So there you are. You've been invited by a friend, and you weren't exactly sure what you were getting into. "Come check it out, it is awesome!" Awesome sounds good. Better than sitting at home, eating cheetos and watching reality TV. The preacher stands up, and he convicts you. What just happened? Wasn't expecting that. His words are sizzling, stabbing, and confusingly stirring, as they touch themselves upon your ears and wind their way down your cerebral stem, heading down into your gut. You can feel it down there. Something about Jesus, and that he isn't just a picture on a wall anymore. There is some kind of power there. He loves you. Really? Just like that, Jesus loves me? That sounds good too, but what does that mean? He died for you. Ouch, I think if someone jumped in front of a train for me, I would feel guilty for the rest of my life, because that train was meant for me. Why would he do that? He created you, formed you, commanded you, and then let you go. Go? Where did I go? I didn't go anywhere. I'm right here! You went into sin. I did? Okay, I'm not going to dispute that. But what in particular are you referring to, preacher? Draw a card, because if a card is a sin, I have at least fifty-two. Before you were born. What? You sinned in Adam. Stinker. That is not my fault. But you are Adam, and Adam is you. If you were there, in that Garden, you would have done it too. You were there, in Adam, and therefore you did it too. That is not fair! Wait-maybe it is - somehow I know it is true. Ok, it is true, but I don't know how. Do I have time to think about this? How am I going to understand this? An invitation is given unto you. And, oh, you want it. You don't want to be Adam anymore do you? Categorically no. I don't want that. Jesus has something in his hand. Will you not take it? Um, sure. Give it to me. It is forgiveness.
And then the famous song plays, "I surrender all, I surrender all." The organ is going, the piano is playing, the song leader's eyes are dreamy and serene. It is so beautiful. And it is coming into my ears, working its way down my throat, winding itself around that lump in my chest, that numb pain, that little voice that is saying, You want this. But what is it that I want? If I go up to the front, if I get on my knees, if I extend my hand to that of the preacher, will I get it? Do I believe? Do I understand the Gospel? It felt like a high-pressure sale. I just got here, I don't even know these people, but they have something I want. Do I have it? Did I believe enough? Do I really want to turn away from my sin? I mean, I don't want to be Adam, but I sure still like to . . . . nonetheless. There are all these sticky emotions. They tell me it is the Holy Spirit. But I just don't know.
Repentance isn't a used car sale. It is something you do, not feel. It is a well-thought out commitment, based on an established conviction and a thorough understanding of the Gospel of God based on the accepted authority of the words of the Apostles. When someone comes forward to the words of a song, a service carefully constructed and choreographed to lead to this very moment, why have they come? If the window-dressing is so strong, how do we know what is inside? Out of all the people coming forward, singing I surrender all, how many are still singing it two years later? Are you? What is real?
If you can speak the gospel without knowing someone, telling them a string of words, linked together by one common theme called the Gospel, and then walk away without getting into the sticky, dirty lives they lead, have you done anything? Can they even know if they are "saved"? Do they really believe? Shouldn't we know the answer to that question before we get them dunked in the water, all baptized and shiny? Maybe Philip in the Acts of Apostles was an anomaly. Maybe most of those in the New Testament were baptized, literally right after they confessed, because they were mostly Jews, who already new plenty about sin. It was no coincidence that, in the centuries that followed, the time between belief and baptism was extended to three years, for the purpose of training and instruction, and for the trainee to make good and sure he was willing to be baptized into the church. It could cost him his life, so he better really believe.
In North America we no longer have a Christian culture to draw people from, already convicted about their sin, ready to make a commitment. Most people singing I surrender all nowadays don't have a good picture of what it is they are surrendering. Saying the words, singing the song, praying the prayer, doesn't make one a Christian. People can jump through all those hoops and not know what it all really means. Having the right information no longer works like magic.
And then the famous song plays, "I surrender all, I surrender all." The organ is going, the piano is playing, the song leader's eyes are dreamy and serene. It is so beautiful. And it is coming into my ears, working its way down my throat, winding itself around that lump in my chest, that numb pain, that little voice that is saying, You want this. But what is it that I want? If I go up to the front, if I get on my knees, if I extend my hand to that of the preacher, will I get it? Do I believe? Do I understand the Gospel? It felt like a high-pressure sale. I just got here, I don't even know these people, but they have something I want. Do I have it? Did I believe enough? Do I really want to turn away from my sin? I mean, I don't want to be Adam, but I sure still like to . . . . nonetheless. There are all these sticky emotions. They tell me it is the Holy Spirit. But I just don't know.
