"God gives all He has to give -
His son to speak that one word, Live."
-Joseph Bottom
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
The Rich Symbolism of Baptism
One of the most contentious issues in the church today is baptism. "Should we sprinkle?" "Should we immerse?" "Do you have to be baptized to be saved?" "Should we baptize infants?" "Should we re-baptize?" And around and around we go. Unfortunately, our hangups on these issues cause us to miss the deep theological beauty that is signified in baptism.
In three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) we have the account of Jesus submitting to the baptism by John. This is strong evidence that one of the earliest memories of Christ was his being baptized. Perhaps it was the first public act that anyone witnessed Jesus do. Baptism in Judaism was the way that Gentile converts (Godfearers) could enter the fold of Judaism. It symbolized a passing through water, much like the Hebrew slaves passed through the Red Sea in their Exodus from Egypt and passed through the Jordan in their march into the Promised Land. Significantly, Jesus is baptized in the Jordan, thus sanctifying the act as a Christian sacrament. Matthew records that Jesus' last command to his disciples was: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28:19). So, then, one of our earliest liturgical, Trinitarian creeds, comes in the context of baptism.
The early Christians developed the theology around this earliest of Christian rites. The writer of 1 Peter, for example, sees in baptism an antitype of the Ark: ". . . God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pt 3:20-21).
Paul, though capable of the Jewish connection of baptism to the crossing of the Red Sea (1 Cor 10:1-2), he rather prefers baptism as the symbol of our dying with Christ and so rising with him in new life: "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his" (Rom 6:3-5). Such imagery does likely not originate with Paul, but is taken from the rite of baptism itself that developed early in the history of the church: on Easter Sunday, all of the catechumens were taken to a river, stripped naked, and descended into the water (symbolizing death). When they came out of the water, they were given white robes (symbolizing new life). As Paul says later in the same letter: "But put on the Lord Jesus Christ . . ." (Rom 13:14).
As theology and Christian thought developed, the dominate connection to baptism became circumcision. That is the mark that God commanded Abraham and all male Jews after him to receive as a sign that they were in the covenant and, thus, a sign of their salvation. Corresponding to this, baptism became the mark that one was in the new covenantal people of God, the Church, and, thus, was also a sign of their salvation.
I think that there is truth in all of these metaphors, each displaying a different facet of the wonderful sacrament that has been given the Church in baptism. What I think interesting about the circumcision comparison, and I will conclude with this, is that Christians, as they always did and do, appropriated the metaphor through the lens of Christ. In other words, circumcision, as is obvious, only involved the male. Therefore, a female's part in the covenant came through her participation in the lineage as a mother or daughter. (Incidentally, this is why widows and orphans are such a problem in the Old Covenant.) Yet, as strong as the correlation between baptism and circumcision became in the Church, this distinction of sexes (to the detriment of women) was never held. Baptism, as such, is the same rite for both men and women. Both descend into the water, and so die, and both ascend out of the water into newness of life with Jesus Christ.
In three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) we have the account of Jesus submitting to the baptism by John. This is strong evidence that one of the earliest memories of Christ was his being baptized. Perhaps it was the first public act that anyone witnessed Jesus do. Baptism in Judaism was the way that Gentile converts (Godfearers) could enter the fold of Judaism. It symbolized a passing through water, much like the Hebrew slaves passed through the Red Sea in their Exodus from Egypt and passed through the Jordan in their march into the Promised Land. Significantly, Jesus is baptized in the Jordan, thus sanctifying the act as a Christian sacrament. Matthew records that Jesus' last command to his disciples was: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28:19). So, then, one of our earliest liturgical, Trinitarian creeds, comes in the context of baptism.
The early Christians developed the theology around this earliest of Christian rites. The writer of 1 Peter, for example, sees in baptism an antitype of the Ark: ". . . God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pt 3:20-21).
