The Church: 15. The Essence of Worship--Part IV

The Church: The Essence of Worship: Part IV

Introduction

Two misguided human pursuits are the aspiration to self-rule apart from God and devotion to something other than God.  In the ink of these two alternatives, human history is written. Over against this story, however, is the story of God in human history, creating and providing an alternative that culminates in the work of Jesus Christ.

The experiment of the Western Enlightenment, leading from a deistic rationalism to an atheistic existentialism, is characterised by human aspirations to self-rule, life apart from God. Evangelism in the West has often involved responding to the claim that there is no God.  Whereas the practical implications of such a debate used to focus around such issues as praying in public schools or on the sports fields, increasingly the issues of an a-theistic culture have to do with moral freedom.

In non-Western cultures, the issue is not whether God exists but who or what demands our devotion.  This might come in the form of competing religions, or it might come in the form of social commitments, including devotion to the ancestors.

Two Human Aspirations in Scripture

In Scripture, we see these two misguided pursuits. The first, the human claim that there is no God, is equally an aspiration to autonomous existence, self-rule.  Thus, it is not simply disbelief in God’s existence; it is further a claim made by the wicked, who do not follow God’s Law.  The psalmist says, ‘In the pride of their countenance the wicked say, "God will not seek it out"; all their thoughts are, "There is no God”’ (Psalm 10.4).  Atheism does not just claim that God does not exist; it is also a prideful aspiration to self-rule that leads to a life lived apart from any relationship with God, any acknowledgement of His judgement, and any interest in obeying His righteous commandments.  The atheist sets himself or herself up in place of God, making claims to things that rightfully are God's alone.

The second misguided human pursuit is idolatry, devotion directed to some other deity or thing than the one true God.  Israel’s story is one of being chosen to worship God, as opposed to the idols of other nations.  Israel's story is also, sadly, one of failing to give God her sole devotion, ,becoming like the other nations in idolatry.  The prophet Isaiah’s vision for a final outcome to this story is when ‘every knee shall bow’ to the one and only God (Isaiah 45.23)—a vision that will be accomplished in the worlds devotion to Jesus Christ (Philippians 2.10-11).

Thus, there are two views that Scripture counters:

1.  Humans themselves vying for divine status;
2. Humans devoting themselves to something other than God, creating their own objects of worship—idols.

Autodeism: Humans Vying for Divine Status

Scripture, a collection of different types of writing in three different languages by different authors over hundreds and hundreds of years, begins and ends with the same human challenge to God.  The first eleven chapters of the first book of the Bible, Genesis, focus on the human condition that results from humans vying for divine status, what we might call ‘autodeism,’ humans making divine claims for themselves.  Atheism is really a type of autodeism, focused more on the claim that there is no God than on the corollary explored in Scripture that humans set themselves up in place of God.  Yet the one implies the other: if God does not exist, then humans step into His role.

Revelation, the last book in the Christian Bible, ends with the divine pretensions of a human ruler and empire.  In Genesis 1-11, three attempts to raise humans to divine status are made:

1. The Fall and humanity’s aspirations to moral divinity: The human attempt to take on divine authority in moral judgement.  Adam and Eve eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil so that they might become like God (Gen. 3).  The judgement of God includes their not being allowed to live forever.
2. The Nephilim and humanity’s aspirations to heroic divinity: The human attempt to use god-like power on the earth.  The Nephilim were the children born from the ‘sons of God’ and the ‘daughters of men’ (Gen. 6).  The judgement of God involves shortening their lifespan to 120 years and, ultimately, destroying  everyone other than Noah and his family.
3. The Tower of Babel and humanity’s aspirations to divine achievement: The human attempt to develop to such an extent that they take on divine capabilities.  The judgement of God involves diversifying the people by making them speak in different languages (Gen. 11).

The book of Revelation depicts Rome and the Roman Empire as the epitome of human aspirations to divinity.  The emperor aspires to divinity (ch. 13) just as the empire aspires to military and economic greatness (chs. 17-18).

Idolatry: Human Devotion to Anything Other than God

In the rest of Scripture, however, misguided human aspirations are not so much the attempt to replace divinity with human beings but to replace God and the worship of God with something else.  This is either literally or figuratively idolatry.  The story of redemptive history is the story of God reclaiming the devotion of His creation, the restoration of His own glory.  Out of the chaos of the misguided, divine aspirations of humanity in Gen. 1-11, God called Abram (Gen. 12).  In His covenant with Abram (Gen. 12.1-3), God reversed the situation by granting what humanity strove to accomplish:

1. Great Nation: Despite Adam and Eve’s failed attempt to achieve justice through their own knowledge and rule, God promises that He would make the children of Abram into a great nation.  Despite Adam and Eve being severed from the land of Eden, God gives to their offspring a new land of their own.
2. Great Name: Despite the Nephilim heroes of old seeking to make a great name for themselves, God promises that He would make the name of Abram great.  He would be the hero, not because of His own greatness but because of God’s blessing.
3. Great Achievement: Despite the efforts at divine achievement by humans building the Tower of Babel, God would make Adam (and his offspring) a blessing among the nations.

