gain popularity (#4.) But if you are a believer and follower of Jesus, why engage in this? Relax! God is ultimately in control. If you want to "preserve Christmas", make it a time of joy and kindness. Remember the Messiah born in the Jewish city of David, who died for all humankind. Let nonbelievers celebrate the holiday (or not) as they wish. And be leery of people with financial incentives (ad revenue) who attempt to get you to abandon compassion for conflict.
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
NO, you do NOT need to vote for President!
Here in the United States, after a bizarre primary season, American voters prepare for a November election. As we do this, everyone repeats the old myth that, regardless of the difficulties in choices, "You must cast your vote for President!"
Facebook posts and news articles stress that "Your vote for president is important!" (Many then go on to tell you who you should vote for and why that candidate matters.)
I will skip all the political debate about who to vote for and confront the false and damaging myth that "Your vote counts!"
Your vote for president is meaningless. And the belief that that presidential vote counts is damaging.
IF you cast your first presidential vote at the age of 18 (as I did) and if you continue to vote every four years until you are 118, your vote will never come close to impacting the election. This is true even if, somehow, you also talk TEN THOUSAND friends into voting with you!
My goal is not to denigrate voting for president. But your vote is only important locally, not nationally. Vote locally; vote in the small elections for city council, school board, district judges, the sheriff or chief of police. It is in those small, less splashy elections that your votes (and the votes of your friends) may indeed count!
The shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson Missouri on August 9, 2014, turned a spotlight on that city of 21,000 residents. Although two-thirds of the residents were African-American and many of those residents expressed frustration with racial profiling, the city council remained all white; the police chief was white and 48 of 53 police officers were white. The officers were comfortable making racial jokes and slurs. The local environment was toxic. But when discussing the make-up of their city, many African-Americans expressed resignation about local politics, skepticism that the city could be changed and apathy about voting locally. Yet many of them also expressed their excitement in voting for Obama in the 2012 presidential election.
It was precisely that presidential vote which did them no good.
In hindsight, it is clear that if the African-American community in Ferguson had concentrated on changing the local environment, on supporting progressive candidates for city council and mayor and had advocated for removing the police chief, the endemic racism in the local structure might have been forcibly changed (or at least reduced.) The cycle of poverty caused by police revenue-generating tactics could have been confronted. But instead the community voted for president.
In the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney won Missouri by 260,000 votes and so Missouri cast 10 votes in the electoral college for Romney. It cast no votes for Obama in the electoral college (of course) and so any vote for Obama in Missouri did not affect the electoral college vote.
The racially oppressed African-American community in Ferguson had (still has) the power to change the political structure of that town. The members of that community should vote in all upcoming elections. But they don't need to vote for president. While everyone's attention is turned to the splashy presidential and national elections, the real power of the voter is locally!
Nate Silver's 538 webpage predicts that Missouri will go strongly Republican in the 2016 presidential election and (at the time of this writing) gives Donald Trump an 83.6% probability of winning Missouri's 10 electoral votes. Regardless of how any one individual votes, the state will cast all its electoral votes for Trump. The people of Missouri can debate the merits of Trump, Clinton and third party candidates like Gary Johnson all they want. They can post on Facebook arguments about the next president's impact on pro-life, pro-choice, immigration, women, health care, military ... but the simple truth is that Missouri will cast 10 electoral votes for Trump and that is that. What really matters is the local election!
I can hear the common opposition to this argument. It begins, "If everyone followed your advice then..."
Stop! Logically -- one canNOT argue a point with a supposition that is false! This will never occur; human beings don't act that way. If, in some unlikely future election, MILLIONS of people were to decide to cast local votes but NOT vote for president, this might force politicians to rethink the election process and the electoral college. (Frankly, that would not be all bad.) But most people will continue to mindlessly believe that their presidential vote is somehow important. And they will not pay attention to the smaller local elections where they do have a voice.
Yes, think globally. But vote locally!
Facebook posts and news articles stress that "Your vote for president is important!" (Many then go on to tell you who you should vote for and why that candidate matters.)
I will skip all the political debate about who to vote for and confront the false and damaging myth that "Your vote counts!"
Your vote for president is meaningless. And the belief that that presidential vote counts is damaging.