Paul, though capable of the Jewish connection of baptism to the crossing of the Red Sea (1 Cor 10:1-2), he rather prefers baptism as the symbol of our dying with Christ and so rising with him in new life: "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his" (Rom 6:3-5). Such imagery does likely not originate with Paul, but is taken from the rite of baptism itself that developed early in the history of the church: on Easter Sunday, all of the catechumens were taken to a river, stripped naked, and descended into the water (symbolizing death). When they came out of the water, they were given white robes (symbolizing new life). As Paul says later in the same letter: "But put on the Lord Jesus Christ . . ." (Rom 13:14).
As theology and Christian thought developed, the dominate connection to baptism became circumcision. That is the mark that God commanded Abraham and all male Jews after him to receive as a sign that they were in the covenant and, thus, a sign of their salvation. Corresponding to this, baptism became the mark that one was in the new covenantal people of God, the Church, and, thus, was also a sign of their salvation.
I think that there is truth in all of these metaphors, each displaying a different facet of the wonderful sacrament that has been given the Church in baptism. What I think interesting about the circumcision comparison, and I will conclude with this, is that Christians, as they always did and do, appropriated the metaphor through the lens of Christ. In other words, circumcision, as is obvious, only involved the male. Therefore, a female's part in the covenant came through her participation in the lineage as a mother or daughter. (Incidentally, this is why widows and orphans are such a problem in the Old Covenant.) Yet, as strong as the correlation between baptism and circumcision became in the Church, this distinction of sexes (to the detriment of women) was never held. Baptism, as such, is the same rite for both men and women. Both descend into the water, and so die, and both ascend out of the water into newness of life with Jesus Christ.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Responsa quaestiones
This past summer, much was made of Pope Benedict XVI's supposedly derogatory statements regarding Protestant churches, namely that they are not properly to be called "the Church," but rather "ecclesial communities." This upset a lot of Protestants, and subsequently caused a general lament for the current leadership of the pontificate. Pope Benedict became the subject of much derision, and I heard it claimed that he is "rolling back all of the positive progress made by Vatican II and John Paul II." Of course I, curiously, never was able to find the actual document where these comments were made. I must admit that I was suspicious of the whole affair because, first, I tend to give Roman Catholicism the benefit of the doubt in many areas where most of my Protestant brethren are ready to throw it to the lions; and, second, because I know Pope Benedict XVI to have been one of the leading theologians at Vatican II. It simply did not make sense to me that he would now "roll back" any progress.
Recently, I finally located the comments. It turns out that they were not made at random by the Pope to stir up divisions or to change the teaching of Vatican II. Rather, they came in the form of a document, Responsa quaestiones, written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF) and endorsed by the Pope. You can read it here. This document was written as an official response to the lingering questions by the Catholic faithful resulting from Vatican II's teaching on the nature of the Church. As such, it did not change the teaching of Vatican II, but merely clarified it.
The teaching of Vatican II is as follows:
1. The Church is the visible communion of the people of God, signified in the Holy Eucharust, who are called by the Father and redeemed by the Son, who are pilgrims on this earth, having a foretaste of the kingdom of Heaven in the presence of the Spirit yet moving toward the full realization of the kingdom in eternity.
2. The Church subsists in the Catholic Church.
The second statement is where most perceive a change in Catholic teaching. Namely, Vatican II no longer equated the Church with the Roman Catholic Church, an equation that was being made as late as the middle of the twentieth century. It did not equate the two because it recognized, what it called "ecclesial elements" outside of the Catholic Church. Ecclesial elements are those things such as the Scriptures, the sacraments, etc. Therefore, though the fullness of the ecclesial elements exists only in the Catholic Church, they do not deny the presence of some or many of them elsewhere, and consequently, though these latter communities are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, they are not denied communion with God or salvation.
The recent document in question did not change any of this progress. Rather, it affirmed that, in the belief of the Catholic Church, Protestant churches are not called the Church, because they lack apostolic succession (our ministers do not go back to the apostles through the sacrament of ordination) and the teaching of the real presence in the Eucharist, a dogma held firm through history. As such, we have imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.
