Monday, April 2, 2012

The Road to Redemption – Baptism: Why Children?

    Should I have my baby baptized or should I wait until they are older and allow them to make their own decision? That is a question that I have been frequently asked over my 26 years of ministry. It is asked because many of the people in the churches I have served (including many of you) were reared in traditions that did not practice infant baptism, but instead only allow believer's baptism (the technical term for which is credobaptism). This practice of only allowing believer's baptism is based on the claim that there is no scriptural warrant for infant baptism (the technical term for which is paedobaptism). With this ongoing disagreement what then ought our answer to the above question be?

    My guess is that most of you reading this piece would argue for infant baptism. You would argue for infant baptism because it is the custom with which you have grown up. Churches as far ranging as Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic all practice infant baptism...even though I have heard many people speak of it as "christening" rather than baptism. The issue which confronts those of us who baptize infants is that there appear to be no specific references to infant baptism in scripture. The only direct stories of baptism seem to be about adults being baptized…and those baptisms by some sort of immersion. This lack of scriptural warrant can put us on the defensive when we are confronted by those who believe in credobaptism. Those who back credobaptism claim that baptism requires the ability of the one baptized to make a conscious choice to believe in and follow Jesus. We infant baptizers then need to ask, can we actually defend infant baptism as scripturally based?

    The answer, I believe, is yes we can, though it is not as easily done as we might like. First we have to acknowledge that all specific instances of baptism in the New Testament are of adults. However, this makes a great deal of sense considering that the New Testament is the story of the first generation of believers. In other words the church was making adult Gentiles and Jews into Jesus followers. The Biblical story ends before we reach the time when we have a second generation in which children might be baptized. However there are cryptic references to "the entire household" of a new believer being baptized (Acts 16:15; 16:31-33; I Corinthians 1:16). The implication of these texts is that when the head of a house became part of the new covenant community through baptism, so did everyone else in the household. While this is a strange concept to us, it would not have been a strange concept in the First Century. The household (children and servants) were always of the same faith as the head of the house. This would have made even more sense to Jews because Jewish boys were circumcised on the 8th day signifying that they were part of the chosen people. Baptism then became the "circumcision" or mark of entry into the new community for men, women, adults and infants.

    Finally the practice of infant baptism has an ancient pedigree. Irenaeus (130-202), Origen (185-254) and Tertullian (155-230) all write about infant baptism as the practice of the church. Hippolytus of Rome (writing at about the same time) gives instructions for how infant baptism ought to be carried out.

    We now return to our original question; should parents have their infants baptized or wait for the children to decide. The answer is…whichever the parent's chose. I say this because baptism, as we discussed last week, is a sign and seal of what God is doing in the lives of our children. Being or not being baptized will not change the actions of God. We believe (along with the Apostle Peter in Acts 2:39) that God is claiming our children as God's own regardless of baptism. Therefore parents ought to feel comfortable in choosing the practice which makes most Biblical and theological sense to them (and by the way, our Presbyterian rules allow for both).

    

The Road to Redemption – The Church: Baptism Basics

    The first time we read about baptism in the Bible is when we meet this strange guy named John the Baptizer. John understands himself not only to be a prophet (a view shared by many people of his day) but as the one who would prepare the way for the coming Kingdom of God. His preparation of others for the Kingdom consisted of preaching and baptizing (immersing) for the remission of sins. This type of baptizing was something completely new to the Jewish community. While the Jews had their ritual baths (mikveh), these were used to either prepare persons to go into the Temple for particular rituals or to insure that women were clean after menstruation. The idea of a onetime immersion for the forgiveness of sins was unheard of. Even so, thousands, including Jesus, were baptized by John.

    The church took this idea of a onetime baptism and modified it immediately after Easter. The modifications were two-fold. The first modification was that the baptism would no longer be a preparation for the coming Kingdom. The disciples believed that since the resurrection initiated the in-breaking of God's Kingdom baptism would then be a sign of entry into that Kingdom. The second modification was that baptism was done either in name of Jesus, or in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The scriptures indicate that most of the initial baptizing done by the church was in the name of Jesus, and not the Trinity. The Trinitarian formula was a later addition.

