Infant Baptism

So for those that don't baptize infants, I think there's often a misunderstanding -- shoot, also even among those that do it -- about the outcome and expectations around infant baptism.

So here's a thought to ponder: is "becoming a Christian" the same thing as having one's sins forgiven before God? 

Or this: is the church a community of Christians, or is the church a community of those who have been been forgiven and redeemed by God? Is there a difference?

So I totally respect the simplicity and consistency of those who say that only those who make a credible profession of faith should be baptized. They are trying to strongly emphasize the importance of the act of consciously turning away from the world and following the way of Christ.

However, we live in a particular modern and rather individualistic mindset, compared to many Christian who lived in the past. The above way of seeing salvation and Christendom makes certain assumptions, and historically there have definitely be some different assumptions at work. We don't have to agree, but we should try to put ourselves in their shoes.

So here's the idea: historically, the concept of baptism, plus the concept of being part of a specific church congregation, plus the idea of being called "Christian", have been all very closely tied together. For many (arguably most?) of them, their identity as a Christian was basically synonymous with being part of a church, with being a member of a Christian community.

Kids are in worship, they learn from their Christian parents and from these Christian leaders and teachers, so even without their assent they are already called "Christians" by those around them and by those outside the church looking in. So in this context, you can think of baptism as merely saying, "yes, this child is part of this community". And in fact, many church traditions and denominations ALSO contain prayers or even confessional statements that look forward to this "presumption", as it were, that their children will one day strongly confess that which they were baptized into.

So okay, for a Bible passage that captures this idea, consider the description of the "kingdom of heaven" in the parable of the wheat and weeds (in Matthew 13). In this passage, a field is seeded with wheat, but also there's a bunch of weed seeds also. So as soon as it starts growing, the workers are like, "Oh man, look at all these weeds! Should we pull them up?" But the owner says (paraphrasing a bit), "No, at this stage, you might uproot the wheat accidentally. Let both grow together until the harvest, once they show their fruit, it will be easy to distinguish them." If God is the "owner" in this analogy, than we "workers" wait for God's harvest, and we don't start trying to pull out weeds before then. 

All it takes to be a member of a church, is to make an outward profession of faith and to be baptized. This is a really low bar for a "requirement", we KNOW that some people who say this don't understand what they're saying, or don't actually believe it. This is not fundamentally threatening to the church, and this is not fundamentally different from what happens in infant baptism. A Christian church should not be "weeding out" people -- even infants! -- who might one day end up "turning away" from the faith. Baptism and church membership are given generously, all alike are taught and cared for equally, until a person explicitly separates from the community, or is kicked out over egregious unrepentant sin (an example of that "fruit" mentioned before).

Whether you practice this or not, it should surely be helpful for mutual understanding, to know this context and reasoning.

What is "Satanic", anyhow?

I something called "Satanic" the other day, and at first dismissed it, but then it made me sit down and consider what "Satanic" actually meant, in a biblical sense. So the word "Satan" has it's origin in words like "oppose" and "accuse", and in Biblical literature it's especially the latter. Satan accuses Job, for example.

I'm not denying that there's a rich history, tradition, and even artistic output examining what the work of Satan consists of. Or consider Jesus' temptation in the wilderness, Satan is described as the "ruler of this age".

So I don't want to minimize or dismiss any of that, but I think it's still useful to say that the most consistent "Satanic activity" is that which opposes the kingdom of God (i.e. the church, with Jesus as the head), and in a related way, especially that which accuses Christians.

Why does Job start with Satan accusing Job of unrighteousness? Because there's a thematic link between what HE does, and what Job's friends do, when they say that Job's suffering are due to his sin or unrighteousness. Job's "friends" are just other accusers, doing what Satan does.

Or think of the serpent in the Garden of Eden. He tempts Eve, but he does it by accusing God of wrongdoing. Even the "evil spirits" in the New Testament directly oppose and accuse Jesus ("Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?").

Or consider how the Pharisees are called the "sons of Satan". The implication is that the Pharisees are called that, specifically because of the ways that they accuse Jesus, like being "from Satan" or that he violates the Sabbath, and so on. And ultimately they even have Jesus killed by falsely accusing him of sedition against Caesar.

The final example is also the best conclusion. In Revelations 12, Satan is thrown down, and the resulting song in heaven sings out, "For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down."

So for us, let this be a warning to us, never to become the accusers of our fellow Christians!

The Ten Commandments are NOT a guide for Christians

Westminster Shorter Catechism Q.14: "What is sin?"

"Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God."

Westminster Confession (excerpt from Ch 19): "[The law] continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness, [...] and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in ten commandments." 

WHY do we still have the Ten Commandments in our creeds? Why is it still thought of as some kind of summary of God's Law for Christians today?

Even the creeds in my own Presbyterian denomination (Westminster Confession & Catechism) tend to talk about sin as a violation of "God's law", as things that we might say, do, or think. Moreover, many of these creeds (including my own) also explicitly include the Ten Commandments in some way, as the core or encapsulation of God's law.

But these are both just plain incorrect. I'm not trying to "clickbait" you all, many pastors and Christians know and preach and live this already, even if they don't say it in exactly this way.

Sin is not about things we do, say, or think, but about intention, about the heart. It makes no difference what outward "good thing" we might do, it's still sin if done without love for others, or without love for God. That's why, "love God" and "love your neighbor" are called the "great commandments", and NOT the Ten Commandments, because they aren't specific, but rather general principles that works with the Holy Spirit in us, to produce actions pleasing to God. And it works the other way too, the Holy Spirit convicts us of how our actions fail to meet that standard, regardless of what the specific actions are.

So it's not that we ignore the command, "do not murder", but for one thing, it's covered by "love your neighbor", and for another, it doesn't NEARLY cover what pleases God. Only by filtering it through the Great Commandments does it then expand in scope, to cover stuff like insulting others or hating them in our heart.

And indeed, in the New Testament, were the Gentiles taught the Ten Commandments (or any other Mosaic Law) to guide their behavior? No! Even when these are mentioned, they are immediately de-emphasized. Paul's words about this form a good way to close this:

"Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,' and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."

The Limitations of the Old Testament Law

I love reading the Old Testament, I deeply appreciate the wisdom of the Old Testament Law, but we should also speak clearly about the limitations of the Old Testament Law. 

The Law simply could not make humans good by itself. Even in the Old Testament, God judges the nation of Israel, and says basically, "Even the ways in which you keep the details of the Law (like sacrifices and offerings) are offensive to me, because at the same time you're taking bribes and mistreating the poor." How are you supposed to have detailed instructions in the Law about protecting the poor? Also in the Old Testament, there are passages like "love your neighbor as yourself", which are clearly trying to give underlying principles for obedience to the Law, but there was still something missing.

So that's why Romans says that the Law in "insufficient" in some fundamental way. Paul points out a bunch of Old Testament people who looked forward in faith to "something better". And then he says that Jesus was that "something better" -- A way of dealing with lawbreaking, AND a way to make people actually understand and follow the principles behind the Law (the combination of Jesus dying in the place of lawbreakers, and the Holy Spirit being part of salvation).

And even the imperfect OT Law couldn't be kept by the Israelites, and they were defeated and carried away in exile. And the New Testament very clearly does NOT look back to the Old Testament Law as the pinnacle of good behavior. The new Gentile converts were clearly not required to know it or follow it. Instead, they were told about the principles like, "love God, love your neighbor," which were expounded on, and also sometimes a letter writer would draw a principle from the Old Testament, but that's it.

Even in the Old Testament, the Law was just a starting point, there was SO MUCH history and teaching after, showing what God considered "good". Literally hundreds of years of accounts of moral or immoral behavior, past where the nation of Israel even exists, through the time of exile. So that's yet another reason we should not "freeze frame" the details of the Old Testament Law and call that the "ultimate standard of Christian morality".

On Trauma

Trauma is often long-lasting, because the victim often (and understandably) feels obligated to revisit it over and over in their memory. If the victim stops thinking about it, who will? Who is going to fix this, if the victim forgets? This makes the victim feel like a witness in some trial that never comes, always ready to give their testimony to the crimes committed against them. This isn't universal in how trauma affects the victims, but it's certainly common.