IF you cast your first presidential vote at the age of 18 (as I did) and if you continue to vote every four years until you are 118, your vote will never come close to impacting the election. This is true even if, somehow, you also talk TEN THOUSAND friends into voting with you!
My goal is not to denigrate voting for president. But your vote is only important locally, not nationally. Vote locally; vote in the small elections for city council, school board, district judges, the sheriff or chief of police. It is in those small, less splashy elections that your votes (and the votes of your friends) may indeed count!
The shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson Missouri on August 9, 2014, turned a spotlight on that city of 21,000 residents. Although two-thirds of the residents were African-American and many of those residents expressed frustration with racial profiling, the city council remained all white; the police chief was white and 48 of 53 police officers were white. The officers were comfortable making racial jokes and slurs. The local environment was toxic. But when discussing the make-up of their city, many African-Americans expressed resignation about local politics, skepticism that the city could be changed and apathy about voting locally. Yet many of them also expressed their excitement in voting for Obama in the 2012 presidential election.
It was precisely that presidential vote which did them no good.
In hindsight, it is clear that if the African-American community in Ferguson had concentrated on changing the local environment, on supporting progressive candidates for city council and mayor and had advocated for removing the police chief, the endemic racism in the local structure might have been forcibly changed (or at least reduced.) The cycle of poverty caused by police revenue-generating tactics could have been confronted. But instead the community voted for president.
In the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney won Missouri by 260,000 votes and so Missouri cast 10 votes in the electoral college for Romney. It cast no votes for Obama in the electoral college (of course) and so any vote for Obama in Missouri did not affect the electoral college vote.
The racially oppressed African-American community in Ferguson had (still has) the power to change the political structure of that town. The members of that community should vote in all upcoming elections. But they don't need to vote for president. While everyone's attention is turned to the splashy presidential and national elections, the real power of the voter is locally!
Nate Silver's 538 webpage predicts that Missouri will go strongly Republican in the 2016 presidential election and (at the time of this writing) gives Donald Trump an 83.6% probability of winning Missouri's 10 electoral votes. Regardless of how any one individual votes, the state will cast all its electoral votes for Trump. The people of Missouri can debate the merits of Trump, Clinton and third party candidates like Gary Johnson all they want. They can post on Facebook arguments about the next president's impact on pro-life, pro-choice, immigration, women, health care, military ... but the simple truth is that Missouri will cast 10 electoral votes for Trump and that is that. What really matters is the local election!
I can hear the common opposition to this argument. It begins, "If everyone followed your advice then..."
Stop! Logically -- one canNOT argue a point with a supposition that is false! This will never occur; human beings don't act that way. If, in some unlikely future election, MILLIONS of people were to decide to cast local votes but NOT vote for president, this might force politicians to rethink the election process and the electoral college. (Frankly, that would not be all bad.) But most people will continue to mindlessly believe that their presidential vote is somehow important. And they will not pay attention to the smaller local elections where they do have a voice.
Yes, think globally. But vote locally!
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Is Your Country Your Idol?
Next week, as we work our way through the New Testament, a chapter per day, we will hit Hebrews 11. This lengthy chapter is the culmination of the author's essay on the importance of following Christ and the patience required in being a citizen of Heaven. Although some describe the chapter as a list of heroes of faith, the chapter has a secondary undercurrent which surfaces in verses 13-16 of that chapter. There the author makes it clear that these past heroes of faith saw themselves as citizens of God's country and recognized that they were "aliens and strangers" on this planet.
This theme occurs in other places throughout the New Testament. Jesus, throughout his ministry, announced the beginning of the kingdom of God (or kingdom of Heaven) and in various ways (see Matthew 22:15-22 and Matthew 4:8-10) made it clear that the kingdom of God was much more serious than mere political power.
Paul, in II Corinthians 5: 17-21 , describes his role as that of an "ambassador", reaching out to people in this world to encourage them to be reconciled to God. The ambassador metaphor is a strong one; the ambassador lives in one country but represents another. We, as Christ's ambassadors, currently live in a strange country, one "not our own"; we live as ambassadors for another country.