God’s Redemption of Humanity and His Reclamation of His Due Glory

As Christians, we worship the one, true God over all creation.  We give God the glory due to Him, neither setting ourselves up as alternative divinities nor devoting ourselves to alternatives to God.  Our understanding of God is Trinitarian: the one God’s eternal, personal relatedness as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—one God in three Persons (not three Gods!).  Our devotion to Jesus and worship of Him makes the claim that He is God—all that God is, Jesus the Word of God is (John 1.1).  We believe that Jesus is the eternal ‘Son’ of God—not in the sense of a physical son, of course, but in the sense of the eternal relationship within the Godhead.  And we believe that Jesus became human to redeem humanity and reclaim His due glory.  In this, we believe that the misguided aspirations toward ‘Autodeism’ and Idolatry are reversed, and right devotion is reestablished through Jesus Christ.

1. Christ Reverses Humanity’s Aspirations to Moral Divinity: Thus, God in human flesh accomplishes the misguided aspirations of Adam and Eve to make their own moral judgements and to rule creation apart from God.  Jesus Christ alone is righteous, tested as we are and yet without sin (Heb. 4.15).  The restoration of order involves a mission of teaching the nations the commandments of Jesus (Matthew 28.20).
2.  Christ Reverses Humanity’s Heroic Divinity: We also worship Jesus as Lord (e.g., Romans 10.9).  He is not some god-man hero, whether as the Nephilim in pre-Noachic times or in the Greek and Roman myths.  He is God incarnate: not half god and half man but fully God and fully human.  And yet His rule is an aspect of His accomplishment of victory over sin and death (Eph. 1.17-23).  His victory over sin was accomplished in the flesh by sacrificially shedding His blood on the cross to redeem us from our sins and reconcile us to God.  His victory over death was accomplished by being raised bodily from the dead (1 Cor. 15.54-57).
3. Christ Reverses Humanity’s Aspirations to Divine Achievement: We further believe that Jesus’ great achievement of conquering sin and death is the means by which God has reestablished His blessing of all nations, all humanity.  Christ died for the ungodly (Rom. 5.6), for us—sinners (Rom. 5.8; cf. 1 Cor. 15.3), for all (2 Cor. 5.14.  His gift of grace was abundant and free (Rom. 5.15).  In Christ, the divisions of humanity are overcome (Eph. 2.14).  Human aspirations are rightly ordered only as Christ is head, and it is in this way that the full stature of humanity is achieved (Eph. 4.13).
4. Christ Redirects Humanity’s False Devotions to Things Other than God: Jesus Christ is presented, in the vision of John in the book of Revelation, as the sacrificial Lamb who receives divine worship (ch. 5).  He has been given all authority in heaven and on earth, and it is into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that Christians are baptized (Matthew 28.18-19).  To be a Christian is to forsake false devotions and be redirected to worship the One, true God by being reconciled to the Father through the work of Jesus Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  Because we are His children, ‘God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba, Father’ (Galatians 4.6).[1]

Conclusion

In all this, then, Jesus has overcome the misguided aspirations of humanity, with its self-devotion and misdirected devotions.  As we worship Him, we lay down our pretentions to determine our own morality apart from God and become our own judges of good and evil.  As we worship Him, we abandon our vain aspirations to heroic rule apart from His Lordship.  As we worship Him, we give up a misguided hope in human achievements and progress to acknowledge that the greatest gift is the grace of God through Jesus’ sacrificial death for us, bringing us redemption from sin and reconciliation to God and one another.  And, as we worship Him, we put away our idols, our alternative devotions that pull us away from God. 

---

[1] ‘Abba’ is the Aramaic word for ‘Father.’  If carries the dual meaning of one with parental authority and parental love.

