Back to Baptism

I read this morning, via Dr. Wainwright's assigned texts, an understanding of the meaning of baptism that I wanted to share here, because I don't believe this voice has been heard here. [Translated: because it contradicts/nuances my own thinking!] It's from St. John Chrysostom. Quoting Wainwright in his "For Our Salvation, p. 112ff: "...the threefold dignity of Christians [that is, royal, priestly, and prophetic] came to sacramental expression, for Chrysostom, in the anointing they received at baptism." Wainwright goes on to make a strong case (from Orthodox tradition) for the sacramental importance of baptism in terms of our acting out our role in the theodrama (my words)in which we, by putting on Christ in the white robe of baptism, are vested with the linen ephod of King David [defender/ruler], the sacerdotal vestments of Aaron and his sons [reconciler/intercessory], and the mantle of the prophet Elijah [revealer of God's will]. He quotes Wesley on p.108, revealing a similar emphasis by Wesley. Note the therapeutic, rather than juridical, soteriological premise. Good stuff!

For those who haven't heard the truth

UM Survey

I thought you all might be interested in this "state of the church" survey that is happening online. Some of you will probably chaff at the questions (especially given my own "chaffing"), but it is interesting none the less.

OT & Homosexuality

I had just come back from having my beliefs "exploded" and experiencing "the church healing" with Jack Rogers today (I say that sarcasticly, but he was very good and much better that I was expecting or have experienced in the past. I came away with a lot of respect for him.), when I had this in my inbox. It was an "letter" to Dr. Laura. Here's my problem, I disagree with the intent of the letter, but I don't have a very good hermenutic to separate homosexuality from these things listed in this "letter." The best hermenutic I've read is William Webb's "Redemptive Spirit Hermenutic" in his book: Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals. So here's the letter. Someone help me out... (I'm entirely serious):

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they be put to death?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them to death? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is, as you said "eternal and unchanging."

This is Totalitarian Space

Due to various comments outside the blog as well as my own drive towards autocracy (as inspired by the king), I have altered the comment section so that only members of the site can comment. This may hurt those of you who wish to be anonymous, but there is a simple way to post. Email me at wep7@duke.edu and I will reply (if you give me your name) with the path towards membership; a simple enough road, especially if you already have a blogger ID.

If there are any other concerns you have about this space, feel free to contact me. But know this, I only respond at my own convenience, it's hard to be a pimp.


[EDIT]

Since I've now subbed this as "How to Post", I shall link to a previous post to keep the blog hits artificially high. The Rules I published long ago

Divided church

The following is a letter to the editor in today's Charleston paper by Fitzsimmons Allison, a retired Episcopalian bishop who ordained our very own Dr. Susan Eastman.

Divided church

The troubles facing the Episcopal Church (and other denominations) have to do with being divided between two faiths. A new religion has arisen that uses the terminology of Christianity but is a serious alternative to it. Oxford Prof. V.A. Demant in 1947 described it as " ... an unsupernatural and unevangelical religion. It equates Christianity with good ideals. It attaches no vital meaning to sin, grace, redemption or to the church as a divine society."

This religion paid no attention to the psychiatrist Karl Menninger when he warned the churches about ignoring the essential human problem in his book, "Whatever Became of Sin?"

E. Brooks Holifield's "A History of Pastoral Care in America: From Salvation to Self-Realization" sums it up in his subtitle.

Individuals can be reconciled but these two faiths cannot. Those who are substituting good ideals for Christian hope are so unconcerned with Christian doctrine that they do not notice its prevailing denial among our leaders and seem undeterred by its shrinking numbers and repudiation by the worldwide Anglican Communion.

The churches that acknowledge the reality of sin and persist in their trust in forgiveness, redemption and salvation will not only survive but prevail.

Rt. Rev. C. Fitzsimons Allison
Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of S.C.
(Retired)

Some Question on Baptism, Mainly for Derek

Derek,
I have been thinking about this following statement you made in our conversation with Dar:

"My main arguements would be: continuity and analogy with circucision/bar mitzvah, early practice, and misisonal fidelity - ie it seems to better communicate what we believe about salvation, and lastly the NT texts which at least do not preclude the practice."

I have a number of questions for you and some potential objections:

1. Circumcision: Is there a scriptural or traditional association of baptism with circumcision? I'm drawing a mind blank here.

