Baptism

There has been a lot of discussion and disagreement in Christian circles about what baptism is and what it is for and when it is needed.

Let me start with what it is. The dictionary definition is: "a ceremonial immersion in water, or application of water, as an initiatory rite or sacrament of the Christian church." Some churches teach that there is a baptism of the spirit, also. If you look at the ancient Greek, however, the word for baptism, baptisma, actually means to be overwhelmed, or fully immersed in a liquid. Certainly you could be overwhelmed by a spirit, but if you look at Acts chapter 10, Peter gets a chance to use the 'Gentile' key on his keyring, and the Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Peter asked the Messianic Jews that were with him, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" If being baptized in the spirit were the desired outcome, well, they've already been overwhelmed by the Spirit. Personally, I think that God wanted all of these Christian Jews to know that He was ready to accept Gentiles--He had already shown that to Peter, but there were others with him that might have thought that Peter had just lost his mind... The point is, that these men received the Holy Ghost and then got baptized in water. Usually we do it the other way around, but if being baptized in spirit were what Jesus had commanded, then Peter was wasting his time getting these men wet for nothing.

So, talking about water baptism, is it full immersion, partial immersion, or having water applied to the individual? Again, the Ancient Greek word referred to immersion. It has been said that this word was used for many different things. That is true, however, all of them involved immersion. It was used in reference to dying garments (immersing a garment in a liquid dye--not tie-dyeing), or washing (taking a bath, not a shower). Actually there are other words for applying a liquid to something or someone, 'ekcheo' for pouring, and 'rantizo' for sprinkling. One of the objections people have its that Jesus, our perfect example, was baptized in the Jordan river, and, in many places, the Jordan isn't deep enough to immerse a person. That is also true; but, in many places it is deep enough... John 3:23 says that, "And John also was baptizing at Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized." How much water does it take to apply a little bit of water to a person? What if you were going to baptize a lot of people? How much would you need? Well, if all you are doing is applying a few drops to each person, you can 'baptize' a whole lot of people from just a puddle. If you are baptizing by full immersion, then you need to find a part of the Jordan where it is deep, where there is much water--which is what John the Baptist did.

What is it for? The book of Romans has been referred to as 'the book of salvation.' In chapter six, Apostle Paul talks about the necessity of baptism. The act of baptism is symbolic of taking on the death of Christ, allowing us to be born again, and to live a new life in Christ. Jesus said, in Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned." Some people get hung up on the fact that he didn't say that if you weren't baptized that you would be damned. I can't imagine why anyone who didn't believe would get baptized (unless, of course, their parents took them to church as a baby... but I mean, why would you choose to get baptized if you didn't believe the gospel?); I also don't think anyone who truly believed would refuse to get baptized. Some people say, well, what if you believed, but got hit by a truck before you could get baptized? Well, I don't know what church you grew up in; my church doesn't get much traffic between the altar and the baptismal tank. But, in all seriousness, do you really think that God would ordain a plan of salvation and then not keep those that were legitimately seeking to follow that plan? We could look at it the other way: If you believe that all that is required for salvation is to believe in your heart and confess with your mouth, what if you are out on the street sharing with someone, and they believe in their heart, but, as they open up their mouth to confess Jesus as Lord of their life, a truck jumps the curb and kills them? It seems to me that's considerably more likely to occur than a truck drive through the church and kill someone who is preparing for baptism. Yes, I realize that a lot of churches don't baptize people right away, but those are churches that don't believe that baptism is essential to salvation. After all, if something were absolutely necessary to get to Heaven, you wouldn't put it off until you had fifty people, or only do it once a year. When you understand the necessity of baptism, you do it right away.