This image is true throughout all time, since the day of Jesus. Christians are citizens of "another country", whether they live in the Roman Empire or the Holy Roman Empire, whether living in the German kingdoms of Luther's day or the Scotland of John Knox.
From time to time, Christians forget this. Christians are occasionally seduced by political power into believing they can create a "Holy empire" or a "Christian nation." This seduction first occurred in the Roman Empire when Constantine converted and decided to make his empire "Christian." Later Charlemagne called his empire "Holy". The Catholic Spanish Empire mixed Christian missions with imperialism and oppression, especially in South America. Protestant England claimed to be a "Christian nation" and used that motive to build its global empire. In justification of this, there even arose the cult of British Israelism, in which many claimed that Britain was the new Israel. Some English Christians even claimed that the kings of England were descendants of King David.
A Christian does not have to read world history to see the problems with this "Christian Nation" philosophy. The New Testament says nothing about "Christian nations" or godly kingdoms. Indeed, the last book in the New Testament, the book of Revelation, assures Christians that the heavenly kingdom is waiting in the wings, for the final trumpet, after all the earthly kingdoms have undergone their violent tantrums against God.
The only references in the Bible to a "godly nation" are in the Old Testament. There the references are to the nation of Israel, set up as a theocracy, a nation ruled by God alone. As that nation repeatedly resisted this idea, it replaced God with kings and kingdoms and it alternated (for centuries!) between obedience and disobedience. There are many passages in the Old Testament (such as II Chronicles 7:14) in which God makes promises to the nation of Israel but one should be careful with that context and not presume that those same verses somehow apply to the Holy Roman Empire or the Spanish Empire or even countries or kingdoms in existence today.
Jesus told the Herodians and Pharisees "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." He also said, "No one can serve two masters." One cannot pledge allegiance to the future kingdom of God and to one's country at the same time, for they are in conflict; they both will seek to be the master.
Adolf Hitler, attempting to promote German nationalism among German Christians, created the Reich Church. The book Mein Kampf appeared on the altars of those churches (presumably next to the Bible) and the national symbol, the swastika, appeared in the front of the sanctuaries. We may laugh at this today -- it seems ludicrous to us -- but I have been in churches which had the American flag visible up front, near the cross.
The New Testament has a lot to say about Christians serving as good citizens within our communities and within our countries, wherever God places us. But it does not allow us to make our country an idol. If we follow the Jewish Messiah, Jesus, then we are citizens of another country and we are aliens and strangers here.
Update July 2, 2016: A similar post is here.
This theme occurs in other places throughout the New Testament. Jesus, throughout his ministry, announced the beginning of the kingdom of God (or kingdom of Heaven) and in various ways (see Matthew 22:15-22 and Matthew 4:8-10) made it clear that the kingdom of God was much more serious than mere political power.
Paul, in II Corinthians 5: 17-21 , describes his role as that of an "ambassador", reaching out to people in this world to encourage them to be reconciled to God. The ambassador metaphor is a strong one; the ambassador lives in one country but represents another. We, as Christ's ambassadors, currently live in a strange country, one "not our own"; we live as ambassadors for another country.
This image is true throughout all time, since the day of Jesus. Christians are citizens of "another country", whether they live in the Roman Empire or the Holy Roman Empire, whether living in the German kingdoms of Luther's day or the Scotland of John Knox.
From time to time, Christians forget this. Christians are occasionally seduced by political power into believing they can create a "Holy empire" or a "Christian nation." This seduction first occurred in the Roman Empire when Constantine converted and decided to make his empire "Christian." Later Charlemagne called his empire "Holy". The Catholic Spanish Empire mixed Christian missions with imperialism and oppression, especially in South America. Protestant England claimed to be a "Christian nation" and used that motive to build its global empire. In justification of this, there even arose the cult of British Israelism, in which many claimed that Britain was the new Israel. Some English Christians even claimed that the kings of England were descendants of King David.
A Christian does not have to read world history to see the problems with this "Christian Nation" philosophy. The New Testament says nothing about "Christian nations" or godly kingdoms. Indeed, the last book in the New Testament, the book of Revelation, assures Christians that the heavenly kingdom is waiting in the wings, for the final trumpet, after all the earthly kingdoms have undergone their violent tantrums against God.
