Baptism as a gift of God to His people

My friend and coworker Jason posted some good thoughts on paedobaptism (infant baptism). He points out a few different arguments for paedobaptism, as well as a couple of good resources, for those of you that are confused or wrestling through this issue. I encourage you to read his post.

Personally, I have grown more convinced that this is the biblical understanding of baptism. It really clicked for me last spring as I was studying the theology of the church and the sacraments in my RTS class. Besides the normal arguments, the following idea did it for me. Circumcision for the Jews was a sign that they ought to be circumcised of the heart (Jer. 9:25-26). In the same way, baptism is now a sign that points the people of God towards His covenant love and reveals the need to receive a baptism of the heart (See Colossians 2:11-12). Baptism is a sign of entrance into the visible covenant community.

Jason took the following quote from Robert Booth's book, Children of the Promise. I think it wonderfully sums up the point of the sacrament of baptism:

“Baptism, as circumcision, is a gift of God to his people, not of his people to God. Abraham did not bring circumcision to God; he ‘received’ it from God. God gave it to him as a ‘sign’ and a ‘seal,’ not to others but to himself. It is inadequate, therefore, to speak of baptism as ‘the badge of a Christian man’s profession.'...The witness of baptism is not to others but to ourselves; and it is not by us but by God that the witness is borne.”

John Mayer Summarizing Life

John Mayer blogged a couple weeks ago about how he wishes he could go back in time and explain life to a younger him. He came up with the following explanation and I thought it displayed quite a bit of self-understanding. He just doesn't seem to have figured out where the answer to the longings lies yet.

People want to be liked. We all crave attention and affection and we all reject shame. When we get embarrassed we send a thug version of ourselves to the forefront to do our fighting for us. We’re at the top of the food chain just under fear. We don’t want to be in a relationship to hear the words “I love you,” we want to be in a relationship to say the words “I love you.” We want to feel needed, and exceptional and we hate feeling insignificant. We want to ace a hearing test. We are binary creatures; if we’re the plaintiff, we want to win every dollar. If we’re the defendant, we want guard every penny. We want to make more money than last year. We don’t want to get cancer or die in our cars and we want the same for our loved ones. We go out on weekends to try and have sex while trying not to get punched in the face. We drink so we can be ourselves and not mind it so much. We’re desperate to be understood. We want to know someone else has felt it, too. We hate being judged unfairly. We want to make the person we heard wasn’t all that into us change their minds and admit they had us wrong. We want sunny skies with a chance of killer tornadoes, just to keep music sounding good. We take hours upon hours to admit to self consciousness. We don’t know exactly how to pleasure each other. We just want love. In any and every form.

Heaven will solve all our problems

Wednesday night a week ago, my discipleship group met for the fourth time this summer to discuss Mere Christianity. At one point in our conversation, we started talking about heaven and what it would be like. Someone asked a question like, "Will all our questions about life be answered there?" We all threw around some thoughts and it made for some good conversation.

Then on Monday, I read Arnold's post about Jesus being the great Iconoclast. He quotes out of another Lewis book, A Grief Observed. Lewis answers our groups question brilliantly and is helpful for our humility as we learn more about who God is:

"Images of the Holy easily become holy images - sacrosanct. My idea of God is not a divine idea. It has to be shattered time after time. He shatters it Himself. He is the great iconoclast. Could we not almost say that this shattering is one of the marks of His presence? The Incarnation is the supreme example; it leaves all previous ideas of the Messiah in ruins. And most are "offended" by the iconoclasm; and blessed are those who are not. But the same thing happens in our private prayers.

All reality is iconoclastic.
...
Heaven will solve our problems, but not, I think, by showing us subtle reconciliations between all our apparently contradictory notions. The notions will all be knocked from under our feet."

Sharing the Gospel with the gay community

John Bell recently wrote an article on Tim Challies' blog. John is the pastor of a church plant in Toronto and has an active ministry with the local gay community. I found the article very insightful, not just showing what it looks like to have a ministry with those who have their identity rooted in homosexuality, but also for evangelism in general. The gospel really does break down walls, because the gospel tells us we all are equally in need of a Savior.