There is more to be said about when baptism is to be performed. Referring once again to Mark 16:16, Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..." Which would suggest that belief is a prerequisite for baptism. Some churches baptize infants, some churches won't baptize until the age of accountability (usually reckoned as twelve), some churches will only baptize adults. Going with the idea that belief is a prerequisite for a moment, an infant cannot believe. At what age can someone believe? I think twelve is an arbitrary number. Some kids are quite capable of believing and understanding younger than twelve, some aren't until they are older. It seems to me that if a child wants to get baptized, then they should be (and I don't mean if someone pushes them into getting baptized); if later on in life, they feel that they didn't really understand, then they can be re-baptized. Let's look at this from another angle: Can you get credit (or blame) for something that you did (or that you allowed to be done to you) out of sheer ignorance? Only if the ignorance was willful (as in, I know the Bible has the plan of salvation in it, but I refuse to read it because I don't want to be held responsible--sorry, pal, it doesn't work that way). Does a baby have any understanding at all of its own baptism? Let's be honest about it: baptizing babies is something that it done to make the parents feel better, it has nothing to do with that child's salvation.

There is much more that I could say about baptism, but this has already gotten to be one of my longest posts ever (if not the longest post), so I will stop now, and blog about baptism more in a future post.

The Afterlife

HowStuffWorks.com has published an interesting article on the latest scientific research into NDE's and OBE's. It is interesting stuff, but I can't help but think about the implications...

Out of Body Experiences (or OBE's), on the surface, indicate that there is a separation between our physical bodies and our immortal souls. Most of the time, these two very different things occupy the same space, and our flesh acts as a container for our souls. I should point out that there is no science behind those statements...

Anyway, the science suggests that Near Death Experiences (or NDE's) are actually REM Intrusions, and occur in the brain stem--even though the brain itself isn't functioning (the patient is brain dead). The brain stem is a much lower order of intelligence and can operate without generating brain waves. Basically, the brain stem 'wakes up,' and finds that the rest of the body (including the brain) is still 'sleeping.' It 'hallucinates' that it has been separated from the body because it cannot sense--or get any response from--any other part of the body.

Out of Body Experiences (OBE's) seem to be triggered by something in a part of the brain known as angular gyrus, in the temporal parietal junction. This cannot be explained as easily as the NDE's, since the TPJ is part of the brain itself, and not the brain stem, and therefore cannot function during brain death. Is it possible that, under certain circumstances, an NDE can cause the brain stem REMI to hallucinate an OBE? I don't know. I suppose it's possible, but at least some of the people who have experienced NDE OBE have been able to accurately describe things that were happening in the room while they were clinically dead. That's a pretty incredible hallucination.

To be honest, even the Bible doesn't really tell us a whole lot about the afterlife. I am sometimes surprised at people that will read a passage of scripture, and, to them, it says something completely different than what it says to me. Sometimes that is simply a matter of misreading. 1 Corinthians 13:12 says, "...then shall I know, even as also I am known." I have had people tell me that the verse tells them that we will look the same in Heaven. What? How do you get that? "It says right there: 'I shall be known, even as I am known.'" No, it says that I shall know, even as also I am known. God knows everything about us. The Bible tells us that even the hairs of our head are numbered. He knows how many cells are in our bodies. He knows every thought we've ever had (except for the ones that have been separated from us as far as the East is from the West). Once we get to Heaven, we will have that kind of detailed knowledge (although not about each other).

Some people believe that when we die, we go straight to Heaven (or somewhere else). Others believe that there is a time of rest (often referred to as Abraham's bosom) to await the judgment. Really, a case can be made for either viewpoint. I believe the latter, personally, but I don't think it matters too much what one believes in this regard; if I die and go straight to Heaven, it will be a welcome surprise. In support of the former, Jesus told the thief, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." I feel I must point out that Jesus can't have been talking about a literal 24-hour day, for three days later, He told Mary Magdalene that He had not yet ascended... Another point is in John's vision of Heaven, the martyrs asked the question, when shall we be avenged? If they had to wait until the judgment to enter Heaven, then they had been avenged. I don't really have a good answer for that, except to say that there is an interesting juxtaposition of time here, in that, John is seeing something that hasn't happened yet (in fact, may not have ever or will ever actually happen), but is a representation of things to come. At the time of his vision, the saints had not yet been avenged. In other words, he saw them in a place where they were not yet, and yet having concerns that they would no longer have once they arrived where he saw them. I don't expect that explanation to satisfy anyone who believes in death leading immediately to one's final destination, I'm just throwing it out there. Now, as for those of us who believe in the rest before the judgment, let me point out that in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, Jesus said that Lazarus was in Abraham's bosom. This does not appear to be Heaven (although, certainly an argument could be made that it was, particularly since this was a parable, and not an actual event. It seems to me that if Jesus had meant 'Heaven,' he would have said, 'Heaven'). Also, Apostle Paul wrote that the dead in Christ shall rise first, and we that are alive and remain shall arise to meet them in the air. Notice he didn't say that we would meet them in Heaven, he said that we would meet in the air, presumable on the way to Heaven.