The only references in the Bible to a "godly nation" are in the Old Testament. There the references are to the nation of Israel, set up as a theocracy, a nation ruled by God alone. As that nation repeatedly resisted this idea, it replaced God with kings and kingdoms and it alternated (for centuries!) between obedience and disobedience. There are many passages in the Old Testament (such as II Chronicles 7:14) in which God makes promises to the nation of Israel but one should be careful with that context and not presume that those same verses somehow apply to the Holy Roman Empire or the Spanish Empire or even countries or kingdoms in existence today.
Jesus told the Herodians and Pharisees "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." He also said, "No one can serve two masters." One cannot pledge allegiance to the future kingdom of God and to one's country at the same time, for they are in conflict; they both will seek to be the master.
Adolf Hitler, attempting to promote German nationalism among German Christians, created the Reich Church. The book Mein Kampf appeared on the altars of those churches (presumably next to the Bible) and the national symbol, the swastika, appeared in the front of the sanctuaries. We may laugh at this today -- it seems ludicrous to us -- but I have been in churches which had the American flag visible up front, near the cross.
The New Testament has a lot to say about Christians serving as good citizens within our communities and within our countries, wherever God places us. But it does not allow us to make our country an idol. If we follow the Jewish Messiah, Jesus, then we are citizens of another country and we are aliens and strangers here.
Update July 2, 2016: A similar post is here.
Sunday, May 22, 2016
Sunday Morning, Singapore
This morning, while visiting in Singapore, I went with Jim & Monica Davis to the Living Praise Presbyterian Church on the northeast side of the country. We took the Red Line from the west side of the island north through Woodlands, not far from Malaysia, and then around to the northeast where we got off at the Bishan MRT. We walked Bishan Street 13 for half a mile, finding the church in among the buildings of the Kuo Chuan Presbyterian Primary School.
We had been invited by friends David and Deb Walker, staff with One Challenge Singapore. There are two churches which meet within the Presbyterian school, so I was not sure I was in the right place until I was greeted by David Lin, one of the church elders. Jan and I had met David before, and he greeted me warmly and quickly took our group to meet our hosts.
I was pleased to learn that this Sunday was a special joint Mandarin-English service. The church was accepting new members and installing a new elder and deacon and so the Mandarin and English halves had come together in a single service to worship together. I am aware of the importance of worshiping God in one's own tongue and I am grateful for a Mandarin-English church in The Woodlands in Texas that ministered to one of our university students back in Huntsville. It was fun to sing in English, while listening to other sing in Mandarin and I am sure one has to carefully pick hymns that will allow both tongues to sing together!
After the service, we had a wonderful lunch with the church body. Yes, ministry is facilitated by good food and conversation!
I attach (I hope) a short video of the church singing one of the hymns.
We had been invited by friends David and Deb Walker, staff with One Challenge Singapore. There are two churches which meet within the Presbyterian school, so I was not sure I was in the right place until I was greeted by David Lin, one of the church elders. Jan and I had met David before, and he greeted me warmly and quickly took our group to meet our hosts.
I was pleased to learn that this Sunday was a special joint Mandarin-English service. The church was accepting new members and installing a new elder and deacon and so the Mandarin and English halves had come together in a single service to worship together. I am aware of the importance of worshiping God in one's own tongue and I am grateful for a Mandarin-English church in The Woodlands in Texas that ministered to one of our university students back in Huntsville. It was fun to sing in English, while listening to other sing in Mandarin and I am sure one has to carefully pick hymns that will allow both tongues to sing together!
After the service, we had a wonderful lunch with the church body. Yes, ministry is facilitated by good food and conversation!
I attach (I hope) a short video of the church singing one of the hymns.
Sunday, May 8, 2016
The Afterlife
In a related blog, I've been working my way through the New Testament, chapter by chapter. There we are just finishing I Corinthians.
The end of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians is a suitable place to explore Paul's description of the afterlife. Paul insists that he saw Jesus after his crucifixion and resurrection and claims some 500 others did also. Paul insists the belief in the resurrection is central to his faith in the Jewish Messiah, Jesus.
Paul then goes on to claim that there will be a final Resurrection of the dead and a "celestial body", a true physical body, but in many ways different from the current earthly one. How this occurs is unknown and probably unknowable. Christians have added layers to this interpretation since then.