Here are two paragraphs from the article that I found especially encouraging:

"When I first meet someone at the coffee shop and they ask me what I do (which is a natural "in" to introducing the gospel) they assume that I must be a liberal gay Baptist minister, because otherwise what would I be doing in their coffee shop? (The first man I talked to had only just broken up with his boyfriend, a Methodist pastor.) I begin by asking them questions. I get them to do all the talking for the next 45 minutes. I ask them about their job, their background, their family life, their personal life and what they believe and why so I can get a picture of their epistemology and worldview. Needless to say, I frame my questions in an inquisitive, slightly naive, polite fashion, not in an interrogative, formal way. Gay men love to talk (at least the ones in this coffee shop seem to) and people in general today enjoy discussing "spirituality". Then, out of politeness, they will inevitably ask me what I believe. So I tell them the gospel, starting with Genesis 1, laying out for them the biblical storyline and worldview.

I have been able to share the gospel with many men over the past two years, even though I am saying things highly offensive to the gay lifestyle--which is actually their identity. I base everything I say on the authority of the word; that is, I make it clear to them that that is what I am doing, that I believe the bible is authoritative for all peoples in all cultures and times because it is God's authoritative revelation to human beings. I stress this emphatically. And I tell them that the Bible condemns me, it condemns everyone. It condemns me as an idolater, someone who is selfish and sinful, who has de-godded God and installed himself in the position of "The Ruler of John's Life." I have done things in my life that I am ashamed of and oftentimes what I am ashamed of the bible calls my "sin" (I have found that gay men can relate very well to shame). I do not zero in on their homosexuality (which is what they expect me to do) but rather the fact that they are sinners. Now, more often than not, they will push me and ask if practicing homosexuality is a particular expression of their sinful disposition and I will not hesitate to tell them "yes." When asked, I tell gay men that, personally, I have a "live and let live" approach to everyone's sex life, but my personal opinion doesn't count for anything if God, our creator, has declared otherwise. I tell them I know that I am sounding very intolerant and bigoted when I tell them that they are sinners and that their lifestyle is not pleasing to God. Who am I to tell another human being such a thing on my own authority? But then I explain that it is not on my own authority that I am saying these things. Rightly or wrongly, I am utterly convinced that the bible is the revelation of God. I am banking my eternal soul on it being so. It condemns me, but I have found salvation in Christ. It condemns you. I am here to tell you about the salvation that I have found in Jesus, that I believe you need, that the bible says he needs."

Read the whole thing

Confessions of an approval addict

Regarding this blog, a friend recently encouraged me to add some more of my own comments and insight when I post quotes from other sources. I agree with him. Actually, my original intention for this blog was to have an outlet to write and give my thoughts in an environment where others could read and possibly disagree with me. I did want to update people on my life and as well as point people to quotes and resources that were helpful. But, I really wanted to force myself to write in a public venue.

You see, I'm an approval addict. I have been for a long time. I want to make everyone like me and I don't want anyone to disagree with me. I also don't want anyone to dislike the thoughts that I put out there. That's the reason that my own words have become less common here. Instead of embracing the disagreement and possible dislike of my posts, over time I've shielded myself by just not writing much.

So, the goal is start putting more of my own thoughts out there. By doing this, and possibly getting disagreement and disinterest from others, I'll face that fact that I don't need to make everyone like me. I have the approval of the only being in the universe who's opinion ultimately matters. In Christ, God has set his affection on me as a son and has given me the approval that my wayward heart longs for.

Obviously this blog is just one avenue in the many ways I interact with the world around me, so I hope in all areas of my life I continue to rest in the knowledge of His love for me. But, specifically with this blog, my goal is to have more of my thoughts out there.

And by the way, thanks for reading.