Again, though, I think that we are free to believe what we like on this matter--it doesn't really matter as long as we continue to breathe.

Urination

I overheard somebody ask the question, "Why is it that, in the Old Testament, urinating against a wall was such a terrible sin?" That question threw me for a little bit. That isn't even addressed in Old Testament Law, where did this person get the idea that it was a terrible sin? "Well, several times in the Old Testament, God told Israel to kill everyone that did it." Oh, that. All right, let me try to explain that--but, it isn't what you were thinking.

In ancient times, it was commonly believed that if your people and my people went to war, then my gods and your gods fought also (or, at least, influenced the outcome of the war). If you won, that proved that your gods were stronger than my gods, so I shouldn't worship my gods anymore, I should worship your gods. After all, my gods didn't help me win the war, did they? Most of the time, that wasn't that big of a deal. If I were Greek and you were Roman, then I stopped praying to Zeus, and instead prayed to Jupiter. If you were Norse, then I prayed to Odin. Maybe I would start praying to Thor instead of Apollo. Whatever. Most of the time, it was just learning new names. A lot of the stories were very similar, if not the same.

If you were Jewish, though, then I have a problem. I have to replace my entire pantheon with your one God. If I've grown up with a god over the other the other gods, and a god of war, and a god of the sea, and a god of the forge, and a messenger god, and a god of brushing my teeth... And suddenly I can only have one God... No matter how many times Israel defeated the Philistines, the Philistines kept going back to their gods. They just couldn't wrap their minds around the idea of one God creating the whole universe and maintaining control of it (What does that have to do with urination? Bear with me, we're getting there. I just need to lay some foundation first).

For some reason women accepted it more easily than men, but a lot of them couldn't do it either. Children were easier, depending on their age. Usually, once a male child was indoctrinated into polytheism, he couldn't accept monotheism. Further, you ran into the problem that a son who witnessed his father being killed by the people that are now occupying his country, then there will be, almost inevitably, thoughts of revenge. These thoughts can make accepting a new religion difficult, if not impossible. So, how does one determine if a male child is old enough to reject Judaism? Well, if he pees standing up, that's probably not a good sign. Keep in mind that God didn't always tell Israel the same thing when they conquered another nation. Sometimes He told them to kill everything--including their farm animals. Other times He was more selective. But God knew the hearts and minds of the people. He knew when people were ready to accept Him, and when they were not.

Bottom line, it wasn't that urinating against a wall was a sin, it was just a measure of maturity, or of the ability to accept the truth as opposed to what one was raised to believe.

Politics

Normally, I try to stay away from politics in this blog, but there are some things that have happened lately that I feel I must comment on:

First, I would like to thank Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Mr. Reid wrote a letter to Mark Mays, of Clear Channel Communications, essentially passing on a baseless accusation that Rush Limbaugh called military members that didn't agree with the war in Iraq 'phony soldiers.' In point of fact, the phrase 'phony soldiers' came from an ABC news report about people protesting the war claiming to be veterans of the Iraq war, when, in fact, they had not been to Iraq at all, and some of them aren't even veterans. In any case, the letter was auctioned off Friday, and leveraged into a 4.2 million dollar donation to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation--a charitable organization set up to help the survivors of Marines and Law Enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. This is the sort of thing that we like to see happen in the name of 'supporting our troops.' So thank you, Mr. Reid.

