Baptism and the Office of 'Christian'

A couple of weeks ago I made mention of the fact that both marriage and Christianity are an office as well as a relationship. Today at church we had a very special worship service in which those who had professed faith in Christ but had not been baptized since that profession of faith were invited to be baptized right then, in that same service. Provisions had been made for changes of clothes, robes, towels, make-up, etc. The response was terrific, with 32 folks stepping up for baptism during the early 8:30 am service, and many more in the other services that followed. (Addition on 2/2/2009: there were 226 baptisms across the 5 services!) It was really a wonderful thing to behold. Some were professing faith publicly for the first time, but most had been sprinkled as babies and had never been baptized after coming to a personal faith commitment.

I was pleased to be there and to hear this renewed teaching on baptism, since it is not often discussed from the pulpit or in Bible classes. As with marriage, we talk lots about the relationship but not much about the office to which we are commiting ourselves. The relationship is the prerequisite, of course. We do not get married, in our culture, without first establishing the love relationship before hand. It has not always been this way, though. Marriages have been arranged for people by parents in many cultures for much of history. It is debatable whether marriage by choice results in better marriages. However, even in arranged marriages the paricipants have to make a choice: will they choose to love this person they have married or will they simply co-habit without love? Some choose to love; some do not. But this choice still comes as an adult, as one capable of choosing. In some ways the choice is much more deliberate in an arranged marriage. When you are confronted on your wedding night by this person someone else has chosen for you, you are immediately confronted with the need to make a choice. When people fall in love, they often assume that 'love is all we need', and don't really come to the point of making a deliberate choice until, as they say, 'the honeymoon is over' and they realize that this marriage thing isn't so easy after all. As C.S. Lewis says about falling in love, 'Eros makes promises she can't keep'. Love ISN'T all we need. We need a personal commitment as well, a choice, a marriage., indeed a marriage that includes vows. In the end, that is what the wedding ceremony is all about:making a commitment.

Baptism is to Christianity as a wedding is to marriage. That is why infant baptism is similar to infant weddings. That is also why today's service was so special.

All sins are NOT created equal

The current issue of Newsweek magazine includes an article on how Obama got elected and how young evangelical Christians have moved in his direction. The numbers of evangelicals that moved to Obama were not overly large, as the article admits. However, most of those were young and it does seem to confirm some direction in evangelical churches in recent years towards the 'emerging' church movement and a more existential approach to their faith. The article follows a young man who left his church, then came back, and now is starting his own non-denominational church. In what is presented as one of the 'clinchers' in why he left to start his own church, his former church has put up a sign during an election referendum on gay marriage to support the vote in favor of traditional marriage. His reaction was something like 'is this any way to welcome seekers?' and 'would we put up a sign like this for other sins?', so he left. The article goes on to say that according to some poll, most young evangelicals are accepting of gay marriage.


This a concern. It seems to indicate a common but incorrect teaching that 'all sins are equal' as he equates gay marriage with any other sin. Unfortunately, this is not particularly new with the current younger generation. The Scripture does not teach that all sins are equal. Some are worse, and homosexuality is one of those that are worse than many others.

How can that be? Well, first of all homosexuality is not alone; murder, adultery, and fornication would all fall in a similar category, and all except murder seem to be increasingly acceptable in both the church and in society in general. The Bible does not teach that all acts of sin are equal; it does teach that all humans are equally in need of forgiveness. These are 2 very different things. We are born sinful. That state of sinfulness requires God's intervention and we all equally need that. That sinfulness, however, shows itself in varying acts of sin at varying levels of severity. Some people have more self-control than others in controlling how their sinful nature plays out, resulting in less severe acts of sin. No one in their right mind would say that petty larceny is equal to murder.

So the thing that is equal in all of us is our sin nature. Specific acts of sin have a large range of impacts, however, some more serious than others, especially in their impacts here and now. To pretend that all acts of sin are equal is nonsense. Sins like homosexuality, adultery, fornication, murder are much more serious than petty larceny, for instance. However, among these serious sins, only homosexuality is insisting that society view it as something good, something equivalent to marriage. It is not just claiming to be no worse than other sins, it is claiming to be a virtue. To ignore this in the name of 'acceptance' and being 'seeker sensitive' is nonsense. We cannot say nothing while our culture tries to turn virtue on its head.

The Trinity of marriage

The passage in Proverbs that a 'cord of 3 strands in not easily broken' is often quoted in marriage ceremonies, and the 3 cords are typically thought of as referring to the husband, wife, and the Holy Spirit. I think that is correct and an important concept in how marriage is holy to God and depends on God for sustenance. However, there is another type of 'trinity' I have in mind for this discussion as well.

Think of a marriage as supported by a 3-legged stool, to use a common illustration. Those 3 legs are the relationship of the 2 people, the office of marriage, and the truth of our nature. Relationship, Office, and Truth (or Nature). In writing from his jail cell during World War 2 to counsel a couple preparing for marriage, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, ' Up till now it has been your love that has protected your marriage plans; from now on it is also your marriage that protects your love.' This has to do with the office, the status of marriage. While love leads you to marriage, every love relationship waxes and wanes and will face some hard times. During those times the vows you make, the commitments, the responsibilities you take on, the children that are born all constitute the office of marriage and those things protect your love relationship during the hard times. Marriage is a relationship, but it is not just a relationship. As C.S.Lewis has written in The Four Loves, we all know that we must do the works of Eros (Lewis refers to being 'in love' as Eros after an ancient usage; he is not referring to the common contemporary use of the word 'erotic' in any way) even when Eros is not present; that is because of the commitments we make, the promises we need to keep, the office we need to uphold. As Lewis also points out, Eros makes promises that she cannot keep so we need the office to help us keep them.

There is also the matter of Truth and Nature. Man and woman are clearly designed for each other, for propagation as well as for mutual support. This is simply who we are, how we are made, and that is a foundation for marriage. All Truth is God's Truth, and this is one part of it. Simply put, we need each other as men and women.

Now, marriage cannot be what it should be with any of the 3 legs missing on the stool. Our contemporary culture, however, focuses only on the relationship part. However, if 2 people claim to be in love but refuse to marry, what conclusion do most people immediately reach about their commitment? It doesn't exist. The 'office' portion is missing. Similarly, if 2 of the same sex want to indulge in homosexual union, the Truth of our nature is missing. Gay 'marriage' denies the truth of who we are, and living together unmarried denies the need for commitments to be able to raise healthy children and reliable citizens. Marriage cannot be what it needs to be without understanding all 3 elements of the marriage union. We as Christians have contributed to the confusion about this by focusing our own marriage teaching and ceremonies too much on the relationship by itself.

The same is true of the church. Christianity is indeed a relationship, but like marriage it is not just a relationship. Just as the marriage protects the love of the bride and groom, the church protects the relationship with God. Especially when times get tough. It is no mistake that the church is 'the bride of Christ'. There is the personal relationship with Christ that must be a personal commitment, there is the office of church membership, and there is the truth of what Christ has done for us to make salvation possible. As with marriage, by focusing on just some of the 3 the church contributes to confusion. The sacramental churches focus on the office and the truth and pretty much ignore the relationship; the evangelical churches focus on the relationship and the truth and pretty much ignore the office.

We as believers have contributed to the cultural confusion on both marriage and Christianity by not keeping the stool firmly planted on all 3 legs.

Obama, Israel, and Motherhood

As we approach the inauguration of President-elect Obama the euphoria of the press remains a bit 'over the top'. This is no surprise, of course, but it is getting old. It remains difficult to be happy about bringing in a president who has promised to increase abortions on his first day in office by removing any barriers that he can, even for the abomination of partial-birth abortion. Since the MLK holiday is tomorrow, the day before inauguration, it is instructive to look at some comments from MLK that were pointed out recently in the Winter edition of 'The City' ( 'The City' is a quarterly journal that you can subscribe to free from Houston Baptist University at www.civitate.org). In the article Ryan Anderson points out that MLK, in his 'Letter from a Birmingham Jail' refers to the philosopher Martin Buber in arguing that racial segregation substitutes an 'I-it' relationship for the 'I-thou' relationship that is intended by God, thereby relegating persons to the status of things. People are not to be treated like things. That is a powerful argument against racial injustice as well as against slavery, and it is, as Mr. Anderson points out, exactly the same thing that abortion proponents do, making the unborn child an 'it', relegating that new life to the status of a thing instead of a person. Their crime is no different than killing a slave that you 'own'.

As a racial minority, Mr. Obama as well as blacks in general should understand this. Yet it seems to be lost on them. Blacks continue to account for abortions at a rate about 3 times the rest of the U.S. population. It is maybe a strange connection, but with Israel in the news recently due to their fighting with Hamas in Gaza and with the Christmas holidays, I was reminded again of how Israel gave birth to the Messiah, Jesus the Christ. He was the promised child of Isaiah 53, and Revelation 12:1-7 paints a vivid picture of Israel as a woman giving birth to this child. It struck me that for a woman to kill her own baby is very much like Israel killing the Messiah to which she gave birth. Israel, of course, fails to see this just as abortion supporters fail to see their own crimes. If it is justified to view a baby has an 'it' to be terminated at our convenience, why not view black people that way? Or old people? Or sick people? We should point out this at every opportunity: for a black president to rejoice that he is no longer relegated to the status of a thing while doing his best to relegate thousands of others at the verge of birth to that status is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Fatherhood at Christmas

In this time when over 70% of African American children, about 50% of Hispanic children, and 30% of causcasian children in America are born out of wedlock, it is always timely to talk about fatherhood since most of these children will be missing the influence of their biological father in their lives and many will never have a significant father influence. A fortunate few will be blessed with an adoptive father who accepts them as his own, which reminds me of Joseph.

J.I. Packer has written in his classic book Knowing God that if he had to sum up the gospel in 3 words he would choose 'adoption through propitiation'. It is our adoption by God into His family that gives us the hope of salvation. How appropriate that Jesus would be similarly accepted by Joseph by adoption into his family.

In the nativity story as told by Luke, we first are told about the annunciation and birth of John the Baptist, which preceeded Jesus' birth. When John was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth he was also given his name, as was the custom. The significance of this name-giving comes through in the story of John.

Fathers in our culture as well as in the Bible have always given their family name to their children. This is taken for granted, but in today's world of fatherless children it can no longer be taken for granted. Sometimes the father is not even known. By providing his name, however, the father takes responsibility for the child and claims the child. This was made more explicit at the circumcision of boys in Biblical times as the father also gave the child his full name and presented him to the Lord as his son.

For John, Zacharias had been stricken dumb at his annunciation due to his doubt and questioning of Gabriel, so he could not give John his name. So, the priests assumed that he would be named after his father and proceeded with this approach until interrupted by Elizabeth, objecting that his name was John. They would not accept this from the mother, however, as the father is the name-giver. They turned to Zacharias and he wrote, 'His name is John!' since he was unable to speak.

This makes the passage about Joseph in Matthew the more meaningful. Joseph had been ready to prepare a divorce from Mary, but an angel visited him to make it clear that he should take her as his wife because this child was of God, not of infidelity. And so in Matt. 1:21 the angel says 'and she will bear a son; and you (my emphasis) will call his name Jesus'; then again in 1:25, 'and she gave birth to a Son; and he (my emphasis) called His name Jesus'.

And so Joseph gave Him the name Jesus, which God had instructed but which required a father to give. So Jesus would be known in this life as the son of Joseph who had taken Him as his own and given Him a name. Father's are , among other things, name-givers. We, too, have been adopted and have been given the name 'sons of God' and 'Christian'. In our culture we tend to focus on Mary and overlook Joseph, as if he were irrelevant. God did not overlook him, but specifically sent an angel to him to make sure this special child had a father, a name-giver. In our day, fathers seem to be increasingly seen as irrelevant. Single mothers can choose in vitro fertilization and start a 'family' with no father at all, just a sperm donor who may even be anonymous. We do this at great peril. Even though Jesus had a divine Father, that Father made sure that He also had an adoptive father on this earth. We best not take that example lightly.

The Founding Fathers

I just finished reading Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow which was not only a very thorough and even handed treatment of Mr. Hamilton but also shed more light on John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Having now read a number of biographies about the founders, including John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson along with 1776 and Founding Brothers, a fairly consistent set of images of the founders emerges from these books and their various authors. Certainly these were men with feet of clay, and while they were all men of high principles they varied widely on matters of faith, fidelity to their spouses, treatment of their political adversaries, slavery, and more. Many of them, including Hamilton and Jefferson, left their families deeply in debt when they died. Several, including Jefferson, Hamilton and Franklin, had trouble controlling their lusts. Several, including Adams, Hamilton and Jefferson could be vindictive, spiteful, and full of rage in their political dealings. Although he was the least educated, least travelled, and least colorful of the bunch, Washington stands out as the one consistently in control of his temper, his passions, his money, his family life, and his decisions. He was the one most likely to see the strengths and weaknesses of all the other founders. He set the example of freeing his slaves which Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe could not bring themselves to do. After Washington's death, Hamilton seemed to lose some of the self-control and restraint he had showed until then, likely because of the influence Washington had upon him. While not a man making a lot of show of his faith, Washington seems to have been true to the faith. After his death, the partisanship that followed resulted in libel and slander that would more than rival the mud slinging we saw in the recent presidential campaign, which had been much more restrained while Washington remained. Washington stands out in this crowd of founders, not because of his intellect, his writing, his speeches, or even his military campaigns. He stands out primarily for his character and self-mastery. One has to think it was more than just his own personality at work here, that this was indeed the hand of Providence upon him.

The other characters that stand out in these books are Eliza Hamilton and Abigail Adams. The picture of both that emerges are women of serene and strong faith who support, defend, forgive, and encourage their husbands despite the evident failings of those men. They suffer all the slurs that were launched at their husbands and provided refuge and support while taking on much of the load of supporting their family while their husbands focused on the country and were often gone for months at a time. These two were clearly exceptional human beings.

The more one learns about Jefferson, on the other hand, the less one admires him. He is clearly the most disappointing of the founders and the least consistent with his own avowed values on matters of family, morality, freedom, and speaking the truth about his political foes. He and Hamilton emerge as tragic figures, Hamilton dying in a duel as a result of his own overblown sense of 'honor' and Jefferson so consumed by his own selfishness and ambition that he betrays his own lofty writing about freedom to maintain his lifestyle by slaves, consistently hides behind others in his malicious attacks on political foes, sires children by his slave, refuses to recognize the truth about the evil in the French Revolution, and leaves his family deeply in debt upon his death. All of this on top of his confused views of Christianity make Jefferson the most disappointing of the founders.

All of these books put the recent presidential campaigns into context. The personal attacks, the partisanship, the revelations of personal moral character and judgement that are disappointing are nothing new. Let us hope that Providence has a Washington out there somewhere for our time as well.

Negative campaigning...some things never change

I voted today in the runoff election between Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin, which will help decide whether the Democratic party will get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate or not. Both candidates ran campaigns that were not only negative, they were downright deceptive and certainly less than straightforward. Both ran ads that reached back many years and ran them with headlines and sound bites that highly distorted what really happened. Neither candidate came across as honest and ethical. The entire campaign on both sides was exceedingly shabby.



I have recently been reading the biography of Alexander Hamilton, and the rumors, intrigues, and outright lies and libels that were written of him by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and their partisans that are discussed in the book seem sadly contemporary in light of the recent political campaign. Hamilton induldged in some of the same things to them in return, of course. As I have read the biographies of Hamilton and John Adams along with Truman, Teddy Roosevelt, Eleanor and FDR, and other books about the Founding Fathers the past couple of years I have been repeatedly reminded how familiar a theme dirty campaigning, falsehoods, vote stealing/buying, and other unethical behaviors have been in elections ever since the 1790's. Our exposure to the current campaigns impresses this upon us for elections in our experience, but it seems that the same behaviors have been common throughout our history. In spite of this, the Founders were able to establish the freedoms we hold dear today and the nation managed to move forward.



With having just had the Thanksgiving holidays a few days ago, besides being thankful for the end of this campaign season, I am thankful that somehow our nation has been guided by Providence despite our many failings and the often unethical and often immoral behavior of our leaders. Let us pray that continues.