But GOD can and will remember these wrongs. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord" is not about how God is angry, in general. It says that people don't need to seek vengeance or stay angry or look for perfect justice here on earth, because God will remember and judge fully in the end. We can ask God to remember and judge these wrongdoers, so that we can be set free from the obligation. Using the previous analogy, the victim is the witness who presents all of their accusations and testimonies to God, and then God says, in effect, "You have no more responsibility for this trial, I will present all the evidence myself when the trial comes." And in fact, some counselling for PTSD has the person walk carefully through their trauma, undermining the "panic response" by breaking the trauma up into multiple small chronological steps, to deal with them one at a time. For the Christian, we can take this and go even further, listing out each offense at each small step, boldly asking God to remember and to judge.
It's probably unavoidable that when trauma happens, it redefines the life of the victim. In fact, they become "a victim", and this identity often follows them for a long time, personally if not legally. Now, everyone heals in different ways, at different rates. We should not burden trauma victims with our own expectations. However, once God receives the "testimony" of those who have suffered wrong, they certainly have the potential to look forward to a time when they no longer call themselves a "victim" or someone "suffering from trauma". Eventually, just living one's life will fill up the soul with other things, and the trauma will occupy a smaller and smaller area of the heart. Sometimes I think about Jesus saying, "I came that they may have life and have it abundantly." The painful parts of our lives don't go away, but they get "diluted" by the abundant experience of life -- even Jesus himself -- that the Holy Spirit pours into our souls. 

Now, it is true that we have a couple of verses that say something like, "God, forgive them, they don't know what they are doing." This is WAY beyond merely forgiving someone for wrongs done to us, this is asking GOD to forgive them ENTIRELY, to ask God to forgive them for the wrong against GOD, against his law. I think sometimes we take these verses as burdens on ourselves, "Oh, if I'm not asking God to forgive them in this way, I'm not truly forgiving them at all." I think this is a recipe for despair, and a bad lesson to draw from these passages. We should think of these statements as basically miracles of the Holy Spirit, exceptional acts that mirror the exceptional forgiveness of Jesus on the cross. But God deals with us where we are right now: "A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory."

Uncoupling Apologetics and Evangelism

Apologetics has an interesting recent history, especially in the US. There have been some trends stretching back to the Second Great Awakening, and then other trends that kicked off in the 20th century (related to but not synonymous with the rise of fundamentalism) where apologetics and evangelism has had a large priority and focus, especially as "the mission of every Christian". Think of all the university-based Christian groups, where students might see themselves as "missionaries" to a secular campus. You can imagine in that context, "apologetics" would be seen as a way to interact with non-Christians.

This might be a majority view, but this is certainly not the only game in town, or how "Christian groups" have always seen their priorities. For example, there are currently some university-based Christian groups that are not "evangelism-focused", but rather "Christian-focused", as it were. That is, they are meant as a place for Christian fellowship, in a place where regular church attendance is difficult. So you can imagine that in THAT context, Christian students might be faced with difficult information, or even outright hostility, concerning their faith. So in that context, "apologetics" would be for Christians themselves, providing support and context for their faith.

So TL;DR: both sides of "apologetics" in the OP are pretty common, though often in different contexts. It's probably obvious from how I presented the information, but I am a strong supporter of the latter view above, that Christian groups are most effective when their priority is supporting Christians, whether apologetics or anything else.

I actually love apologetics, and in my youth I prioritized it, but these days I'm very much in favor of de-emphasizing it, with regards to evangelism. Christians are better evangelists by showing a genuine interest in the lives and cares of their non-Christian neighbors, than by constantly getting into intellectual head-butting with them (or feeling obligated to answer every challenge that others put to them). So I think that apologetics is best-suited to help Christians (especially new ones), many of whom aren't equipped (or taught by their churches) how to answer common challenges to their faith.

Passover and Jesus

Exodus is such a familiar story, but I was newly-struck with how resonant the analogy is:

The Passover was given to Israel as a "founding holiday", in that it marked the very beginning of that nation, and the fulfilment of the promise given to Abraham. The lamb was slain, and the blood marked their doorways, so that the angel of the Lord passed over them in his wrath. They were then torn away from Egypt, out into the wilderness, to worship and to learn how to become God's holy people. They were led by the spirit of God in the form of the pillar of cloud and flame, and fed daily with manna.

This becomes the model for the work of Jesus, and a radical expansion in how Abraham's promises were fulfilled. Jesus' crucifixion marks the beginning of the Church as a new nation, a holy kingdom, as God's people. Jesus is our "lamb who was slain", whose blood covers us from God's wrath. We were torn away from our bondage to sin, and went out together, learning how to worship God and become a holy community. We are not yet "home", but look forward to a land that has been promised to us, that God has prepared for us. We are led by the Holy Spirit, and fed daily by the living bread which is Jesus himself ("I am the bread of life... which comes down from heaven"). 

The analogy feels almost endless, in how it reflects the Old Testament into the New. Who can measure the wisdom and power and loving-kindness of the Lord towards his people?

