I think the church ought to remind its members frequently of their baptism. If the mission of the church is to make disciples for Jesus Christ, then baptism is at the heart of our mission (Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38-39).

One reason that Christians think so little of baptism is that we hide it away and think of it seldom. Out of sight, out of mind. Let's keep God's gift of baptism in plain sight so that it can begin to shape our thinking about what it means to be a Christian.

Read the rest of this entry »

We are currently in the church season of Lent. Lent and Christian baptism go hand in hand.

Lent historically functioned as a time of final preparation for those who would be baptized at Easter. In some traditions, it still functions that way.

But Lent is also a period of repentance and "preparation" for Holy Week for those who are already Christians. What exactly does it mean? Is it about contemplating Christ's sufferings? Having a deeper spiritual life? Intentionally focusing on spiritual growth? Thinking exceptionally deep thoughts about God? Identifying with the poor or the marginalized? Doing something extra for God? Reforming some character flaw? Protestant churches which observe Lent are all over the map about its practice and the purpose.

Let me suggest that baptism is still perhaps the best lens through which to look at Lent. Thinking of Lent as a period of baptismal renewal, I think, could have a profound impact on our Lenten practices. I'm not even sure where this road might take us.

As it prepared to baptize new believers, the ancient church prayed with them and anointed them and exorcised their demons and instructed them in the meaning of the faith. Yes, fasting was a part of the practice, but it was not the whole. Lent was not an exercise in spiritual navel gazing; it was an activity by which the church assisted in the spiritual birth of new Christians.

The renewal of one's baptism is an activity that also requires the church to act. The church praying for its members, meeting together for encouragement and accountability, restoring those who have become alienated, seeking those who have dropped out, teaching the meaning of the baptismal creed: these to me are vital Lenten activities because they are fundamental to baptismal renewal. Sharing the Lord's table in also an act of covenant renewal and should be observed frequently during Lent. The baptismal ritual of the  United Methodist Book of Worship has liturgical resources for the renewal of baptismal vows. The end of the Lenten season is a perfect time to use these liturgies. Wesley's "Covenant Renewal" ritual also fits better in Lent, I think, than as a New Year's Eve service.

Preparing for baptism and confirmation are natural Lenten activities. Lent also provides the church the opportunity, I think, to assist all of its members to reclaim and reaffirm their baptism. To that end, individual spiritual disciplines are important, but so are corporate disciplines.

Peter Enns has a terrific series of posts at BioLogos on the book of Exodus' recapitulation of the book of Genesis' creation themes.

• Yahweh, Creation, and the Cosmic Battle
• Exodus, the Plagues, and the Cosmic Battle
• Exodus and the Cosmic Battle (Again)
• Exodus, Mt. Sinai and Creation
• Adam is Israel

Enns' observations make the Biblical authors' intention and artistry unmistakable. Read the whole series.

Enns is the author of Inspiration and Incarnation, a model for Old Testament hermeneutics and one of my "Best Theological Books" of the last decade.

When I was in seminary way back when, I read Donald Dayton’s Discoveing an Evangelical Heritage. Dayton reminded evangelicals that their 19th century forebears were social activists that supported the abolition of slavery, women’s rights, labor reform and other causes now deemed “liberal” or “progressive”. Dayton’s thesis was that what became the “social gospel” movement was rooted firmly in an earlier form of evangelical piety.

I recently read D. G. Hart’s The Lost Soul of American Protestantism which makes a similar argument: the progressive liberalism of mainstream Christianity and the social conservatism of evangelicalism are both children of what he calls Anglo-American revivalism that began with the Great Awakenings. Revivalism itself was the child of continental pietism.