Yet, as Protestants, we must not see this as a slap in the face; rather, it is the Catholic Church faithfully professing what it believes. We are not denied salvation, we just do not have the fullness on earth - as such, we are wounded. "But even in spite of (these doctrinal differences) it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ; (separated brethren) therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as sisters and brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3).
But the Catholic Church also teaches that she herself is wounded because the full visible communion of God's people is not yet realized. Thus, our mission to the world is jeopardized. This belief is one of the reasons why the Catholics, since Vatican II, have been the most diligent workers in the ecumenical movement, that is the movement toward greater unity of all Christian denominations. This was "one of the principle concerns of the Second Vatican Council" (Unitatis Redintegratio 1).
Before we Protestants point out the speck in the eye of the Catholic Church, we would do well to pull the plank out of our own eye. I have heard much worse said about Catholics in Protestant and evangelical circles. Its time we put these petty characterizations aside and work for the greater unity of all of our denominations. For we all believe in the same Triune God, we all believe that God has revealed himself foremost in His Scriptures, and we all believe that apart from Christ, there is no life.
"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they may also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me." -Jesus
Recently, I finally located the comments. It turns out that they were not made at random by the Pope to stir up divisions or to change the teaching of Vatican II. Rather, they came in the form of a document, Responsa quaestiones, written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF) and endorsed by the Pope. You can read it here. This document was written as an official response to the lingering questions by the Catholic faithful resulting from Vatican II's teaching on the nature of the Church. As such, it did not change the teaching of Vatican II, but merely clarified it.
The teaching of Vatican II is as follows:
1. The Church is the visible communion of the people of God, signified in the Holy Eucharust, who are called by the Father and redeemed by the Son, who are pilgrims on this earth, having a foretaste of the kingdom of Heaven in the presence of the Spirit yet moving toward the full realization of the kingdom in eternity.
2. The Church subsists in the Catholic Church.
The second statement is where most perceive a change in Catholic teaching. Namely, Vatican II no longer equated the Church with the Roman Catholic Church, an equation that was being made as late as the middle of the twentieth century. It did not equate the two because it recognized, what it called "ecclesial elements" outside of the Catholic Church. Ecclesial elements are those things such as the Scriptures, the sacraments, etc. Therefore, though the fullness of the ecclesial elements exists only in the Catholic Church, they do not deny the presence of some or many of them elsewhere, and consequently, though these latter communities are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, they are not denied communion with God or salvation.
The recent document in question did not change any of this progress. Rather, it affirmed that, in the belief of the Catholic Church, Protestant churches are not called the Church, because they lack apostolic succession (our ministers do not go back to the apostles through the sacrament of ordination) and the teaching of the real presence in the Eucharist, a dogma held firm through history. As such, we have imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.
Yet, as Protestants, we must not see this as a slap in the face; rather, it is the Catholic Church faithfully professing what it believes. We are not denied salvation, we just do not have the fullness on earth - as such, we are wounded. "But even in spite of (these doctrinal differences) it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ; (separated brethren) therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as sisters and brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3).
But the Catholic Church also teaches that she herself is wounded because the full visible communion of God's people is not yet realized. Thus, our mission to the world is jeopardized. This belief is one of the reasons why the Catholics, since Vatican II, have been the most diligent workers in the ecumenical movement, that is the movement toward greater unity of all Christian denominations. This was "one of the principle concerns of the Second Vatican Council" (Unitatis Redintegratio 1).
Before we Protestants point out the speck in the eye of the Catholic Church, we would do well to pull the plank out of our own eye. I have heard much worse said about Catholics in Protestant and evangelical circles. Its time we put these petty characterizations aside and work for the greater unity of all of our denominations. For we all believe in the same Triune God, we all believe that God has revealed himself foremost in His Scriptures, and we all believe that apart from Christ, there is no life.