    With this as background we move to what we as Presbyterians believe about baptism. Our constitution (based on our confessional documents) tells us several things about baptism. We will look at them one at a time. Baptism signifies:

    The faithfulness of God: this underlies all the other concepts about baptism. In other words baptism is reminder that God calls and claims us, rather than our calling and claiming God. It is God who acts first, last and always. The waters of baptism are the sign that God is faithful to God's claims.

    The washing away of sin: remembering that there is nothing magical about baptism (it is not spiritual medicine that cures us from sinfulness) it is a reminder that God forgives our sins out of God's own grace, rather than us becoming good enough to be forgiven. The waters of baptism are a sign of God's freely given gracious forgiveness.

    Rebirth: baptism reminds us that in Christ we have become new people by the work of the Holy Spirit. Even as infants we believe that Spirit is already making the children of believers, children of God in a new and unique way. The waters of baptism are a sign that we have been made spiritually new.

    Putting on the fresh garment of Christ: one of the great Biblical images is that believers have been given new "Jesus" clothing. This new clothing means we have become Jesus people who are to live lives of love and compassion. The waters of baptism are a sign that we are now to live in a new way.

    Being sealed in God's Spirit: a seal is a mark that the thing sealed belongs to the one whose seal is affixed (like a letter that is sealed with a wax seal). The waters of baptism are a sign that we have been sealed by the Spirit and thus belong to God.

    Adoption into the covenant family of the church: baptism is administered by the church in the presence of the church family (we Presbyterians do no private baptisms) because baptism is the community claiming us, and not us seeking private membership. The waters of baptism are the sign of our incorporation into Christ's mystical body.

    Resurrection and illumination in Christ: baptism symbolizes our "death" to the old life and our being "raised" to a new life through Christ. In addition because we are raised to a new life we become capable of understanding who Jesus is and what Jesus wants us to do (this is the illumination). The waters of baptism are the sign that we are new resurrection people.

    

The Road to Redemption: The Church: the Sacraments that Bind us Together

    We in the church love to use churchy words. We use words like chancel, narthex, Gospels, and Trinity among others. These are not words that many of us will hear in the normal course of life (except maybe Trinity in reference to the University which Cindy and I attended). One more of those words is sacrament. While sacrament is a bit more familiar it is still probably a bit of a mystery, considering that each Christian denomination has a slightly different view of what it is, what it does and how many of them there are.

    Let's begin with a basic churchy definition. A sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace based on a command of Jesus. While this definition might not seem all that helpful I believe it will be once we unpack it.

A sacrament is visible. In other words there is something tangible that we can see, touch or taste. Baptism (one of our two sacraments) has water that is clearly visible and is used in a way which is felt by the one being baptized. In the Lord's Supper (our other sacrament) we have bread and juice. We take hold of each and physically consume them. Therefore each of these is visible and physical.

    A Sacrament is a visible sign. Here we are using the word sign in the normal sense of a sign. A sign points to something. A sign announces that there is a curve ahead, or that a particular business is located at a particular place. Both of our sacraments are signs that point to something important that God is doing. This means, and this is important, that the sacrament doesn't actually do anything (it is not magic or spiritual medicine) but points to a particular something that God is doing.

    A sacrament is a visible sign that points to something that is invisible. The thing that God is doing to which the sacraments point is invisible. While over the next couple of weeks we will look more at the invisible thing to which each sacrament points, suffice it to say that we believe that just as God is at work in the world and in our lives in a general way there are specific moments when God does something powerfully out of the ordinary. And it is to those out of the ordinary invisible acts that the sacraments point.

    A sacrament is a visible sign that points to an invisible grace. An easy way to understand grace is to think of it as a gift we are given that we have not earned or deserved. Grace can be seen as God's love for us which precedes our love for God. Grace can be seen as God's guiding, transforming and even disciplining work in our lives. Thus a sacrament is a visible action that points us to the loving, invisible, behind the scenes, out of the ordinary, unmerited, work that God is about in our lives.

