Any of you who know me will know this has been a point of contention for me the last couple of years. I attend a COC that has what I believe is a narrow definition of baptism that somehow means according to them I haven't actually been baptised and so can't become a member.
The upside is that I've done a lot of reading , praying, discussing and I have a much better understanding of baptism than I did before. Rather than changing my opinion of my own baptism I think it has strengthened it and has deepened my relationship with God. It's also made me a little more understanding of others.
I was reading something last night that reminded me about the whole baptism thing. It's a book on the life and history of Jesus (I think "Jesus, the greatest life of all". Sorry I don't remember the author or the ISBN Jodie ;)). The chapter I read last night discusses the historical significance of the pharisee's and sadducee's, how they came about, why they opposed each other in a semi-symbiotic way, and their significance to the time Jesus lived in and to the message he brought.
Middo's recently written about legalism. Well this was out of control at the time Jesus lived. The Pharisee's had laws for everything. For example the sabbath had 39 laws RE what you couldn't do, and the focus had come off what the point of the day of rest was.
Luke 6:1-5 – 1Now it happened on a Sabbath, Jesus was passing through grain fields, and his
disciples were plucking and eating heads of grain by rubbing them in their hands. 2Then some of the Pharisees said, “Why do you do what is illegal for Sabbath?” 3Answering them, Jesus said, “Have none of you read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him?” 4How he entered the house of God, and taking the bread of offering, he ate and he gave to those with him, that which was illegal to eat except for the priests alone?” 5Then he said to them, “The son of man is lord of the Sabbath.”
Man wasn't created for the sabbath, rather the sabbath was created for men. The Pharisee's had flipped this around.
Now I was thinking last night about how this related to baptism, and the belief that baptism must be by full immersion and you have to be at least 13 or older (or whichever age you pick). Now my opinion is that this is legalism. Baptism was created for man, not man for baptism. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not pointing the finger if you believe Jesus was baptised by full immersion as an adult and that's how you want it. I spose I'm saying if you judge other peoples baptism against this you are venturing into the area of legalism and judgmentalism.
Now moving on from this point, it's my opinion that Christians in general are and have been too legalistic for too long, and maybe always. I think many of us unfortunately place sin above the person (e.g. sex before/outside marriage, homosexuality, abortion, gambling, drinking, drug taking, protitution etc, etc.). Grace and salvation are offered for all, despite sin or anything else. Thank God I reckon. I hope I'm slowly getting better at living that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
this whole baptism thing is a huge issue for you isnt it...why does it keep coming up??? are you that cut that you cant be a member? i didnt think u were...
is it the churches 'view' on baptism or their stance on the 'mode' of baptism...and have u really been judged by ppl bcos of it (forgive me if you have answered these questions b4 but time has pasted and i moved on)
because i would say that you have been baptized and so would the anglican church and so would most christians...but CofC has taken a stance where membership is concerned cos they had to have something to go by and so they went for full immusion and the whole age 13 thing??? what the??? not everyone baptised at the last baptism service was 13...i think thats just about people really understanding what it is they are doing...i dont think i understood at 15 but i was still baptized mainly due to parental pressure but i have come to be glad i did it...
i know most of ur blog wasnt on baptism and i have probly missed the point i was just suprised to see the topic there...and sry for any tone implied by the above comment...im just a bit perplexed
;) no sweat becster.
Firstly as to whether I am "cut" or not, it's not a big deal to me, or I probly would have left the church. Baptism has been something that has been important to me over the last couple of years though. And it was something I thought about when reading this particular passage. I'm obviously a little biased, but who isn't ;) hence the blog.
I agree that I think most people would see it the same way as you've described. And therein lies the problem maybe.
The new pastor seemed to be saying that he didn't care either but that the rules are the rules, which is like your, "that's what the COC has picked as some arbitary mark in the sand". My question was whether that is legalism. Is that the purpose of Jesus instituting baptism. Was it instituted to exclude?
Whether or not that is the intent surely that is at least sometimes the case (i.e. in mine ;) although I know others too). I think rules for the sake of rules, rather than rules to help/protect or guide people are pharisaic, which is what the post was trying to get at.
I spose another reason why this still comes up for me is that I don't really feel I've had a conclusive answer. I understand the arguments for full immersion baptism. But I don't understand why a particular mode is "legislated" for as a requirement for entry. Fair enough encouraging people to a certain mode but legislating? Also I know most people at church don't judge me becuase of this issue (or that's what I assume) and if they chose toi judge that's their problem not mine, but doesn't legislating for a particular mode in essence "judge" other modes?
