The Road to Redemption: Baptism – How often and by What Means

    I wanted to be rebaptized. I was 23 years old and wanted to be baptized in a manner that was meaningful to me. To explain this baptismal desire we need to take a short excursion back in time. I was baptized when I was five years old. My parents had waited until we were settled in Houston to have my brothers and I baptized. The pastor who baptized me was a huge man and I can still remember the water pouring out of his immense hands and running all over me. Even though we as a family were in church every time the doors opened I learned little and Jesus Christ had no real meaning for me. Beginning at age fourteen I turned my back on church and on God. God however was not done with me. While I was in the Peace Corps one of my co-workers re-introduced me to Jesus in a very non-threatening way. Through a series of God events I was called back to faith. Returning to the United States with a new found faith I wanted to mark it with rebaptism. The question was, would my Presbyterian pastor agree to do it?

    My story is illustrative of the journeys of many prodigal sons (and daughters). We wander away, return and upon returning look for some way in which to mark our return to the fold. There are many denominations that gladly given in to this desire for rebaptism. In fact many denominations require rebaptism for entrance (Church of Christ and the Orthodox Church, as examples) while others require immersion baptism even if one were sprinkled as a child or an adult (almost all Baptist and Bible churches). There are even some churches that will only accept their own baptism (I have known a few people who have been baptized at least three times because of this requirement). All of this then raises the question (which ties in with my first question), how many times ought one to be baptized and by what means ought the baptism to be handled?

    Let's begin with the question of how often one ought to be baptized. The answer for us Presbyterians is, once. In the letter to the church at Ephesus Paul (or someone writing for Paul) states, "⁴ There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; ⁵ one Lord, one faith, one baptism; ⁶ one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." What we believe this points to is the Apostolic belief that there is only one church (though there are now many denominations) and one baptism into that church (though there are many ways to conduct that baptism). Therefore when someone is baptized into one church, they are baptized into the church universal. One example of this is that the Roman Catholic Church accepts Presbyterian baptisms and vice-versa. So when we baptize here at First Presbyterian Church we are baptizing for all churches. Thus there is only need for one baptism.

    The second question, and one which divides the church universal, is in what manner ought baptism be carried out? The answer for us Presbyterians is, however you want (at least within reason). There are three possible ways in which to baptize; dry, sprinkle and immersion. Dry baptism is one in which there is no water actually used. This concept was a reaction against the belief that something magical actually happens when water is used in baptism. By not using water the emphasis is on God's actions. Sprinkling (which is the main way in which we Presbyterian baptize) is based on Old Testament references to God's sprinkling (pouring) clean water upon the people to purify them. Finally immersion is based upon Jesus' baptism by John in the Jordon River. While some people argue for one over the other both scripture and tradition never set an absolute rule. As early as CE 70 church documents allow for both immersion and sprinkling. While it is preferable to baptize with water, even dry baptism will do since there is no magic in the water.

    Returning to my personal story, my pastor explained what we Presbyterians believe (one baptism) but left it up to me to decide. I chose not to be rebaptized believing that in that act when I was five God had claimed me for a lifetime and beyond…and so there was no need to be washed again.

    

The Road to Redemption: Resurrection

    For those of you who have been following this weekly series you were probably expecting another look at baptism…well if so you will need to wait until next week. In honor of Easter I decided to take a detour and spend a few minutes looking at resurrection. While this may not seem like much of a stretch for Easter, it actually is. It is a stretch because most of us do not grow up with a Biblically based understanding of resurrection. We don't because much of what we have heard at funerals or in casual conversation is that resurrection means living eternally in heaven. Though this is the common way of understanding resurrection it is not scriptural. So let's take a moment to look at the Biblical concept.

    We will begin by examining what resurrection was not for First Century Jews. It was not reincarnation where someone comes back to life multiple times as someone or something else. Though Hinduism has reincarnation as one of its central tenants, neither Judaism nor Christianity ever believed in that concept. Resurrection is also not coming back as a ghost or spirit. Judaism again had a particular word for spirit or ghost. We know this because spirits and ghosts are mentioned in Hebrew and early Christian literature (including the book of Acts). Resurrection was also not eternal life in heaven. Eternal life was given to the righteous and they would remain with God until the final judgment at which time all persons would be "resurrected" and judged by God (remember Jesus' stories about sheep and goats, wheat and tares).

    So what then was/is resurrection? Resurrection was the raising to earthly, physical life someone who had died. We can see this in the Lazarus story in the Gospel of John. In this story Lazarus, a friend of Jesus, dies. Jesus arrives three days later. He goes with Lazarus' sisters to the tomb where he tells them to roll back the stone (sound familiar?). The people protest because Lazarus' body will smell. Nevertheless they roll the stone back. Jesus prays. Lazarus emerges, alive (remember he was dead), still wrapped in his grave clothes. This is resurrection. Someone is dead and then they are physically alive. This view of resurrection was part and parcel of First Century Judaism. The only issue was that while some prophets like Jesus could, with God's help, raise people from the dead (there were stories about Elijah and Elisha doing the same thing) only God could raise human beings unilaterally…as God did with Jesus on the first Easter.

    The belief that Jesus was dead (on the cross) on Friday and then alive (as witnessed by the women) on Sunday is the heart of the Christian faith. As the Apostle Paul wrote in his letter to the Corinthian church, without the resurrection "our faith would be in vain." It would be in vain because if Jesus was not raised from the dead, then Jesus is just another messianic pretender, killed by the Romans in a very brutal way. If Jesus is not raised then death and evil still win. Paul defended his belief in the resurrection by appealing to the more than 500 persons who had seen, spoken with and even eaten with the risen Jesus. Paul does not claim to know the physics or even the metaphysics of how resurrection occurs; he only knows that it does. And when it does it is a mystery.

    The final outcome of the concept of the resurrection is the belief that one day God will resurrect all of us. Jesus was the first to be raised and all of us will follow. When that day is, no one knows. But we proclaim that heaven is not our final destination…earth is; an earth in which the resurrected will live with God forever. I know that these are hard concepts for many of us to wrap our heads around (death to life as well as living again here on earth) but they are the Biblical view of the future. They are a view of the future that ought to give us the courage and hope to live each day with meaning, knowing that our lives matter not only in the moment but forever.

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 8^th 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.