Repentance isn't a used car sale. It is something you do, not feel. It is a well-thought out commitment, based on an established conviction and a thorough understanding of the Gospel of God based on the accepted authority of the words of the Apostles. When someone comes forward to the words of a song, a service carefully constructed and choreographed to lead to this very moment, why have they come? If the window-dressing is so strong, how do we know what is inside? Out of all the people coming forward, singing I surrender all, how many are still singing it two years later? Are you? What is real?
If you can speak the gospel without knowing someone, telling them a string of words, linked together by one common theme called the Gospel, and then walk away without getting into the sticky, dirty lives they lead, have you done anything? Can they even know if they are "saved"? Do they really believe? Shouldn't we know the answer to that question before we get them dunked in the water, all baptized and shiny? Maybe Philip in the Acts of Apostles was an anomaly. Maybe most of those in the New Testament were baptized, literally right after they confessed, because they were mostly Jews, who already new plenty about sin. It was no coincidence that, in the centuries that followed, the time between belief and baptism was extended to three years, for the purpose of training and instruction, and for the trainee to make good and sure he was willing to be baptized into the church. It could cost him his life, so he better really believe.
In North America we no longer have a Christian culture to draw people from, already convicted about their sin, ready to make a commitment. Most people singing I surrender all nowadays don't have a good picture of what it is they are surrendering. Saying the words, singing the song, praying the prayer, doesn't make one a Christian. People can jump through all those hoops and not know what it all really means. Having the right information no longer works like magic.
I wonder about this point about baptism. What if the opposite is true? What if we view baptism as a subversive act against religious structures including wanting to control and measure everything (including peoples level of "readiness to be baptized--three years after!) and simply allowed people to be baptized when they feel they have BEGUN a relationship with Christ. If we recognize the symbol Jesus gave as a reshaping of an exodus image the question i ask is...was not coming through the waters of the exodus at the beginning of that generations relationship to YHWH?
ReplyDeleteI like this. And I do think it is true, that Baptism is a subversive act against established religious structures, indeed. What the concern is though, is that there are insidious motivations mixed in with the process, that can lead to a kind of pressure put on people to "hurry it up." I've witnessed it. Those motivations may have a good intent: proscribing assurance to the convert, keeping them on a pro-active path, using the symbol of baptism to encourage the church (and therefore baptisms must occur regularly). All this to say that, a quick baptism is fine, if one can be sure as to the responsibility of the ones delivering the message. And instruction in the meaning of the Gospel should go well beyond the Sunday morning message and song - the emotionally-controlled moment. I fear that often times people are left to sort it out for themselves after that.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Exodus symbol, sure, it was the beginning of their relationship with YHWH, however, let's not forget how that relationship went, literally next, upon coming out of those waters - He wanted to cut them off for their inability to fulfil that confession. The waters symbolised their entering a redeemed life, but it didn't insure it. I guess you can say that baptism now is the same. . . . your phrase "when they feel they have BEGUN a relationship with Jesus" I think is beautiful, because then the conviction comes from within the individual and not from the administration. I have known people who were at that point almost immediately, but I've known many more that really needed more instruction - and sometimes didn't get it.
Here's a thought - the Exodus Red Sea Baptism (let's call it), symbolised an act of God redeeming, but it didn't represent the sealing of the Covenant - the Oath that the people took at Sinai, came later. Does that mean we go through the waters first, then "seal" the vows later? Because that would be in the order of Exodus. . . .
Careful. Your last idea sounded reformed! Talk to Brad Close about that...the idea of baptism being a covenant relationship starter (like circumcision) and a declaration from the covenant community that they will committ to raising that person in the ways of the Lord. I think we react when we think of this in relation to children (and infants for good reason) but apply the idea to "believers baptism" and i think what you said is dead on: "we go through the waters first, then "seal" the vows later" it makes sense.