But are we in general as christians too legalistic? Do we too often miss the person through the forrest of rules and the judgement that seems to grow from legality?
:)
Does seem a bit legalistic to me.
My idea of baptism is that it symbolises what has gone on/continues to go on, on the inside. So whether it's done by immersion/pouring/sprinkling,it's just whats going on on the outside. I would imagine what's important to God is the inner bits, rather than the outer bits.
"Now moving on from this point, it's my opinion that Christians in general are and have been too legalistic for too long, and maybe always. I think many of us unfortunately place sin above the person (e.g. sex before/outside marriage, homosexuality, abortion, gambling, drinking, drug taking, protitution etc, etc.). "
I think sometimes we (Christians) do tend to go on about sin and judgement a little bit too much.I'm not saying that they're not realities, but I think that the church sometimes overemphasises these and maybe doesn't focus on forgiveness, grace, or meeting people where they're at. I guess that a 'faith journey' could be thought of as a continuum, where an individual moves towards God, slowly learning new things, coming to new understandings, etc.
If we try to apply a checklist model to people's lives in order to weed out sinners or see if they are 'good enough' before they can join, it kind of sucks the grace out and we have to be careful about not crossing the line where we make ourselves the judges.
Hmmm...*goes off to arrange her books by ISBN number order*
Thanks Jodes I appreciate the moral support. You still have to blog something I disagree with. Maybe explore the whole leftie tree hugger pacifist thing. :)
There is a fine line with legalism and grace. I think Middo and Chris have blogged something that fits in here recently. The fact that Jesus possibly tended to take people as a case by case basis rather than making broad "rules".
Sure society and institutions need rules, but there has to be a way of allowing grace to function as well.
so if the church doesnt make its line in the sand for membership baptism (and they need a line in the sand) where then or what then should it be???
yes to some extent its legalistic but there needs to be a line
Correct becster, there has to be a line, but it's also important that that line is justified, biblical and I think reflects the spirit of Christs message.
Most churches (anglican, catholic, and also some COC and baptist shurches now) have baptism as a requirement for membership. Fair enough. This is inline with Jesus' teachings and why would someone want to become a member of a church if they haven't or aren't willing to profess faith in God/Jesus and indicate that they intend to put effort into living as Jesus was an example.
So I don't have a problem with the line. What I don't agree with is that it also needs to be done in one specific way, that excludes. And that excludes practicing professing christians.
Where is the sense in that. How is that in line with Jesus' teachings?
In essence, why does the COC believe it is important to exclude practicing professing christians from their membership. And if this isn't intentional, why support rules which in effect make this the case?
You see it just dosen't add up for me. It doesn't make a lot of sense, and I don't think saying "well the rules are the rules" really justifies it.
Ok so it’s the Mode of baptism and a churches stance of that mode???
Put that way I don’t know that it is in line with Jesus’ teaching...but is the church being intentionally exclusive???
In trying to stay neutral I can see that opening up the modes of baptism the church opens itself up to huge grey areas as it would if it had other forms as the line for membership...
Doesn’t the church of Christ believe via their theology/doctrine/understanding of text that it was via full immersion that Christ was baptized and so this is where they have placed their stance...i think the tightness of them saying its full immersion for membership stems from this...
I also think that the sanctity of baptism should be separated from membership...they are different and one shouldn’t be tarnished by the legalism of the other...
I have been thinking the last few days about alternate ways of assessing for membership...I don’t think assessing is the right word I just can’t at this point think of a better one...and I have come to the conclusion that there should be another form/mode for people who are already baptised into or in a way of another Christian tradition...be it a creed or something...cos where the church has drawn the line is full immersion baptism is the public confession of one’s faith...everyone can see it (I’m not saying other modes of baptism aren’t the same...but this is where the line of membership comes in) obviously people who have been baptised another way and in a significant way for them aren’t going to want to be rebaptised nor should they be but what about some other form of public declaration...as in ‘I believe in God the Father etc’...a public declaration in front of the church that would satisfy the public declaration needed for membership...
Does that make any sense at all...
I guess even if it does the church has a constitution and the membership is in there so who knows but their just my thoughts...
As far as I understand you are correct that COC believes Jesus was fully immersed as an adult so that's the only valid form of baptism.
