John 1:1...Carl's Blogged Bible Study, Baptism

Carl put together this Blogged Bible study on the book of John.

John has always been my favorite gospel--in fact my Thesis paper for my MA focused on an obscure word found only in this gospel. John is so strange, yet so familiar to the Chrisitian. If Paul is the theologian of the New Testament, then John is the philosopher (Irenaeus and church tradition attribute authorship to John, the beloved disciple...he is often confused with the baptizer or John of Patmos). John's gospel, ever popular with the gnostics, is so different from the other synoptics, but so compatible...in fact, it may be considered the key for interpreting the rest.

So far Carl, Joe, Darla, Michelle, and Deborah all have posted on the first chapter of this metaphysical look at Christianity with different styles and perspectives. I enjoyed them all...I'd say Joe thinks much the way I do.

Usually I love to tear apart a text and try to get into the mind of the author. The problem I face is trying to do this with a chapter that is 51 verses long. I could and should write a 50 pg. paper on this! So instead, I'll just focus on a tiny portion.

The first chapter can be broken down as follows:
I. Prologue (1:1-18)
II. Beginning of Jesus' ministry (1;19-51)
A. Testimony of John the Baptist (1:19-34)
B. Call of the first disciples (1:35-51)

The prologue, should be thought of as the thesis statement for the gospel, and all interpretation of such should revolve around it: The eternal Godhead of the Word who was involved in the creative process was made flesh to give life and light to those who are born of His Spirit; contrast with his adversary, Belial, Satan, made manifest as the counter work of His fellow Jews who reject his teachings and Messiahship. John logically attributes credibility to "Jesus."

And after the prologue, how does he do this? How does John first physically introduce the Son of God to his readers? He does so through the rite of Baptism!

I doubt I have to expound to anyone reading this post that John, while writing in Greek, was a Jew and wrote with typical Hebraic style. He was well versed in the law. He drew upon this knowledge to legitimize Jesus as being the spoken of by the prophets, and John the Baptist was crucial in fulfilling this prophecy (i.e. 1:23).

You know all this. But what hit me, is that the act of Baptism was so necessary! According to John, Jesus did not begin his ministry (which was to take away the sins of the world--1:29, and to baptize WITH the Holy Spirit--1:34). John the Baptist testified to the author that at the baptism of Jesus the Holy Spirit descended and stayed with Jesus, unlike all the prophets before him who only experienced momentary rendezvous (1:32).

I say all this as I rethink baptism. It seems to me we trivialize this rite, dare I say, sacrament, in the church today. We think of it as cliche public statement of our belief to those in our congregations. I have heard pastor after pastor tell his congregation that baptism ceremonies will be taking place at some set aside date in the future and any congregant who feels led to participate may. How contrary to John's portrayal of the event!

Leave John with me for a moment and go to:
Mark 16:16:- "The one who believes and is baptized will be saved." (hardly sounds optional)
Acts 8:34-39- The Eunuch was immediately baptized.
Acts 9:18- Immediately after the scales fell off Paul's eyes, as he saw Jesus for who he was, he was baptized.

Every example of salvation in the early church was immediately accompanied by baptism as per Jesus' example here in the first chapter of John.

I don't know exactly where to go with this except to say I hope we all take this story far more serious than we currently do!

Another day, another church...and infant baptism

The nature of my occupation requires me to frequent different churches on a regular basis. Quite regularly I wake up early on Sunday wishing I could sleep in or relax comfortably in the pew of the church I call home. Regardless of my attitude any given Sunday, these experiences leave me delighted and dismayed at the diversity in the church, and have consistently forced me to reconsider the my own theological leanings, balancing both Scripture and tradition, which are nearly and neatly inseparable.

This morning's occupational adventure brought me to Church of the Cross United Methodist Church. It was small, but nice with a mix of traditional and modern elements in the design. The worship service was a consonant treat as the organ belted out ancient hymn after hymn filled with words that actually ran soteriologically deep. The pastor was great, and the words that came out of his mouth were even better. His sermon, which was rooted in that book that is so often excluded these days...what is it?...oh yeah, the Old Testament, tactfully handled a truth that is so socially taboo it nearly extinct in the ecclisiological amalgam of the 21st century. The most beautiful part of the service was the infant baptism.

While, as infant I was baptized into the Catholic Church, only a few years later my parents left the church and I was raised in a fundamentalist/charismatic/dispensational church setting, in which infant baptism was beyond weird...it was heresy. My indoctrination led me to believe that baptism was is not so much sacramental as it an ordinance of the church; that is, it does not confer grace, merely confirms it. If one really digs into the Wesleyan doctrine followed by the church I visited today, they would see that technically infant baptism doesn't bestow grace, but it does make the child the social responsibility of the church. I appreciate this communal attitude that demonstrates a deep concern for the overall well being of any individual in the church.

Having dabbled in baptism several years ago while working on my MA (my thesis centered on the community at Qumran that was steeped in ritual cleansing), my views have been given wiggle room. Additionally, ridding myself of all postulation (quite impossible, but the attempt alone procures higher objectivity) in approaching the ancient Biblical text has left me reconsider many of the nuances of belief on baptism, including infant baptism.

Where do you stand?