Slippery Slope

 One of the worst arguments, especially for Christians, is the "slippery slope" argument.

It happens in worship. "Oh, if there's instruments (or a specific instrument), that will lead to entertainment-based worship." Church history shows a WIDE latitude in worship practices, and music in particular.

It happens in biblical "literalism". "Oh, if this (non-doctrinal) passage isn't literally true (regarding, for example, the age of the earth), that will lead to a rejection of the historicity of the bible."

It happens in morals. "Oh, if you let yourself become the tiniest bit angry, you'll become a slave to it." The Pharisees especially LOVED creating extra rules to "protect" people from sinning... by burdening them with man-made rules.

It happens with creeds. "Oh, if this person deviates just a bit from the historic confession, it opens the door to heresy." Where's the robust dialogue that typified the Reformation?

The "slippery slope" argument is bad because it shows a lack of faith in your brother or sister in Christ. A lack of faith that the Holy Spirit guides and preserves him or her. A lack of faith that Christ -- the head of his church, the king of his heavenly kingdom -- is the one who protects and fights for the church.

The contrast to this is grace and charity. Grace allows us to overlook offenses, and charity allows us to assume the best of others' intentions. Charity especially allows us to see ALL Christians -- even across lines like Protestant, Roman Catholicism, and Orthodox -- as brothers and sisters. How many of us (myself included) haven't laughed or mocked when trouble or even scandal came to some other denomination or wing of the church? Lord, give us love, unity, and charity.

God's Perfect Condescension

 When reading the Old Testament, it's easy to misunderstand God's dealings with them, especially compared to his dealings with the post-resurrection Church. 

On the one hand, it's common to feel something akin to pity, "Oh, poor Israelites, they didn't have the full revelation we have." It's true that we are blessed to have the _personal_ revelation of Jesus on earth. But it's also true that "to whom much is given, much is required." Then as now, God's people have always been given the full measure of His grace and provision and guiding hand.

On the other hand, it's also common to see ancient Israel as some kind of religious ideal. In ancient Israel, they had a strong cultural identity centered around worship of the One True God, and a community that -- at their best -- both worshipped God together, and corporately protected the weak and helpless among them, even foreigners. Don't you ever long for such a thing? Isn't that what American Christians often ask for explicitly today? A nation, even up to the national leaders, intricately identifying themselves with the One True God? But such a desire betrays a misunderstand of our new Kingdom, created by God and ruled by Christ. It misapplies the lessons we ought to learn from Israel. 

The way that God reveals himself is always perfectly suited to His people, to the circumstances they are in. It's immensely edifying to recognize the same, constant God dealing with Abraham, with Moses, with David, with Daniel, and then with many many more when Jesus incarnated to live among us. 

Paul says that the prophets looked forward to the time of Jesus and his Kingdom, but that doesn't mean that we have LESS need of faith. To the contrary, some call this the "Age of the Spirit", because we need the Holy Spirit even more. We don't have an external nation, we don't have special prophets, we don't have the imminent presence of Jesus to look to. "Blessed are those who have NOT seen [me], and yet believe".

That's why it's so important for us to both work hard, and trust strongly in the grace of the Holy Spirit, to be in community with fellow believers. It's an expression and exercise of faith to look to this "visible yet invisible" Kingdom, and see the imminent working hand of our Lord. In that way we join closely with the saints of all ages, like them relying on the ultimate fulfilment of the Lord's promises, trusting in what we do not see, trusting the Word of our Lord.

Multiplicity of Denominations are Great, Actually

So it's self-evident that the Christian church is divided into many branches and many denominations. One common response to this is to lament it, or to look back to some time in the past when the church was, in one sense or another, more unified. It's true that, historically, denominations have often been at each other's throats. But recently, these boundaries have meant less, and it's fascinating that "meta-concerns" have been overriding denominational allegiances. That is, many mainline or "liberal" denominations have found themselves in more agreement, and likewise what's called the "conservative" wings of those denominations have aligned with each other explicitly or implicitly. For example, we Reformed Presbyterians have WAY more in common -- both theologically and personally -- with Reformed Baptists, than the liberal wings of Presbyterianism (e.g. PCUSA).