Presenting the Gospel on Twitter

Greg Gilbert at 9 Marks posted a blog about being able to present the gospel Twitter style in 140 words or less. He asks readers to post their best efforts. Here's some of his thoughts:

"I realize some might have questions about the propriety of "tweeting" the good news of Jesus. Honestly, I don't. Rob Bell's statement 'You can't really tweet the gospel' notwithstanding, I actually think you can, and I also think it's not a bad thing to do so. For one thing, it's no bad thing to be able to articulate the core truths of the Gospel in a very concise form. Of course there's more to the gospel than can be confined to 140 characters; but that's not the point. If we were to say everything there is to say about Jesus and the good news, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. But there are some simple, easily articulated, easily understood truths at the center of it---truths that can be expressed even in 140 characters."

(HT:Justin Taylor)

Swine Flu in perspective

Hershael York has a great blog post to give perspective on the hysteria over the swine flu. He mentions some stats like "every year 2.1 million children five years old or younger die of diarrhea caused by the rotavirus" yet we don't really bring much attention to that. I thought these few sentences were pretty profound:

"We often care more about the dramatic than we do about the truly perilous. New dangers shock our sensibilities more than grave dangers. Threats that we have learned to live with for a long while fade from our consciousness, even though the risk may not be reduced."

(HT:Tim Challies)

Thoughts on advancing the church by political means

Jonathan Merritt's most recent post:

Steve Monsma, a senior research fellow at the Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics at Calvin College and author of Healing for a Broken World, recently received a brochure from an evangelical organization. The pamphlet stated,

With strategic partnerships in Washington, D.C., it [the organization] is able to be proactively involved in the effort to reclaim America for Christ. Whether delivering petitions; encouraging constituents to respond to critical legislation with letters, faxes, phone calls, and email; fighting for qualified judicial nominees; or registering voters; the [name of organization] aims to provide a megaphone for the collective voice of Christ's church.

Reflecting on this, Monsma comments, "There is a problem here, is there not? How, according to this brochure, is America to be reclaimed for Christ? Not by Christians preaching the gospel, not by winning their neighbors to Christ, not by Christian husbands and wives creating homes of mutual respect and love. No, it is by political means: petitions, constituent pressures or public officials, working to affect the judicial nomination process, and voting. It is assumed that America can be led back to Christ by political means. But this cannot be right. Whenever in history the church has tried to advance the gospel by political means, the church has been corrupted and the gospel dishonored."

This story was brought to my mind after some recent comments on this blog. I am reminded that over the last quarter century, many Christians in America have developed the belief that our greatest responsibility is to affect change as citizens of an earthly nation. But even a cursory reading of scripture reminds us that first and foremost we are citizens of a heavenly kingdom, and our ultimate responsibility is to live as one devoted to the Ruler of that realm. It is unfortunate that so many people get red-faced and wound up in an effort to mobilize Christianity into some political force to fulfill their duties as followers of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, our duties are fulfilled when we live like Jesus--preaching the Gospel, serving the sick and poor, and feeding the hungry.

We have a responsibility to be involved in the political process of this great nation, and if you have followed this blog for very long, you know I take my civic responsibility very seriously. We should rise up to oppose injustices and make good use of our political system. Yet, I am increasingly concerned by the number of Christians who go well beyond this. They fly into an apoplectic panic over political disagreements, reactively fling weak arguments like horseshoes on Independence Day, and demonize any who dare to disagree. We of all people should know that ultimate hope is not found in the hallowed halls of Washington, but in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Perhaps if we spent more time mobilizing people to serve others and share Christ, our communities and even our country would realize the change we so badly desire.

I agree wholeheartedly.

More on Facebook and narcissism

In the same vein as my last couple of posts, Roy's post yesterday was a good one.

"...our Facebook profile has worked itself into another ‘mirror’ in our life. Many of us/me are in love with our profile, our reflection. Our friends, favorite books, quotes, or where we have been as all worked us over."

Strobel responds to a barrage of quesitons

After answering the first question over at Friendly Atheist's blog, Strobel now responds to the many questions/comments he received from the readers.

Check it out

Strobel answers questions at Friendly Atheist blog

Over at the Friendly Atheist blog, Hemant has asked Lee Strobel to answer some questions sent in by atheists who read Hemant's blog. If you didn't know, Lee Strobel was an atheist for many years before he noticed some attractive qualities in his wife after she became a Christian. After more investigation and hearing the gospel in a way that made sense to him, he became a Christian as well. He is now regarded as one of the leading apologists of our day.