    A Sacrament is based on a command of Christ. Jesus commanded his disciples to go into the world baptizing those who believe…so we baptize. Jesus commanded his disciples to celebrate the Lord's Supper until he returned…so we celebrate the Lord's Supper. By understanding a sacrament to be something that comes from a command of Christ, we (meaning us Protestants) narrowed the field of sacraments from seven/ten to two. The Roman church has seven sacraments: baptism, confirmation, communion, marriage, confession, ordination, last rites…or unction. The Orthodox churches add fasting, almsgiving and monasticism to that list of seven in order to have ten sacraments (or mysteries). While we consider each of their sacraments to be a means of experiencing the grace of God we do not affirm them as sacraments.

    One last thought about sacraments. Many churches, though they baptize and participate in the Lord's Supper, call those actions ordinances rather than sacraments because they believe that baptism and the supper simply help people remember what Jesus commanded. While we do not believe that anything magical happens in the sacraments, we see them as particularly powerful means of God's grace entering our lives and thus use the term sacrament rather than ordinance.

    

The Road to Redemption – The Church as Imperfect Institution

    The church has seen better days. Over the past 20 years the church, regardless of denomination or leadership, has found itself exposed for what it is…an imperfect institution. For decades the church was one of the few institutions that was seen positively not only by its members but society as a whole. The scandals involving first prominent charismatic pastors (Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart) and then those of the priestly sexual abuse of children in the Roman Catholic Church have reshaped public opinion about the church. Though we as Presbyterians have not garnered the spot-light we have had our share of ministers sleeping with parishioners as well as a child sexual abuse scandal in a mission school in Africa. All of this has led American society to distance itself from organized religion. Diana Butler Bass put it this way:

"The religious market collapse has happened with astonishing speed. In 1999, when survey takers asked Americans "Do you consider yourself spiritual or religious," a solid majority of 54 percent responded that they were "religious but not spiritual." By 2009, only 9 percent of Americans responded that way. In 10 years, those willing to identify themselves primarily as "religious" plummeted by 45 percentage points. In the last decade, the word "religion" has become equated with institutional or organized religion…in almost exclusively negative terms."

The reality however is that the church has never been the shining city set on a hill that people pretended it to be.

    If we take seriously the New Testament witness it is apparent that the church has always had its issues. In the Apostle Paul's letters we read about churches that are rent by sexual lapses (a man sleeping with his step-mother), people being greedy and not sharing, others thinking that they are wiser and better than other church members, those who believe their spiritual gifts are the best, as well as factions based on who baptized whom. Church history witnesses to the church rapidly becoming anti-woman (women were quickly removed from leadership positions), hierarchical and more concerned with theological orthodoxy than being a compassionate, loving community. Once the church became the official religion of the Empire under Constantine (320s CE) it became enamored of the power that this relationship brought. The following centuries brought everything from the crusades, to the inquisition to Protestant heresy and witch trials…and the deaths of thousands of innocents. The picture is not pretty.

    I offer these observations not because they are sensational or in order to make ourselves feel badly about our past. I offer them for two reasons. First they are a reminder that we are in many ways a human institution. Even though we are called by Christ in and through the Holy Spirit, we bring into this community all of our human foibles and failings. A pastor friend of mine even tells new members in his church to expect that one day the church will disappoint them. This understanding will hopefully help us in those moments when the church has let us down…knowing that there are no perfect churches out there. Second I hope this realization about our lack of perfection will cause us to want to be a better church…a better community of caring and compassion. By realizing that we are not perfect we will see that there is room for improvement; that by prayer and grace we can become more and more the church Christ calls us to be.

    In the end the quality of our community is up to us and our willingness to be led and guided by the Spirit as we live into our faith given to us by Christ.

The Road to Redemption – The Church and Politics

    The year was 1976. It was the year in which we celebrated the Bicentennial, Apple Computers was founded, the NBA and the ABA agreed on a merger (go Spurs!), Jimmy Carter defeated Gerald Ford for president and a little known Baptist pastor named Jerry Falwell began a series of "I Love America" rallies which would galvanize the religious right and change the political landscape of this nation for decades to come. The rise of the Religious Right coincided with the lingering social upheaval of Vietnam and the 1960s, growing drug abuse, the loss of jobs overseas, women's liberation and the increasing integration of the South. Conservative Christians gravitated toward the movement to not only make their views known but to possibly reverse many of the changes they disliked which had occurred in the previous decade (abortion rights, no organized prayer in schools among them).

