'know fully' ?

I don't believe the modern diverse community will allow such constraining.

Ah. I believe doctrine concerning babptism to be about as trivial  as I can imagine.  I can just see Jesus yelling "Hey" I said all the way under!"

If it is indeed the 'root cause'  of the church's dilemma -- then I am as scornful of the church as Chasen on one of his ill mannered days.

lets form a commitee to determing a majority opinion on the world "to dip" in Koine means

immerse or not..

In John 2 --was that 37 gallons of Pino Noir?

My concern is not with doctrine. It is with practice. That is, once we sprinkle, dip, immerse or whatever something should be different than it was before. The words spoken at baptism speak of a new orientation and a new way of being. This points to an informed determination towards radical critique of status quo; expressed in word and deed.

I take this for granted. That is why we speak of an alternative community. The majority of folk are quite content to watch athletics on the television. A small percentage actually enjoy the physical activity offered by athletics. A smaller number yet dedicates all available energy towards participating at the highest level of athletic activity.

Gee, maybe I'm wrong, but isn't this where the Sadducees and Pharisees got into trouble?

Hi GeoFee- I'm sorrey  I don't get what your talking about. Are you looking for a change in a person when they are water batized. Or How they are baptized in water? Could you make this a littel clearer. thank you --airclean33.

Hi GeoFee,

I agree with this view of the purpose of preaching.

Is this still speaking towards Brueggeman's position on the purpose of preaching?

I'm curious GeoFee.  How do you make the move from Brueggeman on preaching to our practice of Baptism?

Grace and peace to you.

John

I take it that baptism marks the start point of a maturation process. In baptism I give myself into death, as does a seed, and am raised into newness of life.

Sorry to say, I will have to suspend my part in this conversation for a short while. We are moving from Fredericton to Kamloops and that move will have me occupied for the most part. I will check in as we travel. Thanks for your interest!

Yes. Preaching both summons and nurtures, as in point 1, and that summons and nurture depends on a clear articulation of the either/or. Point 2 follows point 1. Preaching calls for decision and that decision determines a trajectory.

Preaching makes available the remedy of God for the ills of humanity. That remedy is administered by baptism, through which a person exits one economy and enters another; the former predicated on human initiative and the latter predicated on divine initiative. We cannot stand on both sides of this equation, being by definition either for the one and hostile to the other or vice-versa. This either/or comes into play at every juncture of our daily lives - every choice is either for the divine future or against it.

And again, with apology, I must leave off for a short term. Will return in due course.

Hi GeoFee,

No GeoFee, that remedy is administered by grace.  Grace which is present even where and when baptism is not.

If the grace is efficacious because of the presidency of Christ then that grace only needs Christ to be present.  All the water in the world would avail us of nothing if Christ were not present.

Every choice carries with it consequence.  We are not privy to each and every consequence nor are we certain how the divine future is met in every choice we make.

Grace reserves the right to be waiting for us, even in our poor choices.  If that were not so, it could hardly be called grace could it?

God speed.  I can wait.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi GeoFee, I understand you'll be absent for a bit - and good luck on the move; it's a big one - but let me offer some thoughts for you to ponder on your return to the Board.

I wonder on what basis Brueggeman makes the claim that Christians know God "fully" in Jesus of Nazareth? I would certainly never make such a claim about myself, and yet I am in no doubt of the fact that I am a Christian - a Christian who knows God through Jesus Christ, but who understands that there is still more of God to know than I can fully grasp. To me, the purpose of Christian preaching is to invite people into relationship with God through Jesus Christ, and then to encourage the development of that relationship, but to predicate that role on the assumption that as a Christian I must know God "fully" renders my preaching obviously inadequate - which it is in content, I confess, but that would render it inadequate even in practice. I shouldn't preach, if I understand Brueggeman correctly from this quote, because I confess that I don't know God "fully."

I don't see the connection you see between Brueggeman's words and baptism. However ...

I haven't had the opportunity to read this document from Woolastock Presbytery in detail, but what I see is that it seems to be suggesting that baptism must be more than a rite of initiation. I take it the criticism is of those baptisms we often conduct for people with limited church connection and who we sometimes never see again afterward. (In such case, in a way baptism isn't even a rite of initiation; it's a rite of passage.) But I wonder what the problem is with that view of baptism?