Issues Facing Missions Today: 46. (Some) Values for American, Evangelical Voters

Issues Facing Missions Today: 46. (Some) Values for American, Evangelical Voters

Dear Evangelical Voters in Iowa:

You represent the rest of us Evangelicals in the news these days as the American nation watches how you will vote in the upcoming party elections for president of the United States.  We can appreciate your opposition to Democratic candidates, who advocate killing the unborn and oppose Biblical marriage in the name of freedom.  Yet support for one Republican candidate over another is also a difficult challenge for any Evangelical.  One leading candidate who claims to be a Christian seems rather obviously to be doing so only to win votes.  He certainly has little understanding of Christian values, even arguing the other night on the O’Reilly Factor that Christians teach ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’  Some other candidates are more closely connected to the Church, and yet we should cringe when hearing some of their views.  Christians are not a voting block to be wooed and owned, but representatives of a different Kingdom altogether.  Our citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3.20).  Stand firm in your witness.

Perhaps some helpful clarification about values is given to us by Richard Bauckham’s recent book, The Bible in the Contemporary World: Hermeneutical Ventures.[1]  He examines two related sets of values in chapters 4 and 5: those of globalization and Western understandings of the value of freedom.  These only cover some of the issues, but they do engage key matters that arise in voting in a general election in a country such as America.  Values of globalization and Western freedom stand over against Christian values and yet, it seems, some of us Evangelicals are confused over what is really cultural and what is really Biblical.  Biblical, Christian teaching on God’s reign conflicts radically with understandings of global rule, and we should expect that elections regularly bring out these differences for us—voting for Christians should be difficult—very difficult—as we are entering a different context from that of the Church to cast that vote.  It is when there is no perceived conflict between Christian and cultural values, whether liberal or conservative, that interpreters of the faith go horribly astray.

While Bauckham does not enumerate the various values as here, the following points do cover the discussion in Bauckham’s two chapters.

The Values of Globalization versus Biblical Values

Bauckham notes that we are living in a day of globalization, but he explores what this entails not just in our day but also in earlier centuries as well.  One can appreciate certain similarities between empires of the past—from Nebuchadnezzar to the British Empire—and the various political and economic global powers in the present.  Whenever Americans vote, they not only have their local and national issues before them, but also the question of America’s global influence.  So, here are some ways to think Biblically about some of the values of globalization facing us today.  Values of globalism include the values of:

1.       A privileged nation.  If you find yourself thinking that you are part of a privileged nation, chosen by God more than some other nation, read: Genesis 1; Psalm 97.9; 47.8; 145.9; 96.13; and Psalm 98.4.

2.       A privileged race.  If you find yourself preferring one race over another, read the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 and Paul's comment in Acts 17.26.

3.       A privileged culture.  If you find yourself favouring one culture over another, read the diversity passages of Genesis 10.5, 20, 31-32; Daniel 7.13-14; and Revelation 5.9; 7.9; 10.11; 11.9; 13.7; 14.6; 17.15; and Acts 2.6.  God doesn’t favour one group over another.  He doesn’t want a homogenous humanity.

4.       The sanctity of diversity.  If you find yourself imagining that diversity is a cardinal virtue, on the other hand, think again.  Every page of Scripture calls for worship of the one, true God, and Christians understand that ‘No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known’ (John 1.18).  Bauckham notes that unity under God is not a matter of doing away with diversity of peoples, but it is equally not about equalizing all values and practices.

5.       Power and domination.  If you find yourself wanting to vote for someone touting a message of American power and domination on the world scene, read Daniel 4.

6.       Economic dominance.  If you find yourself hoping for economic dominance, read Ezekiel 26-28 about Tyre’s and Revelation 17-18 about Rome’s economic dominance.  The love of money is the root of all evil (1 Tim. 6.10), I might add, and Bauckham further notes that the unrestricted pursuit of wealth is a form of idolatry: economic growth is not the supreme good and needs to be checked by other values--not least concern for the poor.

7.       Strong leadership.  If you think the country needs a strong leader after a shockingly weak leader, remember that Jesus contrasted the world’s tyrants to Christian servants (Mark 10.42-44; Luke 22.25-26; Matthew 23.11) and that Jesus, the Messiah and Son of God, took the role of a servant and washed his disciples’ feet (Jn. 13).  This is not to say that we need a weak leader for the country either.  It is to remind us that there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, and that all earthly leaders fail to one degree or another.  Don't put too much faith in any leader; rather, pray for your leaders that they might do good, not evil.

8.       Enforced righteousness.  This is a tough one—every law should have a moral basis, otherwise it is not worth being law in the first place (quite the opposite sentiment from those who have misguidedly suggested that ‘You cannot legislate morality’!).  That’s my point.  Bauckham, for his part, reminds us that Christian’s do not ‘conquer’ but ‘witness.’  Reread the book of Revelation in this light.  Jesus, is the faithful and true witness (3.14; 1.5).  In another of his books, Bauckham notes that Jesus conquers by a sword from his mouth—that is, by his Word.[2]  The military imagery in Revelation 19 is standard apocalyptic fare, but the point of the chapter is that Jesus’ victory is by the witness of his Word.  His followers overcome the ‘beast’ even in martyrdom, which is their own witness (15.2)—note that the Greek word for ‘witness’ is martyrion.  Christians are a blessing to the world and bring the message of salvation to the world through a mission of noncoercive witness.  We don't 'carpet bomb' our enemies; we bear witness to Jesus Christ.

Western Understanding of Freedom versus Christian Understanding

Americans breathe freedom like the air, as do other Western nations.  It is a cardinal virtue of the West.  It is also a Biblical virtue (although it has been grossly misunderstood in Liberation Theology).  When Americans vote, they consider matters to do with freedom, and it is therefore critical to realize that our culture’s understanding of freedom is quite different from a Biblical understanding of freedom.  In Chapter 5, ‘Freedom and Belonging,’ Bauckham contrasts Western notions of freedom with Christian values.  The Enlightenment value of freedom has come to understand freedom as:

1.       Freedom from all limits: libertinism is increasingly appealing to people as freedom is understood as a freedom from all limits--why should anyone restrain 'my freedom' as long as I am not hurting anyone?

2.       Maximal independence from others--and yet people continue to have deeply felt needs of belonging—hence a culture that won’t marry but has couples living together,, e.g.;

3.       Consumer choice: not only material pursuits are undertaken without restraint but also, shockingly, people increasingly pursue their own wanton choices in moral matters without restraint;

4.       Domination: the way to be free is thought to require us to dominate others, lest we lose our freedom.

In all four of these views of freedom Scripture offers a different perspective.  Biblical freedom, argues Bauckham (without enumerating these points),

1.       Does not exclude communal obligations;

2.       Encourages dependence;

3.       Encourages faithfulness;

4.       Encourages commitment to others;

5.       Meets the needs we have for belonging;

6.       Is a value, yes, but is only one among other values and is a value that can only be understood within a larger context of beliefs and values;

7.       Involves service (Bauckham doesn’t use this word here, but he does speak of Christian freedom being opposed to dominance);

8.       Enables others’ freedom;

9.       Is relational in that it is a freedom for, not a freedom from.

Admittedly, all this needs to be spelled out further, and Bauckham does help us to begin such a conversation among ourselves.  (And some of his other chapters in this book help us to discuss some other values as well.)

Conclusion

So, brothers and sisters in the faith, please represent us well, not only on obvious matters about abortion and sexuality, but also about global matters and concerns over freedom.  You have a great challenge to know how to vote for a particular person in a country that is not Christian.  But don’t let uninformed reporters confuse our Christian values with those of the culture—we have clear differences.  As a professor of mine used to say, ‘The first social task of the Church is to help the world know that it is not the Church.’  Stand tall.

All the best.

---

[1] Richard Bauckham’s recent book, The Bible in the Contemporary World: Hermeneutical Ventures (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2015).

[2] Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993).

The Church: 14. Paedobaptism or Adult Baptism?

The Church: 14. Paedobaptism or Believers' Baptism?

Introduction

So, bottom line, should we baptize babies of a believing parent or only baptize believing adults?  How do we use the Bible appropriately to answer this question?  Frankly, does the Bible answer this question?

This post is at the request of a friend, and he has caught me at a busy time right at the beginning of the semester.  So, without the care I’d like to give the subject, here are a few thoughts on a very, very old debate.  Nobody should be under the impression that this is an exhaustive or detailed discussion! 

Why place this on a 'Bible and Mission' blog site?  The issue arises acutely in a post-Christian context for Western nations.  Baptism is a Christian practice that speaks to the mission concerns of the relationship between Church and society, evangelism and initiation into the Church, and the witness of believers.

This essay is meant as an Evangelical discussion, and certain assumptions are made from the start.  Baptism does not save us.  Scripture is God’s Word and authoritative in our lives.  It does speak to the issue to some degree.  Good Christians hold to different practices—differences of perspective should not divide the Evangelical movement.

Some Exegetical Issues

First, the New Testament links baptism to participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and it is our faith in the person and work of Christ that saves us.  Two key passages are from Paul:

Romans 6:3-5   Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  ⁴ Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.  ⁵ For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

Colossians 2:11-12   In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ;  ¹² when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Second, baptism is an ‘entry-point’ into the faith.  For the author of Hebrews, it is beginning stuff for young believers:

Hebrews 6:1-2 Therefore let us go on toward perfection, leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ, and not laying again the foundation: repentance from dead works and faith toward God,  ² instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

Paul says,

Galatians 3:27  As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Third, according to Paul, it is a practice that everyone undergoes so that it is a symbol of unity.