Here's Part 1, where he answers the question:

What is your own background with atheism? What caused you to become a Christian? Is there a difference between your former atheism and the “New Atheism” of today? In other words, how hard-core of an atheist were you?

Here's a snippet of his answer:

"For nearly two years, I investigated science, philosophy, and history. I read literature (both pro and con), quizzed experts, and studied archaeology. On November 8th, 1981, alone in my room, I took a yellow legal pad and began summarizing the evidence I had encountered. In light of the scientific evidence that points toward a Creator and the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, I came to the conclusion that it would have required more faith for me to maintain my atheism than to become a Christian.

Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God’s existence and Jesus’ resurrection (and, hence, his divinity). In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview."

Driscoll on silence

Apparently Mark Driscoll likes my posts on spiritual disciplines and is making posts of his own. He just recently wrote a one on silence. Here are the benefits that he says Scripture says about this discipline:

hearing from God (1 Kings 19:11–13)
waiting patiently for the Lord to act (Lamentations 3:25–28)
worshiping God (Habakkuk 2:20)
knowing God better (Psalm 46:10)
praying effectively (Luke 5:16)

And here's his conclusion:

"My prayer is that those reading this who, like me, are guilty of noise addiction can also experience the regular gift of silence because that is often where God is waiting for us. There was silence before God spoke the world into existence, and silence for forty days before Jesus began His public ministry, which may indicate that silence is what allows us to speak as God intends."

Read the whole thing

Rewriting History

Piper has an interesting post on writing religion out of history. He writes about the new Capitol Visitor Center in Washington D.C. and how it omits in mention of God, despite the religious roots of our country.

Creation is pointing to its Maker

Roy Keely:

The Sages, it is often said, can see no answer to the riddle of religion. But the trouble with our sages is not that they cannot see the answer, it is that they cannot even see the riddle. -GK Chesterton

Everyday I wake up and that should be enough to convince me, yet still I wonder. I then imagine a world where the Sun only rose once. A world with but one lily, with but one wave, with but one instance of love . Would not every instance of these rarities be considered a miracle in of themselves? How have the givens been forgotten as the gifts, the axioms which make all things possible.

The Dazzlingly obvious conclusion now arose in my mind: in the whole history of the universe the laws of Nature have never produced a single event. They are the pattern to which every event must conform, provided only that it can be induced to happen. -CS Lewis

Submitting Ourselves to Divine Surgery

This post speaks to the similarities between going through a "routine" surgery and dealing with our own sin. The author basically goes in for what he considers a routine surgery. He is surprised to find out that more equipment and more staff are there than he would have thought to be necessary. Here's his conclusion:

"Deeply entrenched sin can only be taken care of with a full surgical team. Dignity must be laid aside; others must be allowed into your shame. There can be no self-surgery with such sin—no way around the humiliation of exposing yourself to others in a less than flattering way. We cannot have both dignity and repentance; both self-respect and freedom. Would you be released from the burden of sin? Then you must lose your pride and submit yourself to the divine surgery, knowing the attending nurses in God’s operating room will be—quite awkwardly—your brothers and sisters in the Lord. It’s uncomfortable, humiliating, and the only way."

(HT:Tim Challies)

Why I blog

A lot of people lately have asked me about why I blog. It started as a way to get out some thoughts and point others to resources that I had come across. In the early stages, I wrestled through who my audience was going to be. Once I landed on that, the blogging became a little easier.

A big concern people have is whether blogging is narcissistic or not. It can become that way if you aren't careful, but with the right purpose for blogging you can avoid being too self-absorbed.

I think the main purposes of my blog (in no particular order) are to:

1) inform = I enjoy drawing attention to important, humorous, thoughtful, or just interesting things.

2) encourage = I enjoy encouraging others with Truth, whether it's a thought directly from the Word of God or from a book or anything else out in the world that points us to Truth. And though I don't do it that often, I enjoy sharing from my own life experience to help others see how God can work through our imperfections.