The sort of religion heralded by the revivals of the First Great Awakening is chiefly responsible for the triumph of a utilitarian view of faith. The itinerant evangelists of these revivals, as well as their successors, transformed Christianity from a churchly and routine affair into one that was intense and personal. The conversion experience marked the beginning of this new form of faith. But it was only the start. True converts were expected to prove the authenticity of their faith through lives that were visibly different from nonbelievers. Indeed, the demand for a clear distinction between the ways of the faithful and those of the world not only propelled many of the social reforms associated with evangelicalism but also provided the foundation for viewing Christianity in practical categories. If faith was supposed to make a difference in all areas of life, not just on Sunday but on every day of the week, it is no wonder that the emphasis in Protestant circles shifted from church forms of devotion to one that should be seen in personal affairs, community life and national purpose. In other words, the cycle of revivals throughout American religious history, inaugurated by the First Great Awakening, secured the victory of pietism within American Protestantism. Like its European antecedents, American pietism dismissed church creeds, structures and ceremonies as merely formal or external manifestations of religion that went only skin deep. In contrasts, pietists have insisted that genuine faith was one transformed individuals, starting with their heart and seeping into all walks of life.

Hart also argues, however, that historians have ignored a “third way” within American Christian history. Hart identifies this stream as confessionalism.

Confessional Protestants resisted revivals in large part because the methods of the evangelists and the piety expected of converts were generically Christian – sincerity, zeal and a moral life. As a result, revivalism did not respect but in fact undermined the importance of creedal subscription, ordination and liturgical order. In a word, confessionalists opposed revivalism because it spoke a different religious idiom, one that was individualistic, experiential, and perfectionistic, as opposed to the corporate, doctrinal and liturgical idiom of historic Protestantism.

The pietists, Hart says, won. Confessionalism lost and persevered primarily in small, ethnically based denominations.

One way to measure this defeat is to ask any American Protestant if the Apostle’s Creed, the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper or the ministry of the local pastor is as important as personal times of prayer and Bible study, meeting with other Christians in small groups, witnessing to non-Christians, or volunteering at the local shelter for the homeless.

Pietism fit America. Hart’s history of pietism and American culture is a great read.It's particularly interesting to discover that before 1960, it was the mainstream or progressive side of the aisle that most saw itself aligned with American history and values.

Read the rest of this entry »

Mark Galli writes in Christianity Today:  Are We Transformed Yet? Why the spiritually mature don't talk about how God has made them spiritually mature.

An excellent article, on where the focus of the church ought to be.

In his recent book on "justification," N. T. Wright complains that we have taken a perfectly good Biblical word with a limited set of meanings and tried to use it do describe the whole of the Christian theology and life experience. You can do that, he says, but you need to realize that your meaning of the word "justification" encompasses a lot of things for which the Biblical authors used different words - or didn't think about at all.

I feel much the same about the word "mission."

Mark Roberts is a Presbyterian pastor whose postings I read regularly. In a series of posts revisiting John Stott's Christian Mission in the the Modern World, Roberts says something with which I disagree:

“Mission” describes rather everything the church is sent into the world to do.

Now the word "sent" there does imply mission of some sort. Based on Robert's excerpts, however, Stott's concept of mission includes everything that Christians - corporately and individually - in the church and in the world - are to be and do. Coming out of evangelical Anglicanism, Stott has an admirable purpose: to convince Christians that being a "missionary" isn't the only important vocation for serious, committed Christians. So far, I agree. But not every Christian virtue, aspiration, function and practice is best described as the mission of the Church.

First of all, to speak of the mission of the Church is to speak of the mission of the corporate body. "Church" and "Christian" are not interchangeable words.

Secondly, not every virtue or practice is part of the corporate mission, as important as important as these virtues and practices may be.

The other world in which I live - the Army - knows something about mission statements. We live by them; they focus our actions. The Army values are Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor and Personal Courage. But courage is not the Army's mission. Neither is respect is not the Army's mission. We live by these values as we accomplish the Army's mission. Our individual  actions and organizational functions contribute to the mission. Our "off duty" life also has an impact on the mission. None of these things, however, is the mission itself.

"Mission" is not, by the way, a New Testament word. The New Testament frequently speaks of being sent, but it does not use the word "mission" in connection with that activity. Most translations describe Paul's journey as a "mission" in Acts 12:25, but the word is "diakonia," probably better translated as "ministry" or "service."

Within the church, I think it is best to use the word mission in its ordinary sense, to give focus to our actions. The more domains we try to incorporate into our concept of mission, the less helpful the word becomes.