1 Corinthians 12:13  For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-- and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Ephesians 4:4-6  There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling,  ⁵ one Lord, one faith, one baptism,  ⁶ one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.

This is why, in 1 Corinthians 1.13-17, Paul emphasizes that he did not baptism many of the Corinthians—lest they use this as a way to divide among themselves.  If baptism is a symbol of unity, far be it for Paul to let believers take pride over others because they were baptized by the apostle.

Fourth, baptism is linked symbolically, like Jewish ritual baths[1] and John the Baptist’s baptism, to moral purity.  This is already clear from the passages already cited in Romans 6 and Colossians 2. (Note that the correspondence in Col. 2 is between circumcision of the heart and baptism, not between circumcision and baptism, as has far too often been stated.  The activity is also not, as with circumcision, the human act as a sign of covenant commitment but Christ's act of dying and our participation in His death.) We might add what Peter says in 1 Peter 3:

1 Peter 3:21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you-- not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for[2] a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ….

One can see the connection between a ritual activity involving water and the theological truth of spiritual cleansing through the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit in a passage that does not even mention the word ‘baptism’:

1 Corinthians 6:11 And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified[3] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

John the Baptist’s baptism was a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (e.g., Mk. 1.4).  As such, it was a practice of a people already related to God in the covenant who were preparing for the coming of God’s kingdom.  It was a ritual cleansing symbolizing repentance before God, the Judge of the whole universe, comes.  The Christian theology of baptism drew this practice around Christ, as we have already seen.  The cleansing, Christians believed, was only something that Christ could accomplish, and he did so on the cross.  As John says, ‘the blood of Jesus his [God’s] Son cleanses us from all sin’ (1 John 1.7).  The focus on the work of Christ on the cross for us introduces the element of faith into our understanding of baptism: baptism is an outward expression of the faith that we have in Jesus Christ, the one who cleanses us from all our sin.

Fifth, baptism has the danger of being treated as more than a symbol.  It functions to symbolize the washing and purity of the transformed life and salvation in Christ.  The passage just cited from 1 Peter 3.21 makes this distinction.  Similarly, the passage already cited from Colossians 2 is careful to interpret baptism with reference to spiritual circumcision, not physical circumcision.  Physical circumcision, Paul emphasizes throughout his ministry, accomplishes nothing toward salvation (e.g., Ephesians 2.11, and this is a major thesis in Galatians).  Similarly, baptism could be mistaken as another outward act that accomplishes something spiritual rather than being an outward symbol of a work that Christ accomplishes.  The author of Hebrews even uses the word ‘baptisms’ for Jewish practices associated with an outward religion of sacrifices, food regulations, and certain practices to do with the body (Hebrews 9.10).

This error—associating the outward symbol too closely with the actual work of salvation that Christ accomplishes through his shed blood—is one of the reasons for the Reformation.  Whether it was an offering to get a friend or relative sprung from Purgatory, a ritualistic approach to the faith in church attendance and confession of sins, or baptism, the Church by the 16^th century had come to confuse the work of Christ too much with the outward works of human beings. 

Sixth, the New Testament gives us no example of the practice of baptism apart from believers.  Some persons in the history of the Church have attempted to find the practice of infant baptism in Scripture.  Paul’s jailer in Philippi came to faith, and ‘he and his entire family were baptized without delay’ (Acts 16.33).  The assumption some make is that the family had an infant or two that was baptized as well.  Note that the next verse also has an ‘entire household’ statement.  The NRSV simply mistranslates the end of the verse: ‘and he and his entire household rejoiced that he had become a believer in God’ (v. 34; similarly the ESV).  The NIV captures the meaning better on this occasion: ‘he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God-- he and his whole family.’  The point is that baptism is associated with newly found faith in God.  If we want to argue that there were babies being baptized, we might as well argue that the babies also came to faith.  Seriously, however, Luke has earlier used the language of a household, its faith in a message about Jesus, and salvation.  Peter is sent by God to Joppa to speak to the Gentile centurion and his household about Jesus: the text says that he ‘will give you a message by which you and your entire household will be saved’ (Acts. 11.14).  Moreover, we read, ‘Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life’ (Acts 11.18).  For John the Baptist, baptism symbolizes the repentance that leads to eternal life, and the early Church added that this salvation from sin and judgement comes through belief 'in the Lord Jesus Christ’ (v. 17).  Later in Acts, Crispus, the synagogue leader in Corinth, ‘became a believer in the Lord, together with all his household’ (Acts 18.8).  Households in these passages are believing households.