ReplyDeleteLets come back to my point about subversive act and see if it can help us arrive where i originally intended it to: they used to baptise in the Temple only. John/Jesus kingdom movement brought that sacred act out into the hands of the people (in a river, not done by holy men but the regular person). Second and more important to this conversation: what i am after is a situation where the church can learn to trust God and people with their own salvation. The church so often wants to police everything (who can do communion and how; who can get baptized and how and when) when what i am seeking is a more authentic/trusting situation where we need not do classes, booklets, three years of making sure the persons "in" but entrusting their initial step toward the Father as legitimate no matter how emotionally driven it was (and yes i see a danger here as well but that danger can be balanced by a good community of people that encourages discipleship and not a decision only)--so yes your right when you say "be sure as to the responsibility of the ones delivering the message"--but i would add be sure...of the community living the message"
ah, I think there is a difference between learning to trust the community, as opposed to learning to trust the heirarchical leadership with this task. for the latter, there is always too few spread too thin, and people are often left to themselves. but because the task is viewed to be in the hands of the leadership, the community defaults to them, sits back, and doesn't get involved. I think what is at stake here, is a person's long term stability and conviction in the faith - sparing people from years of waffling and teetering on the brink of assurance, dealing with missing the life they left as opposed to embracing the one they have entered. Take Cyprian's conversion for example, he took three whole years to be able to leave his attachment to wealth - and he considered it crucial to his conversion to do so! Why do we always assume people can just drop things like pilgrim's knapsack? Not many can.
ReplyDeleteFirst thing: The poetic speech of the first part of your original piece is really pricless...moving.
ReplyDeleteYour right it is difficult to leave behind what we have left--and that is part of this journey for sure, but i think again that it faulty to assume that a person must have "all their shit worked out" before they can come to the waters of baptism. In fact i think these waters might help in that sanctifying process.
I know the Protestant world has boiled baptism down do "just a symbol" but i dont think Paul (and the early church) viewed it as such. One cannot read Romans 6, or Colossians 3 without being moved to see the mystical side to baptism. Something is happening in that symbol that really means something--we are being joined to Christ; becoming part of the new exodus people...and that smack dab in a section of scripture (as is often pointed out) about sanctification (Rom.5-8- though i dont think it is so clear cut and dry)--could it be that the waters of baptism are Pauls way from the faith that comes from those who are part of Abrahams family (Rom.4) to the sanctifying work of the Spirit in a persons life all leading to the new creation (Rom.8)?
As an aside i think you would really have to convince me that Philip was anomly in Acts (in your point about Gentiles not getting baptized right away/ Jews being because of their previous understanding of sin) in light of these passages and stories (Acts 8.13--Simon the sorceror; 10.44-48; 16.15--Lydia, 33--jailer and family; 19.5--pagans at Ephesus).
Thanks bud! About the "symbol" of baptism. We know that in the early church candidates, after an extended period of training and "devotions" would come to a small building, often used from whatever could be found, but ideally having a depressed-stepped-descension into a pool of water - stairs going down one side and up the other. The pool would be dissected in half by a white sheet, dividing the sides possessing the two stairs. The candidate would come into the room, gender restricted, and strip NAKED (naked we come, naked we go), descend into the (grave)water, cross the barrier of the (death) sheet under water, and arise (ressurrection) on the other side. Ascending the steps, they would be clothed in a white (remind you of anything)robe, to exit the building, in order to head for their first ever eucharist meal with the church - only baptised members were allowed. To be baptised, wasn't in reference to being dunked under water, but rather to be "stained" - in this case, stained white.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that a person had to have all his #@$% together in order to enter baptism, but obviously, the entire process was designed to give him the strongest footing possible in his new life. What a contrast to what we see today - a desire to post as many numbers as possible, in order to fill our ranks, at the sacrifice of due process in discipleship. I see that creating guilt-ridden Christians, often finding themselves situated in church membership and church ministry, before getting the training and mentoring needed to deal with many things that should be done in the early years of faith. It is guilt-driven Christianity. Sometimes they just don't get a chance.
As for your comment about Phillip the Anomoly (nice nickname), it doesn't matter how many examples you give me from the new testament (I believe you mention 4), my point is that we are talking about a region spanning the Eastern Roman Empire, in a time frame of 300 years. I fully acknowledge that baptism was much quicker coming in the New Testament period - but my argument is that for good reason it was extended in the centuries to come.