Send me, take me, use me, spend me - I am not my own.

The other day I mentioned the baptism service at church and mentioned my dissagreement with those who say its a requirement for salvation, last night I opened my bible for the first time in ages and randomly opened it up to Luke 3:15-16:

The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Christ. John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

I thought the timing of this popping up was quite appropriate. The NIV commentary for Luke says:

John's ministry begins during this period. He ministers in the wilderness, brings the word of God and preaches a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. The concept of repentance is central to Luke. Not only is its concrete character elaborated in 3:10-14, but Jesus, in his Great Commission in 24:43-47, makes it clear that the roots of the concept come from the Old Testament. Though the Greek term for repentance means "a change of mind," the Semitic concept involves a "turning," an attitude that brings a change of direction (1 Kings 8:47; 13:33; Ps 78:34; Is 6:10; Ezek 3:19; Amos 4:6). Other texts in Luke emphasize this term (5:32; 10:13; 11:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7, 10). On this point Jesus and John echo one another. It is a contrite heart that comes to God for forgiveness, one who knows the need of a spiritual physician (5:31-32). A walk with God means submission to him and a change of direction.

John's baptism is a one-time rite in preparation of God's approaching salvation. Its roots may well go back to the Old Testament association of the Spirit's presence and washing (Ezek 36:25-27). Though John makes clear that Jesus is the one who brings the Spirit (Lk 3:15-17), John's baptism pictures a preparation for what God will do in Jesus.

Still, John's baptism differs from Christian baptism. John's baptism looks forward, while Christian baptism assumes Jesus' provision of the Spirit. John's baptism anticipates the Spirit's coming, while Christian baptism reflects the Spirit's arrival through Jesus. The washing aspect of John's baptism allows it to be associated with forgiveness of sins, as its connection to the Ezekiel 36 imagery suggests. Here are people of contrite heart, looking to God expectantly for what he will do in the days to come. Acts 19:1-10 reinforces the picture that John's baptism is anticipatory and not an end in itself: when some disciples appear in Ephesus who only knew John's baptism, they are led by Paul to experience what John's washing anticipated--the experience of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Lk 3:15-17; Acts 10:37-38; 13:23-24). When an Israelite takes John's baptism, he or she is declaring openness to God and his ways. The nation is put on notice to await the rest of God's promise.

Clearly, one can learn from this that water ( John's ) baptism is merely an outside indication, a sign to others of your decision, and willingness to submit to God and change your life to his favor. Whilst not talking about baptism, I was reading Salt today and I came accross the following passage, relating to the rigid structure of dogma and religion:

"It is Sunday," she said. "I would like you to take me to one of your churches. I have been dreadfully tested by God this week, and it is time for me to pray in a House of God."

I was chewing something; leekroot I think. "Church," I said, the word mushy with my full mouth. "This is one of your Senaarian customs."

She looked blankly at me, and then digested my words. But her reaction was not what I might have expected. She did not rage at me, nor lecture me on the ungodliness of Alsist peoples. Instead she sat down, with a bleak expression, and began sobbing.

"We do not have churches," I told her, taking another bite of leekroot. "There are no priests, no establshments, nothing to interfere between the individual soul and God. Why should there be a special room to which people have to go to speak to God? Is any one room on Salt different from any other? As God sees it, does it matter wheather a soul is in a certain room, or is somewhere else?"

I've always had this same thought running through my head growing up, "church" is no more than a building, but "the church" is the people - and its the people that matter. I remember mum always telling us off for not putting on nice clothes for church, and I remember trying the argument that if God is everywhere, and sees, and knows all, then he knows I'm a somewhat messy child, he knows who I am and what I'm like - if I put on nice clothes and pretend to be something I'm not - surely he'll know, and hold me accountable for forgery?

I remember a long time ago attending a Bahai' "fireside" meeting, in which one of the people I went with opened with prayer, reading and reciting a standard, fixed prayer from a book, this was followed with another person reading another prayer, also from the book. Afterwards I asked why they don't pray a "personal, heart felt" prayer instead of opting for "old faithfull" and just got odd blank stares with comments along the lines of "thats just not done".

As a christian this somewhat confused me, I'd never really come accross pre-written/recited prayer outside of The Lords Prayer, and started to think this might fall under the "personal relationship with Jesus" clause Christianity offers its members. Any mention of this quickly got me various annoyed looks so the conversation soon shifted direction.

So what does this have to do with baptism, if anything? I'd probably be clutching at staws but I'm leaning towards the "personal relationship" angle, the decision to acknowledge your sin, seek forgiveness, and follow Christ is a deeply personal issue - it's between you and God; no one can make that decision for you, nor should they try and force the issue. Baptism, in particular John's baptism ( that being baptism by water ) is an outside public sign of a private and personal decision to people you know. It's always struck me that if water baptism is soooo important to proove to people of your faith, then whenever you move towns and/or change churches, you should get baptized again so that people know you're a christian; but thats just silly - people don't do that, they just say "oh yes, I was baptismed by so-and-so, then-and-there" and you roll with it.

A number of years ago back when I was still with the Salvation Army I asked my pastor ( then Major Adams ) why the church doesn't perform water baptisms, the answer was simply:

"Water baptism is a means to publically express ones decision to follow christ, we have the uniform for that; as a means of publically identifying ourselves with the Church, and with Christ."

And from the above "History of the Uniform" page:

Not all Salvation Army members wear a uniform. It is a personal choice to do so, but the reason for wearing it remains unchanged.

It stands for:

• A commitment in the war against evil.
• As a personal testimony to the wearer's own Christian faith and practice.
• And signifies the availability of the Salvationist to anyone needing a helping hand and listening ear.

Unlike the uniform which is clearly seen and identified when worn, the outward effect of water baptism is an intangable concept, much like intellectual property; the results can be seen in the attidudes, personalities, and performance of the christian - but theres no tangable entity for which one can grab hold and say "you're a christian, can you pray for me?".

Unfortunately this puts me in a spot of paradox - whilst I like the idea of the Salvationist's Uniform as a means of public identication, I like the freedom of dogma and religious regidity that we have in modern christianity. I like to wear crosses, but that's more out of "I like crosses" than any symbol of allegiance.

One then has to rely on how they project themselves socially to others, through their actions ( or inactions), words, and general personal behaviour; unfortunately this is one area I find myself trapped in an unbalanced line - my mind is creatively twisted, but moralistic, which tends to get me diving in areas I don't really want to, or making rash comments laced with innuendo without thought, knowing full well the instant I've said and thought (or induced others to think) something that's just not kosher.

In the end all I can say is I'm a man with failings, but a man who publically accepts Christ as the central core of his life, and his destiny.

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit