Bandits No More

Here are the NT occurrences of the noun “baptism” and the verb “baptize.” Obviously by listing the word and its congnates alone, I don’t list every occurrence of the concept. Also, I did my search in the Greek text, so the word “Baptize” won’t show up in every English verse.

Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?

Matthew 3:11 “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Matthew 3:14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

Matthew 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.

Matthew 21:25 John’s baptism– where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?” They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’

Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Mark 7:4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)

Mark 10:38 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” 39 “We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with,

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Luke 3:16 John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Luke 7:29 (All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus’ words, acknowledged that God’s way was right, because they had been baptized by John.

Luke 12:50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed!

John 1:31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”

John 1:33 I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’

Acts 1:5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 10:47 “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Acts 19:4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”

Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

Romans 6:3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel– not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body– whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free– and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Galatians 3: 26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

Colossians 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Hebrews 6:2 instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

Hebrews 9:10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings– external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also– not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Revelation 19:13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

For some years Methodists have – for good or ill – led American culture. Methodists were the first denomination to officially recognize the new US government. Methodists split over slavery 17 yeras before the country did – rehearsing many of the same issues and arguments used during the Civil War. Methodists led the way in education, and in societal reforms.

Since the 1960s, however, the Methodists are no longer leading the culture – and considering the direction the culture is going, that can be seen as a good thing. While the sexual revolution began to consume our society in the 1960s, it did not begin to consume the churhc until a decade later. Sure, we now have full blown battles over the compatibility of homosexuality and the Christian faith, but at least we didn’t originate the issue. I remember hearing a pastor argue against that compatibility about 15 years ago. One of his arguments addressed the issue of orientation. He confessed to having an orientation toward many women, instead of mere monogamy. Just as this orientation failed to trump the Christian teaching of monogamy, so-called homosexual orientation fails to trump biblical injunctions against the practice.

Now scholars are coming out with arguments in foavor legal acceptability of “polyamory.” In today NRO, Stanley Kurtz tells of one such challenge, prepared by a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Though I have heard United Methodists speak in favor of homosexual practice, I have not yet heard any United Methodists speak in favor of polyamory (though as sinners, some appear to be practitioners).

In my years of pastoring I have sometimes looked at my congregation and wished that I had so-and-so (or someone like so-and-so) in my congregation. I’d see people like that in other churches, in my reading, or in my imagination and wish they’d come my way. The more I think about it, however, I think my wishing has been misguided. Instead of wishing for people I don’t have, I need to work with the people I do have. It’s my job to win them to Christ, build them as followers of Jesus, and teach them to obey everything he has commanded. This job includes a recursive element. I’m not just supposed to relate to people this way, but I’m supposed to help those people relate to others the same way.

This seems to be an important part of the solution to the “perfect church problem.” We all have people from time to time who are disillusioned with our churches. The people aren’t spiritual enough. The programs aren’t “feeding” them any more. The life is stale. But if my job – and dare I suggest the job of the Christian who aspires to maturity in Jesus – is to love and grow the people I have, none of this is relevant, except insofar as we now know our starting point. Our goal is still the same – maturity in Christ.

Curious comment from Glenn Reynolds (the Instapundit) today. He says:

I think that’s right. I feel somewhat that way about capital punishment. I’m utterly unpersuaded by the argument that there is something uniquely immoral about state-sanctioned killing. (At its core, the nation-state is all about killing; everything else is window-dressing). But I’m quite persuaded, as I’ve written before, by what Charles Black called “the inevitability of caprice and mistake” in the application of the death penalty.

I don’t believe Reynolds makes himself out to be a Christian, at least not of the type who reads authors like Stanley Hauerwas, John Howard Yoder & William Cavanaugh, yet this read (in the parenthetical statement) on the nation state sound right in line with what they say.

Ah the destructive power of modern culture!

Salman Rushdie, in a recent opinion piece says:

… The simple truth is that, wherever religions get into society’s driving seat, tyranny results. The Inquisition results, or the Taliban.And yet, religions continue to insist that they provide special access to ethical truths and consequently deserve special treatment and protection. And they continue to emerge from the world of private life — where they belong, like so many other things that are acceptable when done in private between consenting adults but unacceptable in the town square — and to bid for power.

Rushdie sounds like a secularized modern American. The values and ethos of modernity are clearly of controlling value for him. Of course he has experienced the negative consequences of bad public religion – death threats for irreligious writing. But surely murder and complete privatization aren’t the only options.