3) challenge = I enjoy enabling others to see things from a new perspective. I obviously don't have it all figured out, but want to challenge others (as well as myself) to do more active thinking, to be transformed by the renewing of our minds.

4) update = I enjoy providing updates on my life every now and then so people who aren't a daily part of it can get a glimpse of what's happening with me.

So, if you have a blog or are thinking of starting one, I would encourage you think through these things so you know what audience you are writing for. Also check out these two links:

10 reasons I don't read your blog.

Tips for better blog writing

Christian Guitar Hero?

This post is dedicated to all my worship leader friends out there. It comes from the Stuff Christians Like blog. Apparantly there is a "Christian" Guitar Hero coming out soon. And Prodigal Jon suggests that maybe "Praise Band" should come out after that. In doing so, he comes up with some hilarious elements that he would include in the game if he were creating it. It pokes fun a little bit at the worship leader stereotype that at least prevelant here in north Atlanta.

Christian art?

My friend Whitney posted some very profound thoughts on a post of hers recently. It's all about not how there really is no such thing as "Christian" and "secular" art. Check it out.

When people would come to C.S. Lewis and say “oh you wrote the Chronicles of Narnia, you’re a ‘Christian artist’ how wonderful, how did you do it?” He would say that some people thought that he began by asking himself “How could I say something about Christianity to children”, and then he fixed on fairy tails as an instrument to do it. Then he collected info about child psychology and which age group he’d write for. They thought that he then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out symbols to embody them. “What moonshine, I couldn’t write like that.” And then he says do not ask what do children or readers want or even what do they need. It’s better not to ask those questions at all. He says NEVER start with a moral and then try to come up with a story. Rather, let the images and stories that come into your mind and move you, tell you their own moral. “For the moral inherent in them will rise from whatever spiritual roots you have succeeded in striking during the whole course of your life”

What pearls. He’s saying, "don’t you dare gather up some Christian truths, and then come up with stories or art to get them across” That would be bad art. It would be sanctimonious and pedantic, as TK would say. He is wanting us to ask ourselves “Have I worked every single aspect of the gospel down into the roots of my life, has every feature of the gospel story sunk so deep into the roots of my life that the images that come to me, that move me, simply bubble up out of that?”

"That's interesting"

I am guilty of throwing around these two words all the time. Becuase I try to avoid conflict and disagreement, I often cover up my disagreement by saying "that's interesting." Although, I also say it when I think something is actually interesting. I need to get better at all this.

Anyway, I read the following at this site and thought it was pretty funny. It describes me (and you?) very well.

"If you've ever worked in a corporation, you've heard this phrase. This term is so large and undefined that when someone shows you an idea at work you can say "that's interesting" and it can mean everything from, "I like that idea, I think we should turn it into a project" to "that is the worst idea I have ever heard in my life." Try it today, you can use it in almost any situation. Someone spills a coke in your computer keyboard, "that's interesting, the vowels don't work anymore." Someone offers to give you a raise and an office with a door, "that's interesting, I would like a promotion."

Bailey's thoughts

Stephen Bailey made a comment on the post I did earlier today. I really liked it, and since not many people read the comment section, I thought I would post it. Also, go to his blog and tell him he needs to write more posts.

It is interesting how much praise Obama has received. The unfortunate aspect, and i am not speaking about his politics, is that the “praise” seems to be based on an individualistic form of idealism about what Barack can do for "me."

If he does become President, it will be interesting to see how people respond when their idealism isn’t fed or met. Let’s be honest, most “savior” figures eventually get nailed…pun intended, and I apologize if anyone is offended, but it is the truth. Look at Christ (not that I am comparing Obama to Christ, well, yes I am); Christ didn’t become/meet the expectations of the Jews' ideal savior, and I assume that most who are reading this know how that situation played out.

I guess what I am trying to say is that if Obama is a “savior,” it is a postmodern one—and one that he isn’t defining.

In a final attempt to stay politically neutral, I will say that, so far, the only person that has shown any real promise as an effective President for this country is Paris Hilton. Think about it?