Central to the theology of the afterlife, within Christianity, is a belief that there will be an afterlife and that one's part in the afterlife is linked to one's response to Jesus is this one. After this, the viewpoints begin to diverge. Do those who reject Jesus go on to a place of conscious torment, often called Hell? Is Hell/Hades a place of annihilation, of a continuance of death and the end of existence? Is there some type of "cleansing" place of Purgatory? (See here, here and here, as part of a book review on the Jesus Creed blog by Scot McKnight, of the book Four Views on Hell.)
Does one, after death, immediately move into a conscious state, with the soul separated but conscious and aware? Or does life require a body and so after death one "sleeps", unaware, until recreated in the final Resurrection? The Jesus Creed blog has a brief discussion on that also.
Of course, there is a wide-ranging article on the afterlife at Wikipedia.
I have my own opinions on this ... but the only one I will share here is this: like Paul, I believe (and hope) there will be a Resurrection. After that, it is OK to not be sure about any of the many views on how the afterlife will occur. One can have doubts. One should ask questions about the form it takes and whether our existence, as Scot McKnight asks, is "separation of soul and body (dualism)" or "physicality."
We will all find out soon enough....
Next week, on that blog, we will begin studying my favorite gospel, The Gospel of Mark.
The end of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians is a suitable place to explore Paul's description of the afterlife. Paul insists that he saw Jesus after his crucifixion and resurrection and claims some 500 others did also. Paul insists the belief in the resurrection is central to his faith in the Jewish Messiah, Jesus.
Paul then goes on to claim that there will be a final Resurrection of the dead and a "celestial body", a true physical body, but in many ways different from the current earthly one. How this occurs is unknown and probably unknowable. Christians have added layers to this interpretation since then.
Central to the theology of the afterlife, within Christianity, is a belief that there will be an afterlife and that one's part in the afterlife is linked to one's response to Jesus is this one. After this, the viewpoints begin to diverge. Do those who reject Jesus go on to a place of conscious torment, often called Hell? Is Hell/Hades a place of annihilation, of a continuance of death and the end of existence? Is there some type of "cleansing" place of Purgatory? (See here, here and here, as part of a book review on the Jesus Creed blog by Scot McKnight, of the book Four Views on Hell.)
Does one, after death, immediately move into a conscious state, with the soul separated but conscious and aware? Or does life require a body and so after death one "sleeps", unaware, until recreated in the final Resurrection? The Jesus Creed blog has a brief discussion on that also.
Of course, there is a wide-ranging article on the afterlife at Wikipedia.
I have my own opinions on this ... but the only one I will share here is this: like Paul, I believe (and hope) there will be a Resurrection. After that, it is OK to not be sure about any of the many views on how the afterlife will occur. One can have doubts. One should ask questions about the form it takes and whether our existence, as Scot McKnight asks, is "separation of soul and body (dualism)" or "physicality."
We will all find out soon enough....
Next week, on that blog, we will begin studying my favorite gospel, The Gospel of Mark.
Sunday, April 24, 2016
Disputing Baptism
In the blog A Year in the New Testament, I've been working my ways through Paul's "first" letter to the church in Corinth....
In the opening chapter of Paul's first letter to the church in Corinth, we see a dispute in the Corinthian church about baptism. Although the details of the dispute have changed, disputing baptism continues to be a Christian "hobby" even today. This is regretful.
The dispute in Corinth was over which leaders to follow and this was marked by one's choice of baptism. One person says, "I was baptized by Apollos" and another says, "I was baptized by Peter!" Paul confronts this by emphasizing that each of these individuals, including himself, are working together, ministering in various ways. One apostle "plants the seeds", another "waters the crops". How then can any one individual claim full responsibility for the bountiful crops?
In recent centuries the dispute has not been over WHO did the baptism, but HOW it was done. The dispute has been over the mode of baptism. I was a member of one church where one MUST be baptized, by immersion, as a believing adult. If one had been baptized as a child (as I was) then one MUST be rebaptized.
I was also a member of another church where baptism of infants was the norm and the baptism was "sprinkling", that is, placing water on the infant's forehead. Adult believers who had been baptized as children could make a commit of renewal in a certain manner, but one was NEVER baptized a second time.