We live in a dangerous world. No, I’m not talking about terrorists or global warming. I’m talking about really dangerous things – like the laws of physics and Aunt Myrtle’s cooking. As this piece in Christianity Today indicates, the State is increasingly taking it upon itself to keep us safe form ourselves. The days of the church potluck where everyone brought their favorite dish will soon be behind us.

In this age of such tremendous technological and economic advances that we are increasingly ruled by fear – and thus we call on the State to save us from all dangers.

Several bloggers have been commenting this week on Greetings/Passing the Peace in worship. Joshua Claybourn started the discussion, and my old classmate, Tod Bolsinger, adds in come comments.

Since I have some opinions on the subject, I though I’d add a little.

As a pastor for a number of years, my professional capacity and sensibilities have overcome my introversion when it comes to greeting people. For many years now I have used the time before worship to “work the crowd” – connect with the people in attendance. I try to meet all the people I don’t know and at least greet everyone else. (Obviously this is easier in a small congregation.) But that’s BEFORE the worship “service” starts.

In my United Methodist tradition the biggest complaint about greeting times is that they interrupt worship. My take on the practice is different, however. I see the greeting time as a an opportunity for the Body to come together, connecting with each other. Our culture is so prone to individualism that even in a worship “service” the focus in on the single worshiper. We think the people around us need to mind their own business so I can worship. In the greeting we’re forced to acknowledge the people around us. We’re not forced to connect with them and become co-workers, but as leaders we can certainly invite people to connect and become co-worshipers.

Sometimes our words betray us. In a meeting recently, I heard someone speak in favor of a man who had come before that group seeking membership. It was rough going as there were some legitimate issues at stake. What this person said, though, took me far beyond the immediate circumstances of the person in question.

“He deserves some grace on this matter,” she said sincerely. Her intent, I knew in an instant, was to persuade those opposing her on this particular issue to reconsider. “Grace” is an important word in Christian circles, and was used with that in mind. The problem was it was used incorrectly; and the incorrect use of a word like “grace” signifies some serious theological misperceptions.

Grace indeed, cannot be deserved. By definition grace is unmerited favor. If something is unmerited it is not and cannot be deserved or earned. If we could earn grace, it would no longer be grace. It could still be love or mercy or patience or lenience, but it would no longer be grace.

Christians say we believe that God’s grace means that He accepts us and welcomes us into his presence, into a relationship with Him, in spite of, not because of, anything we have done. We are invited to lay our sins and brokenness and failures aside, even give them to God. Grace gives us the ability to do so; it is not something we receive because we have taken care of our own problems.

Oddly, I am quite sure the person who said this would agree with me. What was said, though, conveys that the understanding of the reality of grace has not sunk as deep as it could. Many of us have the same difficulty; our heads know we don’t earn our way to God, but our hearts have not fully realized what this means.

You don’t and can’t earn grace. Thank God we don’t have to!

Stephen Carter is one of my favorite writers on the interection of law, religion and culture. His The Culture of Disbelief and God’s Name in Vain are classics. Carter writes a regular column (though I’d be happy if it were more regular) for Christianity Today. This particular column focuses on how the State (i.e., the US Government) has been crossing boundaries and impinging on the freedom of religion. Though he points to some contary judgments (like the Pledge case last year, and the case allowing the constitutionality of vouchers a while back), he sees more bad than good. He zeroes in on the decision in Georgia that stickers on biology textbooks that sought to de-absolutize evolution are unconstutitional. Carter comments:

I doubt these stickers convinced evolutionist students to suddenly become creationists. Indeed, if the students of Cobb County are like most students I know, the stickers largely escaped their notice.

On the other hand, books unadorned with the stickers might well influence creationist students to suddenly doubt the Bible’s creation account. In that case, an authority figure (the school) backed by the state is pressing upon them a version of “truth” that varies from what their parents had raised them to believe. In other words, the books without the stickers, not the books with the stickers, should raise a constitutional worry. That is, unless one supposes that the state should wean children away from the religion of their parents.

One need not be a skeptic on evolution to be a Christian, and one need not be a Christian to be a skeptic on evolution. According to Frank Newport of the Gallup Poll, “Public acceptance of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is well below the 50 percent mark.” Only 35 percent say evolution is well supported by the evidence.

But, whatever one’s view on that controversy, it seems reasonable to enforce a central rule: The state should not, without very strong reason, interfere with the religious choices of parents. Where the state feels it must do so—for example, by teaching evolution in the science curriculum—a cautionary sticker of the sort struck down in Cobb County seems a reasonable compromise between church and state.