In other news, we are taking up a collection to buy Ann Coulter a shoe horn. It needs to be a very strong shoe horn, because her foot is so much bigger than her mouth, and it needs to be durable, because she manages to get her foot in her mouth so often. She made a comment last week saying that she wanted the Jews 'to be perfected.' As if that made them any different than the rest of us... She has caught a lot of flack about 'these are the kind of comments that led to Auschwitz.' I have to disagree. The Nazis weren't trying to perfect the Jews, they were trying to perfect themselves. A lot of Germans believed that they had been weakened by Jewish influence, Hitler preached that the Jews needed to be eliminated in order to recover the 'master race'--the blond-haired, blue-eyed people that God intended for us to be... The criticism, of course, stems from the fact that the Nazis and Ann Coulter both seem to think that the Jews are inferior. I don't think that Ann Coulter would advocate killing Jews because they are imperfect (and if she is advocating killing people who aren't perfect, then she should set the example by getting in line for execution first--and people like me will just have to hope that once she's gone, the push to kill imperfect people will die down). I've said it before, and I'll say it again, "There are no perfect people." We also need to get her one of those bumper stickers that says, "Christians aren't perfect--just forgiven."I think I understand what she meant. The plain and simple truth is that the Jews have been waiting for a savior for over two thousand years. Some of them set out an extra chair and set an extra place setting at meals, in case the Messiah shows up. Meanwhile, we Christians know Christ. We are waiting for Him to come back, and take us Home. The Jews are inextricably linked to our salvation, and they don't even see it. Some people cry that they killed Jesus; my salvation was bought with His blood--I say, thank God for the Jews! I would like to see as many of them in Heaven as possible. I don't want to see them threatened or browbeaten; that's not effective anyway. Side note: Recently some sociologists discovered some Latino Roman Catholics in the United States that celebrated Chanukah, Purim, and Passover. They only did this in the privacy of their own homes, they never talked to anyone at church about it, and all are descendants of Spaniards that lived during the Spanish Inquisition. Apparently these people have been (secretly) practicing Jewish rites for over 400 years...

To be honest, Ann Coulter illustrates an unfortunate aspect of Christianity. We, as Christians, think of ourselves as 'chosen.' Well, okay, we don't just think of ourselves as chosen, we are chosen. But we have a bad tendency to think that we are somehow special, that God chose us because we have some talent or ability that was instrumental to His grand scheme--as opposed to God giving talents and abilities to people who are willing to follow His direction. But our 'specialness' comes from our obeisance, not from our abilities, or our looks. If any one of us decides not to follow God, he will simply raise up another. We are recipients of Grace; not because of what we have done or even could do, but because God is a loving and merciful God. God would like to extend His Grace even further, but is often limited by our failings as Christians. If the Jews are not saved, it may very well be because of us. Apostle Paul wrote about not 'boasting against' the Jews...

Killing in God's Name

Lately there has been a lot of talk about killing in God's name (usually by someone claiming to be a member of "the religion of peace"). Are there Biblical precedents for such an attitude or belief? Let's consider:

God gives us early encouragement not to kill, in the case of Cain VS. Abel...

Moses killed a man, but then God chose to use him to lead the Children of Israel out of Egypt anyway...

God gives Moses the commandment, Thou Shalt Not Kill...

But, then, God becomes angry at King Saul for not killing...

But King David got in trouble for killing...

In addition, under Old Testament Law, there were allowances made for killing for revenge. If someone killed a relative of yours, you had a right to hunt them down, unless it was an accident, and they were able to get to a city of refuge before you got to them...

It gets complicated. But, realistically, under the new covenant, we don't have to worry about such things any more. Jesus made it real simple: Turn the other cheek. Interestingly enough, Jesus made that comment very shortly after referencing the Old Testament eye for an eye... Something that has been attributed to both Ghandi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., is that "an eye for an eye just leaves everyone blind." Certainly that's true. As I have posted before, we are imperfect people, seeking to do the perfect will of God, and sometimes we get it right. But we make a lot of mistakes along the way. I would hope that no one dies because of my mistakes, but I can't guarantee that. If someone dies, who then has the right to kill me? God didn't grant anyone the right to kill Cain... It is important that we forgive each other, because there is not a one among us that will never need forgiveness.