In the thread "About Baptism" I suggested that the church has often been guilty of making an idol out of baptism (water baptism I assume we are talking about here.) I base that on my observation that baptism and the various practices and doctrines that have arisen over it have become a source of major divisions in the Christian community, as various Christians argue over who does it properly and who doesn't. I base it also on my observation that, while we make a major issue of baptism, the New Testament hardly makes water baptism central to our faith. Yes, Jesus was water baptized by John the Baptist - who also said that water baptism would not be the baptism of Jesus - it was his baptism; while Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Are we followers of John (if so, then water baptism is central) or are we followers of Jesus (if so, that baptism with Spirit and fire are central, and we need to grapple with those concepts rather than wasting energy debating water baptism.) If water baptism is so central and essential that the UCC's "baptismal practice" is the "root cause of our present dilemma" then it's strange that Paul, for example, hardly ever refers to it (actually he never explicitly refers to it.) The only implicit reference to water baptism in Paul's writings is in 1 Corinthians 1, where he speaks of having performed a handful of baptisms (he doesn't say "water" but since he's performing the act, I assume he means water baptism and not Spirit baptism) but then goes on to say that he really can't even remember if he baptized anyone else - a strange admission if water baptism is so important. The account of Philip baptizing the Ethiopian official in Acts is the only place I know of outside the references to Jesus' own baptism (discussed above) in which water baptism is specifically mentioned. In this account, the important part of the story is that the Ethiopian came to understand the word of God - after which he asked to be water baptized with the words "why shouldn't I be baptized" - which implies to me that Philip hadn't really encouraged him to be baptized. The fact that Philip then did baptize him also argues against the need for a demonstrated new way of life, since the Ethiopian hadn't been a "believer" long enough to have demonstrated anything.

Water baptism is a representation and celebration of God's grace - which is freely given, not because one has engaged in a ritual, but because one is loved and accepted by God. When we begin to worry too much about the doctrines, rituals or practices of baptism, it seems to me that we've lost our focus on divine grace, which welcomes all. I sometimes share the hesitation of those who ask the proper "questions" of parents in baptismal services (do you believe ...? Will you ..?) without any real confidence that when the answers are given they're really meant. But then I'm reminded that the child to be baptized is already held by God's grace - therefore, in the words of the Ethiopian, who also hadn't demonstrated any commitment to the Christian faith, "why shouldn't [the child] be baptized?"

If we're going to change anything about UCC baptism, maybe it should be to make that the central question we ask ourselves - "why shouldn't he/she be baptized" - rather than getting hung up on doctrinal matters or issues of practice.

Blessings, Steven

I think this over-emphasis on ritual and doctrine—which is not necessary to lead a spiritual life, and can even be a hindrance—is exactly what drives people away from organized religion. That's why the numbers of those who define themselves as "spiritual but not religious" are increasing while church attendance is decreasing.

Hi Rev Steven- I agree with you, in all you that you wrote. ----Arminius- I think both water and fire or spirit ,baptism were expected in the early church , and should be today. airclean 33 God bless.

Well, airclean33, I was baptised three times in my life: first as an infant by water, then as a fourteen-year-old by water, and in mid-life by fire. That'll do me.

Of course, baptism, like any other ritual, is important to those who consider it important. But I don't think it is of absolute importance.

Hi - Arminius- I also was batized as you. This may by why I have said to you  I feel you and I are not that far apart, in the way we follow God.  airclean33 God Bless.

Yes, airclean33, because I am a mystic, I tend to feel closer to Fundamentalists and Evangelicals (many of whom are mystics themselves) than I do to non-mystical, liberal and intellectual Christians who delegate mystics and mysticism to the lunatic fringe.

http://www.taoteching.org/chapters/38.htm

This seems on-topic to me.

I second what Azdgari and the Tao Te Ching says—wholeheartedly!

Well... let's be fair. Only a small number can dedicate themselves as you suggest. A great number lack the physical ability. A great number lack the financial ability.

Well, we might get ourselves a little bit cleaner.

That made me want bubble gum (sorry for the irelevant post)

Hi jae,

I'm afraid I don't get the point you are trying to make.

Can you please rephrase it?

Grace and peace to you.

John

[/quote]

Sure thing, revjohn.

Sorry, bro, just being a tad silly. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Funny the directions a thread can take. Scanning down through,this one, I was somewhat taken aback by the audacity of Arminius's comment "...because I am a mystic..."  One must admit that within a Christian context, it is a provocative word.

Then my reading this morning, from The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality by Andre Comte-Sponville: "...it is no coincidence that mystics have so often gotten into trouble with their churches, when they had churches. A mystic is the very opposite of a prophet -- the prophet receives the word of God to which he adheres through faith; the mystic is sensitive to an inner light that exempts him from believing. The two are incompatible. ...mysticism eats away at myth, and eventually the mystic can do without it; he tosses it away like an empty shell, while remaiing indulgent to those who still need it."

cheers,   wm