What is fascinating to many about Falwell and the rise of the Religious Right is that it was a movement which was diametrically opposed to traditional Baptist teaching. Baptists had believed that the purpose of the church was to save souls. They were not to be involved in politics. While there were a few Northern Baptists such as Walter Rauschenbusch (whom I mentioned last week) that participated in the Social Gospel movement, most conservative churches followed the lead of preachers such as Dwight L. Moody who claimed that focusing on social issues was a dangerous and sinful endeavor. In end however the Religious Right decided that is was acceptable to be the conservative counter-point to the waning liberal Social Gospel movement; each of which believed that the church was supposed to use the power of politics to bring about their own image of the Kingdom of God.

    This history raises a question for us: Ought the church to be involved in politics?

We Presbyterians have never been of one mind on this issue. At times we believed in active participation. During both the English Civil War and the American Revolution Presbyterians were actively advocating revolt from the pulpit and on the battlefield. At other times we believed in something that E.T. Thompson (a church historian) called the Strange Spirituality of the Church; in which the Presbyterian Church proclaimed the only thing it was to be about was saving souls, very much like traditional Baptist teaching. So which is it; involvement or not? If we cast a critical eye on both history and theology we discover that the answer to our question lies somewhere in-between the extremes.

First there is a danger in being too involved in politics. The danger here is that Jesus never advocated a particular political or economic system. When we pretend that there is only one "Christian" system, party or program we associate Jesus and the Church with transitory and flawed human constructs. In addition the lure of power is often so great that the church has often compromised some of its most basic beliefs in order to maintain control over society (note the Medieval Roman Church).

    Second there is a danger in being too uninvolved in politics. The church has been given a prophetic role in society. We are to be the conscience of the community, constantly reminding people of the way of life to which Jesus has called us. We can witness what happens when the church abandons its prophetic voice in the decades of child labor and the abuse of Native Americans and people of color in this nation. It was only when the people of God reclaimed their appropriate role (and engaged in the political process) that change began to occur.

    The church then is not to be afraid of the political realm, yet it must be realistic about it. If it engages in political action it must do so with great humility, admitting that no political platform or party can ever ultimately represent the Kingdom of God. In addition it must engage with great caution knowing that the temptation to power is great. In the end then there are no hard and fast rules about the church and politics…simply caution and challenge as we strive to be a Church faithful to God's calling in a real and hurting world.

    

The Road to Redemption – The Church and The Kingdom of God

    In the Gospel of Luke the Kingdom of God, or the reign of God if like, is mentioned more than forty times. For Luke God's rule and reign on earth is what Jesus had come to unleash. What is interesting however is that by the time of the writing of Acts, which is the second half of Luke's story (Luke-Acts), the Kingdom of God goes virtually unmentioned. Why the sudden change from one story to the next? The answers are Easter and Pentecost. At Easter the powers of this world were defeated and the reign of God broke into the world in the presence of the risen Christ. At Pentecost the Holy Spirit was unleashed so that the Kingdom could be an ever growing reality even without Jesus physically present. The book of Acts then did not need to speak about the coming Kingdom because it was a reality into which they were living.

    Why am I writing about the Kingdom of God? I am writing because the church has spent the last two thousand years trying to figure out its relationship to the Kingdom. The two critical questions with which the church has struggled are: Are the church and the Kingdom the same? Does the church bring in the Kingdom of God? We will look at both of these questions.

First, are the church and the Kingdom the same? In the early years of the church, theologians concentrated on the Kingdom of God as an inner spiritual reality. However once the church was not only legalized (311 CE) but later became the official religion of the empire theologians in both the East and the West began to associate the church with the Kingdom of God. This was an easy connection to make since there was one empire and one church which were intimately bound together (almost a theocracy). In other words the Kingdom of Rome/Church and the Kingdom of God were assumed to be the same. In medieval times this association was used to justify the crusades as expanding the Kingdom of God through conquest of those who were enemies of God and the state. While these views faded during the Reformation period (1540s onward), they never completely vanished.