2. Early practice: In precept today Graham Ford (a Presbyterian who argues for infant baptism) presented some material summarized from the Anchor Bible Dictionary which essentially removed any doubt in my mind that infant baptism was practiced by the early church. Let me summarize his summary: Adult baptism was the norm in the early church following an extended catechesis in which real life change was expected to bear fruit. Children (of the age of accountability) begin being baptized in the 6th century. It was not until the 10th or 11th century that infants began being baptized given the high rate of infant mortality and a rather robust view of original sin and its conseqences in unbaptized infant mortality. Given a high view of the church and tradition, should we not question a sacramental form that did not fully exist until 1000 years after Jesus?

3. Missional fidelity: You almost have me convinced with this one. But the more I think about it the more I wonder about this question: why should baptism be a symbol of missional fidelity? Also, it seems that your concept of mission as salvation really only includes justification and leaves out sanctification. While I am not yet convinced that we do not play some cooperative part in God's justifying grace in our lives, I am even more skeptical that we play no part in God's sanctifying grace in our lives. Thus, if I accept that Baptism should be an extension of our missional fidelity and concept of salvation (in this much thicker understanding of salvation as both justification and sanctification), then I would want the symbol to clearly include both elements of God's grace at work, irregardless of our action (given your own view of justification though not necessarily mine), and our own cooperation in God's grace. Thus adult baptism would seem to me to be the more faithful expression of such a view of salvation which includes both justification and sanctification. This would be true because one: the water exists without our ability to make it exist. Two: we are acted upon by the priest/pastor (we don't dunk or pour or sprinkle ourselves). Three: we cooperate by choosing to walk down the isle, get in the tank, and submit to the priest/pastor and water. Your view of baptism and infant baptism does not allow for any cooperation with God's grace. An infant cannot cooperate. It can only be acted upon.

4. NT Texts: I agree that the NT does not explicity prohibit infant baptism.

I ask these questions not because I am attempting to be contentious, but because I truly contemplate your answers as worthwhile. Otherwise this conversation would not be continuing into yet another thread (and thus not adding any more to your already whomping of my previous thread record! :)

Peace and grace,
Tom

Grace

I urge everyone to view these photos that my bride discovered on the web site of our old familiar Baton Rouge newspaper. This is a photo gallery of a baptism by immersion in an African American church on Lake Providence in Louisiana. I daresay I see the Holy Spirit's presence in these photos. What does baptism mean or do? It remains a mystery to me, but I feel certain that in these photos we see the body of Christ.

Salvation = Justification and Sanctification

This is the continuation of another post discussion where the question was asked by Dar what I meant when I said that salvation includes both justification and sanctification.

I will let "pope" Wesley (a.k.a John Wesley, the founder of Methodism and the theological and ecclesial heir of pentacostalism) answer this question:

In his sermon "The Scripture Way to Salvation" (http://gbgm-umc.org/UMHistory/Wesley/sermons/serm-043.stm) he says:

"And, first, let us inquire, What is salvation? The salvation which is here spoken of is not what is frequently understood by that word, the going to heaven, eternal happiness. It is not the soul's going to paradise, termed by our Lord, "Abraham's bosom." It is not a blessing which lies on the other side death; or, as we usually speak, in the other world. The very words of the text itself put this beyond all question: "Ye are saved." It is not something at a distance: it is a present thing; a blessing which, through the free mercy of God, ye are now in possession of. Nay, the words may be rendered, and that with equal propriety, "Ye have been saved": so that the salvation which is here spoken of might be extended to the entire work of God, from the first dawning of grace in the soul, till it is consummated in glory."

Evangelicalism tends to use the word "saved" to refer to the moment of justification when one repents of their sins and are put in right relationship with God (or pardoned of the guilt of their sin) in an eternal sense. Evangelicals tend to see being saved as something which primarily has to do with what happens after death. But I think that a biblical and Wesleyan concept of salvation not only includes this moment but the process of actually being "saved" from my sin today. In other words, I am saved from committing the sin again today. I am saved from the power of sin over my actions and decisions today. Being saved is not just something that happens after I die, but something that happens today and tomorrow and every day after. This process of being saved from one's sins today is generally referred to as "sanctification" or being made righteous or holy.

So when I want to reserve the word "saved" for both justification and sanctification, I believe I have am retaining a much fuller and richer sense of the word compared to what I see as a rather thin sense of the word in evangelical circles.