Summary of Findings Thus Far

From these six points, we might gather the following points.  Christian baptism, whatever its form or practice,

1. points to the work of Jesus Christ that saves us.

2. is an initiation, an entry-point into the faith.

3. symbolizes Christian unity in Christ and the Holy Spirit.

4. symbolizes repentance, cleansing, and moral purity accomplished by Christ and the

Spirit.

5. only symbolizes and does not itself accomplish what Christ accomplishes.

6. is never associated with children, only believers, in the New Testament.

All the Biblical references to baptism are with respect to believers' baptism.  This may lead some to believe in believers' baptism only.  Yet it did not lead most of the Church to this view until the Reformation's focus on salvation by grace through faith--the 'through faith' is not something that could be applied to infants.  The result was that some Reformers reformed Catholic teaching on baptism to remove the notion of baptismal regeneration, whereas some other Reformers insisted on adult (or children with an understanding of the faith) baptism.

Baptism and Speech-Act Theory

In Speech-Act Theory, the notion of speech functioning as 'acts' is introduced.  Just speech is 'locution,' performing an act through speech is 'illocution', and the result of the speech-act is called 'perlocution'.  

We might explore this understanding for marriage and baptism.  When someone says, ‘I do’ in response to a minister’s question, ‘Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband?’, the woman’s words are not just words.  Nor are they simply symbolic.  They are, in the language of Speech-Act Theory, an illocutionary act (what was done in action when the words were spoken).  What was the act?  A vow.  Also in reference to this theory, they are a perlocutionary act (what was the result of uttering the words): marriage. The ring that is often exchanged in marriage is the symbol.

With this example, we might apply Speech-Act Theory to baptism.  The actual baptism is, like the ring, a symbol.  It symbolizes cleansing (water), and it symbolizes (especially in immersion) dying and rising with Christ.  Words are spoken during baptism, and they may be analyzed with regard to a liturgical service such as the Anglican Church's baptism of youthful or adult converts.  First, there are three illocutionary acts of renunciation (1) of the devil and all spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God; (2) of all empty promises and deadly deceits of this world that corrupt and destroy the creatures of God; and (3) of all sinful desires of the flesh that draw one from the love of God.  Then there are three illocutionary acts that are vows: (1) a vow to turn to Jesus Christ and confess him as Lord and Saviour; (2) a vow to receive the Christian faith with joy as revealed in Scripture; and (3) a vow to keep God's holy will and commandments in obedience and walk in them throughout life.  The congregation then vows to support the baptizand in this.  A third illocutionary act is proclamation of the faith, using the Apostle's Creed.  The final illocutionary act is at the end of the service, when the church speaks words of welcome into the body.  The perlocutionary act is summed up in saying that the person is now 'baptized'.

As with marriage, without the action of baptism, the person would not be married or baptized.  Baptism is, then, more than a symbolic act, just as marriage is more than an exchange of rings.  Through the illocutionary acts of the service, certain actions are done (renouncing, vowing, proclaiming, and welcoming) take place.  These also affirm the faith of the baptizand, with witnesses present.  The resultant act of all this is that the person is welcomed as a believer into the church.

In all this, Protestants have been right to insist that baptism is not itself salvific—we do not believe in baptismal regeneration.  This would be the equivalent of someone saying marriage vows on one's behalf without one's knowledge.  The illocutionary acts are required for the act to have meaning and for the perlocutionary act (that one is married) to be fact.  The logic seems clear.

Some Further Considerations

However, there are some further theological perspectives to raise further consideration in the matter.  First, the New Testament does not offer anything about the children of believers for baptism or at the Lord's Table.  Second, Jesus said to let the little children come to him (Matthew 19.14).  To the extent that baptism is an act of inclusion into the community of faith, there is some overlap with such a text.  An exclusion of children from baptism and/or the Lord's Supper needs to be thought through with respect to how children might be included in Christian community, not as second class citizens but as children are in a family.  They are full participants, even if they have certain restrictions put on them.

Third, while our focus on individual salvation should not be undermined in any respect, we perhaps need to think more seriously about communal dimensions of our faith.  Certainly ancient Israel did, such as in the punishment of Achan's family for Achan's sin (Joshua 7) or the suffering of the servant of Isaiah 53 on behalf of the people.  A similar logic of inclusion in someone else's sin is literally, not just figuratively, found in Romans 5.12-21, where humanity experiences the resultant condition of Adam's transgression and sin.