The result is that healthy denominations are recognizing that their distinctives are often simply the result of a particular time and place. The members of a denomination don't need to prove that theirs is "the best" or even "most biblical", just that their ecclesiastic system works well in America in the 21st century. We can debate with others on a whole host of practical and theological matters, but in the lower-stake context of here and now, not eternally.
Looking back, we see that the fundamentalist movement of the early 20th century set the stage for this present reality. People of many backgrounds came together to set down the "fundamentals" of the faith. Now, not everything that came out of that movement was worth keeping. I think there's valid criticisms that it was reductionistic, and tended towards anti-intellectualism. However, the ideas of "various backgrounds, one faith" has quietly become the model of how different Christian groups relate to each other.

So looking at these different groups today, we can look at different denominations as outworkings of the Holy Spirt in various and sundry ways. It would be surprising if just one ecclesiastical system worked everywhere. And when we don't consider our own denomination at the be-all and end-all, we can learn from and especially be corrected by other Christian traditions. There's faith that Christendom will not come crashing down just because our own denomination adjusts its priorities or teachings. It allows us to "always be reforming", by the grace of Christ.

We even can see a model of this in the Old Testament, from the history of Israel told in Exodus, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. It's easy to think of a unified 12 tribes under David and Solomon as somehow being the most important point of their history, as "true" Israel, but that's profoundly reductionistic, and doesn't match how the Bible itself tells that story. The passages of Judges are powerful and memorable, even if the the tribes aren't unified. But even more powerful and memorable are the books from exile, after the entire nation is carried off in captivity, like Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel. Or consider the rivalry between the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel, how they had their own histories and cultures, even coming into conflict, but both were clearly stated as "belonging to God".

The outworking of all this is very practical. There's nothing in my (Presbyterian) denominational creeds that exclude other baptized Christians from fellowship or, especially, sharing with us in the Lord's Supper. There are, in fact, people from many different church backgrounds in our congregation. If those who hold to Baptist beliefs extend grace towards our congregation in their baptizing of infants (and sprinkling vs dipping), and if our congregation extends grace and consideration towards them in their decision to delay baptism, we can worship and baptize together without conflict, and we can have their older professing children baptized in our church, without anyone violating their conscience. It allows for "big tent" congregations.

Because the most important thing is that, in our local congregation, we are not divided. That we are at peace with our Christian brothers and sisters in the pew over. That we trust the work of the Holy Spirit to lead and shepherd our congregation, and also to work in the hearts of our fellow congregants. We can overlook offenses because we trust Christ. And from that foundation of Christian charity, we can extend it beyond our church, to trust the work of God's Spirit wherever people put their faith in Christ.

The Paradox of Good Works

For the Christian, good works (the fruits of the Spirit) are critically important... but at the same time, the works in themselves are NOT what God commends or rewards.

So to be clear, salvation comes through faith in Jesus. But then what happens after that? How does a Christian live his or her life?

It's all too common that even Christian authors will fall into two opposing errors. On the one side: God rewards good behavior, so you should focus on that. Maybe it's prayer or giving or charity or kindness or forgiveness. On the other side: our behavior CAN'T be good because of our sinfulness, it's all about our trust and faith in Jesus. So what matters is how much faith and trust we have in him.

The problem with both of these positions is just how selfish they are. Is it really all about me? AND, moreover, they miss what the bible -- especially the letters of the New Testament -- commends and expects for Christ-followers. Isn't it kind of surprising that Christ's summary of the Old Testament law says NOTHING about "personal holiness" or individual righteousness? But rather, "loving God entirely," and more to the point I'm making, "loving your neighbor as yourself."

Loving -- seeking the good of others -- is outside of ourself, it's the basis of community. And it's a COMMUNITY that God wants. Not just any community, like work or sports or even family, but the community of believers, HIS community. Jesus gives one "new" commandment, which is really just a clarification of his previous summary of the law: "Love one another, as I have loved you. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

So if you are "kind" and "forgiving", so what? Is God impressed? I mean, it's better than violence and resentment, but even nonchristians can exhibit that. What are the UNIQUE good works given to Christians? It's to show that kindness and forgiveness to their fellowship of believers, the worshipping congregation they are a part of, above their other communities of work, school, and even family.

And why? Because God wants us to love what HE loves, and he loves and cherishes the church. He loves it enough to call it the "body of Christ", uniting it with the love he has for his own Son. And he will certainly commend those who loves what he loves.

Now, to be clear, we are commended to extend our kindness and forgiveness to all people, but what's the justification given for this? It's to bring credit to God as a Christ-follower, to the body of Christ, acting as a representative of his church. Once again, "kindness" isn't some abstract good behavior that God counts on a scale, but it's a means to an end, a means to bring glory to God and his church on earth.