In the first church (a Baptist church), the pastor told a Sunday School class, "I have never met a sincere Bible scholar who believes in infant baptism." A year later I (while on a sabbatical visit) I was in another church (a Presbyterian church) in which the pastor said essentially the exact opposite, "Serious students of the Bible recognize that baptism is a sign of the covenant, like Jewish circumcision, and it has always been practiced with infants."
What would happen if we put those two pastors in the same room together and locked the door? Would it lead to some type of reconciliation? A friend, upon hearing this tale, said wisely, "Those statements say more about the social circles of the two pastors than it does about theology."
Although the dispute has changed, the application of I Corinthians is straightforward. Paul is almost dismissive of baptism. Yes, it is important, but he is happy that he did not baptize anyone! Then he pauses and says, "Well, except for Crispus and Gaius. Oh, wait, also the family of Stephanos. Hmm, after that, I don't recall if I baptized others." He downplays the rite, as it has become divisive. He certainly does not bother to give any instructions on how baptism should be done!
We should follow Paul's example. Baptism is an important public statement of membership in the Kingdom of God. Practice it in that manner. Let us be welcoming of all others who attest to this membership, regardless of the form of that initiation ceremony!
Wikipedia, of course, has a good article on baptism. If you read that, note the discussion on the mode of baptism in the early centuries of the young church.
The letter to the church in Corinth does describe the mode of another "sacrament", that of communion. (See I Corinthians 11: 23-26.) This too we need to practice regularly and in common with other Christians.
We will return to our study of I Corinthians tomorrow at that sister blog....
In the opening chapter of Paul's first letter to the church in Corinth, we see a dispute in the Corinthian church about baptism. Although the details of the dispute have changed, disputing baptism continues to be a Christian "hobby" even today. This is regretful.
The dispute in Corinth was over which leaders to follow and this was marked by one's choice of baptism. One person says, "I was baptized by Apollos" and another says, "I was baptized by Peter!" Paul confronts this by emphasizing that each of these individuals, including himself, are working together, ministering in various ways. One apostle "plants the seeds", another "waters the crops". How then can any one individual claim full responsibility for the bountiful crops?
In recent centuries the dispute has not been over WHO did the baptism, but HOW it was done. The dispute has been over the mode of baptism. I was a member of one church where one MUST be baptized, by immersion, as a believing adult. If one had been baptized as a child (as I was) then one MUST be rebaptized.
I was also a member of another church where baptism of infants was the norm and the baptism was "sprinkling", that is, placing water on the infant's forehead. Adult believers who had been baptized as children could make a commit of renewal in a certain manner, but one was NEVER baptized a second time.
In the first church (a Baptist church), the pastor told a Sunday School class, "I have never met a sincere Bible scholar who believes in infant baptism." A year later I (while on a sabbatical visit) I was in another church (a Presbyterian church) in which the pastor said essentially the exact opposite, "Serious students of the Bible recognize that baptism is a sign of the covenant, like Jewish circumcision, and it has always been practiced with infants."
What would happen if we put those two pastors in the same room together and locked the door? Would it lead to some type of reconciliation? A friend, upon hearing this tale, said wisely, "Those statements say more about the social circles of the two pastors than it does about theology."
Although the dispute has changed, the application of I Corinthians is straightforward. Paul is almost dismissive of baptism. Yes, it is important, but he is happy that he did not baptize anyone! Then he pauses and says, "Well, except for Crispus and Gaius. Oh, wait, also the family of Stephanos. Hmm, after that, I don't recall if I baptized others." He downplays the rite, as it has become divisive. He certainly does not bother to give any instructions on how baptism should be done!
We should follow Paul's example. Baptism is an important public statement of membership in the Kingdom of God. Practice it in that manner. Let us be welcoming of all others who attest to this membership, regardless of the form of that initiation ceremony!
Wikipedia, of course, has a good article on baptism. If you read that, note the discussion on the mode of baptism in the early centuries of the young church.
The letter to the church in Corinth does describe the mode of another "sacrament", that of communion. (See I Corinthians 11: 23-26.) This too we need to practice regularly and in common with other Christians.