Fourth, there is some Biblical consideration of the extension of holiness to children on the part of a believing parent. In a logic that is already found in Genesis 18, Paul allows that a household is made holy when there is only one believing spouse.  This includes the children (1 Cor. 7.14).  Practitioners of infant baptism extend this logic to infants; while not holy in any sense of practicing righteousness themselves, they are covered by the believing parent's identity as holy--set apart to God.  In Genesis 18, the presence of a few righteous in Sodom would have protected the city from God's wrath.  If one presses this logic for infant baptism, then one might claim that the baptism extends inclusion in the holy community without conferring salvation to the child.  Such baptism is not the same as that of a believing adult, and it will later require confirmation of faith upon a profession of faith after catechetical instruction.  This is the practice of Protestants who have revised Catholic baptism in light of moving from a works to a faith righteousness.

Fifth, there is some recognition of different practices concerning baptism.  For example, the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) offers an alternative for how one is baptized.  Baptism in running water is best, but alternatives are possible: running or still water, deep water or sprinkling.  Various denominations continue to practice baptism in different ways.  This introduces the possibility of variety in some respects and also consideration of practical matters.  While a different matter, to be sure, might one not in some ways consider the baptism of an infant in an extenuating circumstance, as when the baby is about to die?  Most Christians entertain the hope that, if their babies or young children die, they will enter heaven.  The Baptist who has this hope has moved more into the region of a paedobaptist's logic than into the strict logic he requires around baptism, insisting on adult profession of faith. Evidence from gravestones in the later church suggests that children were baptized at various ages, and this might suggest that the practice of baptizing a dying child existed. This logic does not work only in one direction.  One may well ask if a country from 'Christian Europe' where the state Churches practice infant baptism are not doing the Church a disservice as they move to a largely post-Christian society and yet people continue to baptize infants.  Surely the need for distinctive identity from the culture is critical.  Baptism must not become a cultural practice of nominal Christians.  While there may have been an argument for children of new believers in St. Patrick's conversion of much of Ireland in the 5th century, today the practice of baptism of infants may undermine faith more than anything else as European countries and the state Church's in them are largely post-Christian.  A similar problem arises when baptized children grow up to reject the faith.

Sixth, we actually have a simple fact to consider from Church history.  We do, to be sure, lack sufficient access to records regarding the practice of baptism in the second century.  All we can say is that, whenever the subject of infant baptism is mentioned, as in Tertullian's On Baptism, we note that there are different practices.  Tertullian himself argues for waiting to baptize children, but in doing so he identifies that there are different practices at his time.  It is possible that the early Church did not itself resolve the issue.

Conclusion

The thrust of this argument is toward believer’s baptism.  However, it also suggests that there might be different practices and performances, even if some are better than others.  There can be a 'good practice' of infant baptism and a 'bad practice' of it (as when it is thought to entail regeneration without personal faith).  There can be a 'bad practice' of believers' baptism (as when it is delayed too long).  Just what the limits of good practices are, and which are better than others, would need more space to explore, and a process of discernment rather than a single decision is the more likely outcome.  (It may be, as argued, that the practice of infant baptism made sense when whole societies came to faith but not when state Churches are largely nominal and post-Christian.)  The greatest challenge for believer’s baptism is when children have believed in Jesus since their early years and have held off on baptism too long.  The greatest challenge for infant baptism is when the children grow up to deny the faith.  The best practice of any sort of baptism is in the extent to which it captures the meaning of baptism and retains a right theology of salvation by grace through faith.  Just here, the comparison with marriage breaks down.  One can tie the marriage ceremony to marriage, but faith arises before baptism, or baptism occurs before faith.  Therein lies the challenge, and yet, by identifying it, various practices can address the issue in ways to prioritize the theology of salvation by grace through faith.

---

[1] I am not here coming down on one side or the other about whether Christian baptism is more linked to Jewish ritual baths (mikvoth) or proselyte baptism (Gentiles joining the Jewish synagogue).  I think the point is overly debated: both symbolize moral purity, whether practiced as an entry point or as a recommitment.

[2] The Greek can read ‘from’—an appeal from a good conscience to God (reading the Genitive as carrying the idea of the source of something).  The NIV has ‘the pledge of a good conscience toward God,’ reading the Genitive as objective by translating ‘eperōtēma not as ‘appeal’ but as ‘pledge.’  It might also be translated as ‘request.’  Unfortunately, there is not much else to say to resolve the matter: we simply have an ambiguous text.