The bottom line is, in the modern day, killing in the name of God is wrong. period. I don't care if you are talking about killing people who refuse to accept your religion, or your way of thinking, or whether you are talking about killing abortionists. Thou shalt not kill. God likes mercy, and we need God's mercy.

GodTube

ABC recently discovered GodTube. I've known about GodTube for awhile. To be honest, I don't watch many videos on GodTube--I really don't have time. What I like about GodTube, as opposed to YouTube, is that you have a pretty good idea going into it what you're getting. Granted, GodTube is a copy of YouTube, but with religious overtones. It's like somebody looked at YouTube and said, this would make a great tool for Christians if only it were run by Christian people. It's pretty obvious that it isn't run by Christians--and that's not necessarily bad; if the only businesses allowed to operate were Christian-run businesses, we would be in trouble. YouTube has a long history of, well, interesting ethical choices. They have a policy that they will not allow copyrighted content on their site, however, they have, until recently, put the onus of copyright protection on their contributors and the owners of said copyright. In other words, you aren't supposed to post content to their site unless you own the rights to it--and their terms of use page spells out exactly how you can tell if you own the rights or not, but if you do, they don't really check, but if someone else complains that they own the copyright, YouTube will take the video off their site. As an example, a video was posted on YouTube several months ago that met the criteria for original content, but a TV show about internet video used the video on their show (without permission from the producer of said video). The producer video'd the TV program that featured his video, and posted the video on YouTube, in place of his original video, including on-air comments about his video. The network informed YouTube that they owned the copyright, and YouTube took down the video. The original producer tried to make the case that they used his video without permission, but that really didn't fly--it's not like he was collecting royalties from YouTube.

More than that, though, YouTube has a policy that they will not host material that is deemed offensive. Experience has taught us that what we consider to be offensive isn't necessarily what YouTube considers offensive. There are many videos on YouTube that would not be rated PG in by the MPAA. More than that, there are a number of videos that criticize various religions or ethnic groups. Some of these are taken down very quickly, others stay put for years. Generally, if it is anti-Christian or anti-Semitic, it is deemed to be non-offensive. If it is critical of Islam, it is removed quickly; even if it is clear that it is only critical of terrorists groups as opposed to Islam as a whole. Perhaps that is because Jews and Christians don't have a history of flying airplanes into buildings. Don't misunderstand me, I am well aware that most Muslims are very peaceful people. I know that. I know that the vast majority of Muslims who have immigrated to this country are here because they are trying to get away from the extremists who sponsor terror. I mean those people no ill-will. My point is, simply, that YouTube clearly is more concerned about offending the terrorists than they are the vast majority of their users. To be honest, I can somewhat understand. They offend me, I quit using their site. They have lost one user. This will have a fairly negligible effect on their advertising revenue. They offend some terrorist group, they may get some of their people killed. There is also the concern that the terrorists may not target YouTube, but the producers of the video, but leaving the operators of YouTube with some sense of responsibility (or not--some people are quite immune to such things, but I would like to think that they would feel some responsibility). There is a certain wisdom to the way YouTube operates. The thing is, if I go to YouTube, and click on 'humor,' I may get a video that will make me laugh, or I may get some pop-tart showing me things that I don't really need to see, or some bigot making jokes about the Holocaust...

Granted, the videos at GodTube mostly leave me disappointed. Some of them are funny. Some of them are thought-provoking. A lot of them take a great concept and use wooden acting, bad camera angles and poor scripting to just, I don't know how to describe it--it's like instead of taking a photograph of a beautiful sunset, you sit down and paint it using watercolors on graph paper in the rain (I suppose if you don't have a camera or canvas or a dry spot to paint, that's the best you can do).