"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they may also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me." -Jesus
Sunday, November 04, 2007
For All the Saints
Today is All Saints Sunday, an important day in the Christian calendar that, unfortunately, often goes unnoticed. It is the day that we celebrate the lives of all the saints who have passed on from this life and have joined the Church triumphant. No more are these saints fighting the fight on earth; rather, they have joined that great cloud of witnesses where they participate in the true worship of our heavenly Father of which our worship here is only a shadow. In many churches, candles are lit and the names are solemnly read aloud of all those who have died in the past year. I was able to call out the name 'John Barber,' my grandfather who passed away in late September.
I suspect that the reason that this day is not so much celebrated in our culture is because death is not a regular thing in our churches. Sure we experience it when our older members pass on, and that is certainly sad. But death is not shocking to us. It is a normal occurrence in our lives. It was not so in the early church. In those first few centuries, a person could be tried and put to death simply for having the name Christian. All someone needed to do was accuse a person as a Christian, and his or her death ticket was all but signed. In that situation, death was a regular occurrence. One can imagine regular reports of members of local churches being read in those early church services. One can imagine the shock that would have rung out in the congregation. When those early communities celebrated the names and lives of those who had passed in the last year, they were not just celebrating the grandmothers and grandfathers, they were celebrating the husbands and the wives and the children.
But today is not a sad day, it is a triumphant day. As we read off the names of the saints who have passed on, we are reminded that death is no longer the final act of a person's life. It is merely a comma. Because Christ rose, these saints too will rise, and one day soon, the Church will all together again in the heavenly worship of our Triune God.
"For all the saints, who from their labors rest,
who thee by faith before the world confessed,
thy name, O Jesus, be forever blest.
"O blest communion, fellowship divine!
We feebly struggle, they in glory shine;
Yet all are one in thee, for all are thine."
-William W. How
I suspect that the reason that this day is not so much celebrated in our culture is because death is not a regular thing in our churches. Sure we experience it when our older members pass on, and that is certainly sad. But death is not shocking to us. It is a normal occurrence in our lives. It was not so in the early church. In those first few centuries, a person could be tried and put to death simply for having the name Christian. All someone needed to do was accuse a person as a Christian, and his or her death ticket was all but signed. In that situation, death was a regular occurrence. One can imagine regular reports of members of local churches being read in those early church services. One can imagine the shock that would have rung out in the congregation. When those early communities celebrated the names and lives of those who had passed in the last year, they were not just celebrating the grandmothers and grandfathers, they were celebrating the husbands and the wives and the children.
But today is not a sad day, it is a triumphant day. As we read off the names of the saints who have passed on, we are reminded that death is no longer the final act of a person's life. It is merely a comma. Because Christ rose, these saints too will rise, and one day soon, the Church will all together again in the heavenly worship of our Triune God.
"For all the saints, who from their labors rest,
who thee by faith before the world confessed,
thy name, O Jesus, be forever blest.
"O blest communion, fellowship divine!
We feebly struggle, they in glory shine;
Yet all are one in thee, for all are thine."
-William W. How
Thursday, November 01, 2007
And So This Is Mixmas
So I turn on the radio this morning and I am informed by local radio station 99.1 'The Mix' that the Christmas season is upon us. Or to be more correct, the 'Mixmas' season: all Christmas music, all the time. So for the next two months, I can be guaranteed a steady stream of Brenda Lee's 'Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree', Lennon's 'So This is Christmas', a various assortment of Neil Diamond Santa tunes, and the ubiquitous 'Same Old Lang Syne' by Dan Fogelberg. I'd like to drink a toast to his innocence. Two things bug me about this.
First of all, these radio stations have, for the most part, removed all Christmas songs having anything to do with Christ. Therefore, we are forced to here the same songs over and over again by different artists, and they are all about Frosty or Santa or snow. The profound irony here is that, if this is what Christmas has been reduced to, then what are we celebrating for two long months? How many different versions of 'Santa Claus is Coming to Town' one generation can produce? Or how many pitches Bruce Springsteen actually falls short in trying to reach the high notes in his embarrassingly awful version of the same?