Second, does the church bring in the Kingdom of God? If we follow the logic of our first answer, the response of the church for more than a thousand years was, yes. The church brings in the kingdom by conquest and conversion. While that sense of bringing in the kingdom faded in the Reformation period it regained a foothold in a slightly different form during the early 1900s. It came in the form of the Social Gospel movement. One of the leaders of the Social Gospel movement, Walter Rauschenbusch, a Baptist preacher in Hell's Kitchen, claimed that the church had forgotten the purpose of the Kingdom of God which was to change society and improve the world. The church then was to bring in the Kingdom of God by encouraging progressive legislation which would deal with poverty, education, fair labor standards, health care and other issues of social need. While the movement as such foundered after the horrors of World War I, its legacy lived on in movements as diverse as labor unions, the Civil Rights movement and women's suffrage. We can still see vestiges of this movement in the church today.

So again, is the Church the Kingdom of God and/or does the Church bring in the Kingdom? The simple answer is, no. Hans Kung puts it this way, "Ekklesia (the church) grows from below, can be organized, is a product of development and progress…in short it is definitely the work of man; basilelia (the Kingdom) comes from above, is an unprecedented action, an incalculable event, in short is definitely the work of God." (The Church, p. 93) What we as Presbyterians have believed is that we are to live as a provisional demonstration of the Kingdom of God; meaning we are to do our best to model what we believe the Kingdom ought to look like in terms of personal relationships and social justice. Thus we are not to retreat into personal spirituality as if the Kingdom is only within, nor are we to be so arrogant as to believe we can create the Kingdom of God for God. We are to strive to be both personally and corporately faithful to Christ's call to love God and love neighbor, as good citizens of the Kingdom.

The Road to Redemption – The Church and Its Unity

    I never paid much attention to the sign. Many days I would drive by the Mary Ellen and Harvester Church of Christ (located at the corner of Mary Ellen and Harvester streets in Pampa, Texas) and see nothing but the name. One day however a member of my church, and a former member of that congregation, told me to look at what was written under the name. I looked and there were these words, "The Church of Christ meets here." When I asked him why he wanted me to see those words his response was that it was his impression that the manner in which they were interpreted by his former congregation was that the only place where the Church of Christ met was at the corner of Mary Ellen and Harvester Streets. His impression was derived from the fact that in Pampa, a town of 18,000 persons, there were three Church of Christ congregations, each having emerged from the same mother church because of doctrinal disputes…and the members of one church would not speak with the members of the other churches because those "other" people did not believe the right things.

    In many ways this has been the history of the Church. From the church in Corinth (46 CE) which was divided into factions, to the split between Roman (Western) and Orthodox (Eastern) churches in 1054 CE, to the Reformation (1500's CE) in which Protestants split from the church in Rome, to the current move toward the creation of new Presbyterian denomination for conservative congregations the church has had this long history of dividing in order that one church could claim to the only place where the Church of Christ meets. We have believed that by creating a new denomination or moving to a more "true" denomination we will no longer be associated with "those" lesser Christians. The joke on anyone who has ever broken away for those reasons is that the Mary Ellen and Harvester Church of Christ got it right…the Church of Christ does meet there…but it also meets in every other church where Christ is worshipped; which means we are all the church and are thus all related.

    Hans Kung, in his book The Church (Sheed and Ward; New York: 1967; p. 85) puts it this way. "Each individual ekklesia (each individual congregation, community or church) is not the ekklesia (the whole Church, community or congregation); but none the less fully represents it: this means two things, Firstly: the local ekklesia is not a "section" or a "province" of the whole ekklesia. It is in no way seen as a sub-division of the real "Church"…no, the local Church does not merely belong to the Church, the local Church is the Church…Secondly: the "whole ekklesia" is not a "collection" or "association" of local Churches." What Kung is trying to say is that the church exists wherever followers of Jesus Christ meet, whether as individual Churches or as the Church. This is so because every place where Jesus followers meet they receive the same Gospel, are given the same mission, receive the same grace and worship the same Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It matters not whether a church is liberal or conservative, Presbyterian or Pentecostal, speaks Spanish or Swahili; they are the church of Jesus Christ.