Unless you're too ill to get dunked, there isn't enough water available, or you have some other "reasonable excuse". In which case other modes are ok. Because God's not completely unreasonable don't you know ;)
It also seems a little inconsistent that baptism is to the letter of the law (it's not really the law cause Jesus didn't say get fully dunked, it's not even recorded that way in the bible - it's simply an interpretation) but communion for example is open to doing it how you want, rather than the way Jesus did it.
Your thoughts on church membership are interesting. I still don't see why COC can't simply accept other modes of baptism.
And yes membership is in the constitution, but don't forget the constitution is there for the membership, not the other way round ;)
Is that your fav new quote? ;) U have changed it twice now to fit what you’re talking about...it is a good quote though and worth remembering...
I really don’t think there’s any changing what the CoC believes...there’s going to have to come a point of acceptance...you (and me I guess cos I keep going back to read stuff even though there’s other things I want to read and I have decided where I stand with relation to both baptism and membership) may just have to get to a point where you say ok from my readings and understanding this is where I stand and that’s where you (the church) stands and we just need to co-exist (or not...either way)
Even with the revisiting of the constitution over the next year to 18 months I can’t see their view of baptism as a means for membership changing. They won’t accept other modes...because it’s like Tanya said in the comment to my blog about acceptance...they have just like every other denomination read the text and decided what it says and where they stand and they have built things into their constitution and theology from it.
I was thinking last night...if we were in some other denomination what would it be (if not baptism) that we would be debating? Anyways that’s a side issue and not worth thinking about.
All true. And I'm not sure about it being my favourite quote but it's something I want to remember. My new favourite quote for today is...
"Grace is acknowledging sin by choosing to see past it to the person."
Love it.
Anyways, yes I'm not conspiring to go on some CoC changing crusade. However I don't have to accept something I think is wrong. I'll just have to deal with it tho like you said.
Interesting on other denominations.
I can't think of any exclusions like this the Anglican Church has. Will have to think. As far as I remember you just have to be baptised to be a member.
The catholics used to not allow divorsees, gay people, etc from taking communion. I spose that fits into the category. I think they are relaxing a bit tho, at least in some churches.
Anyone think of any others?
i like the quote...is actually quite profound if u really think about it and actually do it...
I always find the discussion about 'membership' to be an interesting one. Mostly because, according to my reading, the early church didn't have defined lists of members. If you were a 'believer', you were part of the local church.
The advent of 'membership' stemmed from the move to incorporating churches, thus having to have a formalised 'membership' body. However, there are many churches today who have this, but it actually doesn't matter. At subi, membership basically entails going along to a class about Subi's goals, dreams, ideals etc and agreeing to their 'way'...but then of the 800 or so people who call Subi home, something like 150-200 might be members.
At the church I am at now, membership is determined as 'anyone who attends 'church' activities 3 out of 4 weeks each month'. Now this is a fairly broad (but also narrow) definition...and we only have it because it is a necessity to be a incorporated body. Increasingly the idea of a church 'membership' is going the way of the church organ and overhead projector.
What we all seem to have realised is the issue MOSTLY lies with the 'mode' of baptism, rather than the membership issue. Many churches don't use baptism in a membership sense, but still hold to a set way of baptising. HOWEVER, I too agree it is a dangerous area. I have a friend who actually refuses to get baptised in 'any' way because of the division the idea of baptism has caused over the years. Whether or not this is an appropriate response is another topic entirely, but it just shows how divisive 'baptism' can be.
What is also sad is that in Hebrews, baptism is listed as one of the 'elementary elements of the faith'. Understanding baptism is 'milk'...and yet 2000 years on we still can't agree!
I think churches do need a line in the sand (to ward against lawlessness) but they need to have the grace to accept difference (as a loving response) on various cases. If people then came and said 'but you wouldn't let me do it that way' this would only be a problem if they had a legitimate reason for it. 'Difference' would only be allowed with legitimate reasoning (which I would deem your case to be Pete, as an example) where the person, rather than out of spite, out of honest seeking has investigated the issue thoroughly and come to a place where they have particular thoughts on the issue.
I guess I look at it by asking the question 'what would Pete gain by full immersion baptism?' and I guess, from your discussions, it wouldn't change much for you.
So the next important question to ask is, is there reasonable evidence to suggest that non-believers would be adversely affected by the church wavering on its 'full immersion' stance, or does that church in particular gain more by maintaining its stance?
It also depends on many, many other issues, which we have touched on many times. Alas, this comment is already long enough so i shall stop now!
wow, what a convoluted discussion!
Post a Comment