Second, and even more concerning to me, is the redefining of the Christmas season itself. In capitalist America, where the veil of Christmas is still encouraged for the sheer revenue that it generates, the celebration begins immediately after Halloween. Stores are turned from orange and black to red and green. Pumpkins are replaced with holly. Candy corn is replaced with candy canes. And scary stuffed men are replaced with Santa Clauses. The pumpkin patches in the middle of malls are replaced by Santa's Workshop. And of course, Christmas music is everywhere. This continues through December 25th, when all of the buying is occurring, but then magically on the 26th it is all gone. The Santas removed, the colors changed, and the Christmas music gone. As American Christians, this seems quite normal and many of us capitulate, removing our lights and trees by New Years Eve. We eliminate all traces of the celebration from our houses almost as quickly as the stores. What we don't realize, however, is that the Christmas season has been redefined for us by the retailers.
According to the Christian calendar, the season begins with the Feast of Advent, the first Sunday of which is the first Sunday of December. What follows is several weeks where we prepare our hearts through meditation on the incarnation, acts of mercy, and fasts to receive our coming king Immanuel. The Feast of the Nativity, or Christ Mass, begins on December 25 and continues until January 6. We are meant to revel in the reality that our savior has come to earth and has been born. We are meant to celebrate and feast this reality for two weeks. But we don't. Instead we tear it all down as soon as it has begun, giving ourselves hardly any time to appreciate the wonder. And we go back to our daily lives, not realizing that the world has changed - God has entered it.
I do not blame the retailers or even the radio stations - they do not know any better. But we as Christians should. We should reclaim the significance of our feast. And we should start by celebrating it according to the time of holy tradition, not according to the time of 'Mixmas.'
First of all, these radio stations have, for the most part, removed all Christmas songs having anything to do with Christ. Therefore, we are forced to here the same songs over and over again by different artists, and they are all about Frosty or Santa or snow. The profound irony here is that, if this is what Christmas has been reduced to, then what are we celebrating for two long months? How many different versions of 'Santa Claus is Coming to Town' one generation can produce? Or how many pitches Bruce Springsteen actually falls short in trying to reach the high notes in his embarrassingly awful version of the same?
Second, and even more concerning to me, is the redefining of the Christmas season itself. In capitalist America, where the veil of Christmas is still encouraged for the sheer revenue that it generates, the celebration begins immediately after Halloween. Stores are turned from orange and black to red and green. Pumpkins are replaced with holly. Candy corn is replaced with candy canes. And scary stuffed men are replaced with Santa Clauses. The pumpkin patches in the middle of malls are replaced by Santa's Workshop. And of course, Christmas music is everywhere. This continues through December 25th, when all of the buying is occurring, but then magically on the 26th it is all gone. The Santas removed, the colors changed, and the Christmas music gone. As American Christians, this seems quite normal and many of us capitulate, removing our lights and trees by New Years Eve. We eliminate all traces of the celebration from our houses almost as quickly as the stores. What we don't realize, however, is that the Christmas season has been redefined for us by the retailers.
According to the Christian calendar, the season begins with the Feast of Advent, the first Sunday of which is the first Sunday of December. What follows is several weeks where we prepare our hearts through meditation on the incarnation, acts of mercy, and fasts to receive our coming king Immanuel. The Feast of the Nativity, or Christ Mass, begins on December 25 and continues until January 6. We are meant to revel in the reality that our savior has come to earth and has been born. We are meant to celebrate and feast this reality for two weeks. But we don't. Instead we tear it all down as soon as it has begun, giving ourselves hardly any time to appreciate the wonder. And we go back to our daily lives, not realizing that the world has changed - God has entered it.
I do not blame the retailers or even the radio stations - they do not know any better. But we as Christians should. We should reclaim the significance of our feast. And we should start by celebrating it according to the time of holy tradition, not according to the time of 'Mixmas.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