    We at First Presbyterian attempt to affirm and live into this reality in many ways. First we offer open communion. Anyone who has been baptized is invited to come and partake. It doesn't matter if someone has been sprinkled by a priest or dunked in a river by a preacher; they are still part of the Church of Christ. Second we work ecumenically. This Good Friday we will remember Christ's death with our Methodist, Baptist, and Disciple neighbors. We understand once again that we are bound together by Christ, even if we belong to different denominations. Third we work with Presbyterian churches which are more conservative than ourselves to do the work of Christ. This spring when many of our members travel to Mexico for a medical mission trip they will be teamed with members from the First Presbyterian Church of San Antonio, which is a "Confessing Church", meaning we disagree with them about who may be ordained. All of this is to say that we strive to live out the reality that we are linked with every community where "The Church of Christ Meets."

    

The Road to Redemption – The Church as a Result of Jesus’ Work

    This past year the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) of which we are a part changed its constitution. (There were three portions of our former constitution; Government, Worship and Discipline. The new constitution altered the Government section, maintained the Worship and Discipline sections and added a fourth section called, Foundations of Presbyterian Polity) One of the most interesting changes in the constitution was the alteration in the document's opening words. In our old constitution the opening words were as follows:

"All power in heaven and on earth is given to Jesus Christ by Almighty God, who raised Jesus from the dead and set him above all rule and authority, all power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. God has put all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and has made Christ the head of the Church, which is his body."

(G-1.0100 PCUSA Book of Order 2009-2011)


 

Our new constitution opens with the following paragraph:

"The Good news of the Gospel is that the Triune God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – creates, redeems, sustain, rules and transforms all things and all people. This one living God, the Scriptures say, liberated the people of Israel from oppression and covenanted to be their God. By the power of the Spirit, this one living God is incarnate in Jesus Christ, who came to live in the world, die for the world, and be raised again to new life. The Gospel of Jesus Christ announces the nearness of God's kingdom, brining good news to all who are impoverished, sight to all who are blind, freedom to all who are oppressed, and proclaiming the Lord's favor upon all of creation."

(F-1.01 PCUSA Book of Order 2011-2013)


 

    Each of these opening sections is both Biblically and theologically on target. However the difference between the two is obvious. Our old constitution began with a clear statement about the person of Jesus and by extension reminded us that the church is centered on Christ. Our new constitution sees the work of Jesus, and thus the church, as part of the ongoing work of the Triune God. While our new constitution immediately includes a paragraph and then several sections on Jesus and the church…which are very good…it seems that the framers wanted to center the church in God's ancient salvation story before expanding on Jesus' importance to the church and the world.

    These two distinct opening statements offer us an opportunity to reflect on the significance of the relationship between Christ and the church. The original opening was an attempt to speak clearly to the belief that the church as the called out people of God exists only because of the work of God in and through Jesus of Nazareth. This makes a great deal of sense when we look at the Biblical record. The disciples, while following Jesus during his earthly ministry considered themselves to be part and parcel of the Jewish community. There was no sense of their being part of something new. After the resurrection however it was their relationship with the risen Jesus, and not ancient Judaism, that bound them together as a distinct community. They believed and proclaimed that in Jesus, God had done and was continuing to do something new and amazing in the world. Jesus was not simply the messiah, but he was in effect the saving event of God for which the world had been waiting.

    This reminds us that without Jesus there would be no church. Without Jesus there would be no good news. Without Jesus there would be no in-breaking Kingdom of God. In other words the church and Jesus are so intimately tied together that beginning our constitution with a statement about Jesus made sense…which is why it was so for generations. None-the-less I will admit at this moment that as a big picture, salvation history, kind of guy I like the new opening…while still missing the old one. What matters then for us as the church is to never forget that Jesus is decisive for who we are, what we believe and what we do. That even though we are the church called by God and empowered by the Holy Spirit, we are still the church of Jesus Christ.