We will return to our study of I Corinthians tomorrow at that sister blog....
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
A Perfect Church
Jan and I have been visiting a church in The Woodlands. They say, "There is no perfect church." A corollary to this is, "If you find one, don't join it, as you will ruin it!"
Still ... Jan suggested that I try out this church's Brew Night, a "guys night out" event in College Park, at the north end of The Woodlands. The event is at a restaurant only 35 miles from Huntsville and just off the interstate, so just a 30-minute drive. Maybe, Jan hopes, I can find some Christian guys who like beer, soccer and (maybe even) are interested in scientific/mathy things.
So last night I drove to Wings 'N More for a 6:30 pm Men's "Brew Night". I tried to keep my expectations low. I am often uncomfortable with the "pseudo-religiosity" I see in various church events. I got to the restaurant at 6:30 but there was already a table of about a dozen men, with big goblets of Shiner beer. I ordered a goblet (16-20 ounces) of Shiner and a plate of wings. I met Todd (Pastor of Community Life) and I chatted a little about small groups. Todd made me feel welcome, as did Jim, Damon, Matt, Kyle (Pastor of Children's Ministries) and the senior pastor (David.) All had big goblets of Shiner and were clearly enjoying this monthly get-together.
"So", Todd explains to me, "we do this on a monthly basis. But sometimes we do a brewery tour, visiting Southern Star or B-52 or... " (he names a third local brewery that I've since forgotten.) "Or we go to a soccer game."
Soccer! Brewery tours! This is too good to be true. (And the pastor got a bachelors degree in Computer Science!) I text Jan about the beer and soccer.
She writes back, "I think you're making this up!" She adds, "They are probably just leading you on!" (She also reminds me that I have to drive home -- on I-45 -- and sends a smiley face.)
Shortly after that, the talk turns to dogs. Todd and his wife have two. Kyle has one, staying in St. Louis while he and his family live in an apartment. Four of us spend 45 minutes telling dog stories. Then, in the warmth of the beer, spicy food and warm conversation, I walk out to my car.
Sitting in my car, I notice a text message from Jan, about 45 minutes old. I had not seen it until then.
She adds, "That is the real question!"
I knew she wouldn't believe me when I told her....
Still ... Jan suggested that I try out this church's Brew Night, a "guys night out" event in College Park, at the north end of The Woodlands. The event is at a restaurant only 35 miles from Huntsville and just off the interstate, so just a 30-minute drive. Maybe, Jan hopes, I can find some Christian guys who like beer, soccer and (maybe even) are interested in scientific/mathy things.
So last night I drove to Wings 'N More for a 6:30 pm Men's "Brew Night". I tried to keep my expectations low. I am often uncomfortable with the "pseudo-religiosity" I see in various church events. I got to the restaurant at 6:30 but there was already a table of about a dozen men, with big goblets of Shiner beer. I ordered a goblet (16-20 ounces) of Shiner and a plate of wings. I met Todd (Pastor of Community Life) and I chatted a little about small groups. Todd made me feel welcome, as did Jim, Damon, Matt, Kyle (Pastor of Children's Ministries) and the senior pastor (David.) All had big goblets of Shiner and were clearly enjoying this monthly get-together.
"So", Todd explains to me, "we do this on a monthly basis. But sometimes we do a brewery tour, visiting Southern Star or B-52 or... " (he names a third local brewery that I've since forgotten.) "Or we go to a soccer game."
Soccer! Brewery tours! This is too good to be true. (And the pastor got a bachelors degree in Computer Science!) I text Jan about the beer and soccer.
She writes back, "I think you're making this up!" She adds, "They are probably just leading you on!" (She also reminds me that I have to drive home -- on I-45 -- and sends a smiley face.)
Shortly after that, the talk turns to dogs. Todd and his wife have two. Kyle has one, staying in St. Louis while he and his family live in an apartment. Four of us spend 45 minutes telling dog stories. Then, in the warmth of the beer, spicy food and warm conversation, I walk out to my car.
Sitting in my car, I notice a text message from Jan, about 45 minutes old. I had not seen it until then.
BUT, do they like dogs?!... ;-)
She adds, "That is the real question!"
I knew she wouldn't believe me when I told her....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)