[3] This word might be translated, ‘made righteous,’ despite the preference of English translations (wrongly, in my view) for ‘justified.’

Issues Facing Missions Today: 45. The Misnomer ‘Homophobia’ and its Theological Implications

Issues Facing Missions Today: 45. The Misnomer ‘Homophobia’ and its Theological Implications

In his opening speech at the Lambeth gathering of Anglican Archbishops this week (11-15 January, 2016), the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, allegedly stated,[1]

We can also paint a gloomy picture of the moral and spiritual state of Anglicanism. In all Provinces there are forms of corruption, none of us is without sin. There is litigation, the use of civil courts for church matters in some places. Sexual morality divides us over same sex issues, where we are seen as either compromising or homophobic. 

Indeed, the newly invented term, ‘homophobia,’ has become a standard term in Western society in reference to persons opposed, for whatever reason, to homosexuality.  It is a profoundly inappropriate term, behind which lie numerous errors with serious consequences.  The term is not only a linguistic game played by those wishing to put their own viewpoints forward by shaming others, it is also an intellectual error of the first order.  It disrupts the halls of rational discourse and entertains a number of theological errors.  Christian witness, therefore, needs to confront this language and its erroneous, theological implications.

1. A phobia is a fear.  A sin is the opposite of what is holy, and to call a phobia what someone understands to be a sin is to deny that this is a matter of holiness.  Neither the call to holiness nor an understanding of a holy God whose commands must be followed are brought into view.

2. A phobia is an irrational fear.  It does not submit to reasonable discourse.  It lacks intelligible argument as it is, after all, a matter of psychology, not philosophy, theology, or science.

3. A phobia is not held in relation to a moral issue.  It is not a sin, and the object it fears is equally not a sin.  To call something a phobia is to deny the legitimacy of any discussion of sin to the matter.  Open spaces are not a sin, and fear of them is not a sin.

4. One cannot repent of the thing that a phobic fears.  One can repent of sinful desires and acts.

5. When one is diagnosed as having a phobia, it is the phobic, not the object of a phobic’s fear, who needs to be transformed.

6. Any notion of transformation, when speaking of phobias, is relegated to psychology and not to God’s transforming power.

7. A phobia is personal, a matter for someone to sort out without allowing his or her fears to settle upon others as well.  It is, therefore, not about a person’s serious and real concern for a community but about a private matter that needs to be kept separate from a community.

8. A phobia is about things and places, such as spiders and mice and open or closed spaces.  It is not about behaviour.

9. A phobia is acquired.  Some treat religion as an acquired taste, a matter of aesthetic pleasure, or a sentiment, or a nostalgia, or a cultural expression.  For such persons, the Church’s ethics easily falls into the same category of something acquired, adopted, or embraced for reasons of taste.  It is a short step to suggest that someone’s tastes are, in fact, phobias.

10. A phobia is dismissible from the high and deep matters of religion.  It is a person’s own, closeted quirk.  It should not and cannot touch the rafters of religion, reaching to the heights of God.  Someone trying to drop his or her phobia on all society is like a poor painter turning from the canvas and trying to use the paintbrush to change the world, to paint the sky a different colour.  But if the alleged phobia is really a sin against the good creation God has made, then the world as God made it is the critic of the painter’s poor painting.

11. A phobia is something friends and family tolerate, not a matter for divorce or ostracism.  As irritating as the phobia is for a family, the family shows its love by including the weaker member.  If the phobia reaches psychotic proportions, the family may, regrettably, have to hospitalize the individual.  The psychotic level is reached when the family can no longer conduct its life tolerably or when the psychotic person becomes dangerous.  Imagine, however, a society that turns everything upside down, labelling the normal as phobic, even psychotic—well, we needn’t have to use our imaginations anymore.

Given the significant errors wrapped into the language of ‘homophobia,’ any serious and intelligent dialogue needs to avoid the misnomer altogether.  More significantly, any lingering inclination to see the historic, Christian teaching about homosexuality and the pastoral care given to persons internally disordered in their sexuality as a matter of phobia in any sense of the term implies heretical perspectives.  It betrays not only confused thinking but also theological error.  Such errors include misunderstandings about holiness, sin, repentance, transformation, pastoral care—indeed, about the Christian faith.

---

[1] As reported in the Vanguard.  ‘Primates 2016: Archbishop of Canterbury’s Address,’ Vanguard (January 11, 2016).  Accessed online 14 January, 2016: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/01/primates-2016-archbishop-of-canterburys-address/.