It's been pointed out that GodTube is a little embarrassing. It's such an obvious copy. The site could have been designed a lot better. Most of the videos could be a lot better. Some of them are just plain stupid. But they are clean. They are not offensive (well, not usually, anyway, and not offensive in the sense that they are showing things they ought not, or expressing opinions that offend--sometimes they are offensively stupid, but that's about it). One of my personal favorite videos on GodTube is called, "Baby Got Book." It's a take-off of a secular music video, but this guy talks (sings?) about how he likes women with (big) Bibles. I've watched it several times and I still get a chuckle out of it. One of my least favorite is one that calls the banana an atheist's worst nightmare--although, to be honest, that one is stupid enough to be funny, even though it clearly wasn't intended as humor.

So, the question is, do I watch YouTube, and risk being offended at what I see, or watch GodTube, and risk being disappointed? Or just stay busy with other things, and not worry about it...

That Which Is in Part

I have had some discussions with people about speaking in tongues. The conventional wisdom in Christian circles seems to be that tongues were done away with; the usual reference given is 1 Corinthians 13:10. That reference has really never made sense to me. I can sort of see it, but not really. In verse eight it talks about prophesies failing, tongues ceasing, and knowledge passing away. In verse nine, it tells us that we know in part, and we prophecy in part. Verse ten says that when "that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away." Now, I know this is being nit-picky, but I have to point out that it doesn't say that tongues are in part. It does lump tongues with knowledge and prophesy in verse eight, and tells us that the other two are in part in verse nine, so, by implication, tongues are in part. I'm not sure what that would mean, exactly (I understand the idea that prophesy is in part, because God doesn't show us everything that is going to happen; I understand that knowledge is in part, because there is an awful lot that we don't know--is tongues in part because most of the time we speak the language that we grew up with?) . Now John 21:25 would seem to indicate that the gospels themselves are in part; should they be done away with as well?

Really, though, that's not the point. The point is, what did Paul mean by "that which is perfect?" These people seem to think that he was referring to the completed Bible. Let me again refer you to John 21:25. I don't really want to say that the Bible isn't perfect, but where is the text that covers Jesus' life from 12 to 30? There is an eighteen year gap there, and, to be honest, it doesn't tell us a lot about His early years either. It seems fairly obvious to me that Paul was talking about Christ's return--when He carries us, His children, home. Then we will know and understand all the things that we don't get now. Now, we see through a glass darkly (because we are spiritual beings, but robed in flesh, and we experience things in a carnal way), but then face to face (because when I see Jesus' face, He and I will both be wholly spiritual, with no flesh between us to distort the experience). Let me also point out that in 1 Corinthians 13:12, Paul goes on to say that, "...then shall I know, even as also I am known." That doesn't sound like what was in part was being destroyed, as much as being completed (that works, doesn't it? If that which is in part is completed, then it is no longer 'in part,' so that which is in part has been done away).

Personally, I find it hard to believe that tongues have been done away with: It seems to me that all the gifts that God gave to the early church He gave to the church. The church is still around, so the gifts are still around. Some of them are much rarer now than they were (that may simply signify a lack of faith on our part), I have to admit that the vast majority of the time that I have heard 'speaking in tongues,' it just sounded like jibber-jabber to me. Were they faking it, or was I just not properly attuned to hear it for what it was? I can't be sure. I do believe that there is a lot of fakery out there. I suspect that there are probably a whole lot more people pretending to speak in tongues than actually speaking in tongues. Does that mean that tongues are done away with? I don't think so.

One story that I want to pass on, just because it's kind of related: Some years ago, some friends and I went to visit a Baptist Church in Milwaukee. One of the pastors there had a doctorate in theology, and was a very educated man. At one point during the service, he began leading in prayer, and, partway into the prayer, he stopped speaking English. Now, I am not nearly as well educated as he was, but I recognized a few words as ancient Hebrew (or possibly modern Hebrew--I'm not sure I could tell the difference). After the service, one of my friends started laughing at the pastor, "I thought Baptists didn't believe in speaking in tongues!" I tried to explain that he wasn't speaking in tongues, but he wasn't listening. Of course, there are about 400 different flavors of Baptist in this country, so I don't think it's fair to say that Baptists don't believe in speaking in tongues. Some of them do, don't they?