This past Sunday, we celebrated baptism at our church with two people being baptized in our services and 5 or 6 more in other services. I really like the way we do it and decided to share some of the ideas I've seen at this church and others.
As a Christian, I believe that baptism is a sacred ceremony, an act of obedience. I don't believe it's a requirement to get into heaven, but it's certainly a good idea. I think that baptism is a sign of a previous act. You first accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and then you are baptized, just as Jesus was baptized.
At our church, the baptismal has room for people to stand behind it. As a person is baptised, family and special friends (typically 2-5 people) walk behind the baptistry and look down adoringly at the soon-to-be-wet person. The pastor introduces the person and mentions some people, typically in the congregation, who were significant in bringing this person to Christ. These people stand in support of the individual. Sometimes the pastor points these out to the individual. I am often reminded of the verse "Since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses," the witnesses serve as a reminder to the individual.
Our pastor says "I now baptize you my brother (or sister) in Christ" as he dunks the person under the water. I've often joked that he holds former Methodists under the water just a little longer. One pastor, would always say "Buried with Christ in baptism, risen to walk in newness of life." I like this, but it's certainly not required.
I've head of some pastors who make a big deal out of "getting your baptism on the right side of your salvation." The idea is that a lot of people were baptized at a young age, before they really accepted Christ. The individual needs to be re-baptized as a sign of their true conversion. I understand this and agree with it, but I certainly don't make a big deal about it. If baptism is just a sign (and I believe it is) then it really doesn't make a difference. In fact, if someone was never baptized, it really wouldn't matter. I would have questions about someone who said they don't want to be baptized, but that's a separate subject. It's a sign of obedience.
What ceremony do you have around baptism?
Showing posts with label church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church. Show all posts
Monday, October 29, 2007
Sola Scriptura
This morning I was looking for some reference information and ran across an interesting article that took me way off track. It included the information below. This wasn't a key part of the article and I disagreed with the article's premises, but I completely agreed with these statements.
The article contained a definition of "sola Scriptura", which is Latin for "only the Bible". (I like quoting Latin, it makes me feel important". It said:
"Some Christians chafe at the discussion because there is no Bible verse (on subject of your choice). This charge is especially relevant to a Protestant such as this author (and this author), who believes in the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura.
"But sola Scriptura does not mean that Scripture is the only authority to which one should listen, but that Scripture is the final and non-negotiable authority, the norm that norms all other norms. I look to (my favorite mapping tool), not to Leviticus, to find my way from Louisville to Chicago, but if (my favorite mapping tool)—or the Third Vatican Council or the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention—tells me there was never a City of Jericho, I submit to the authority of Scripture over theirs.
"Moreover, sola Scriptura has never meant merely a concordance approach to the Bible (Where’s a verse on sex reassignment surgery? Not one? Then it’s fine? Well, no). There is a comprehensive storyline to Scripture, against which we must judge our actions, especially the actions of our churches as we testify to the reality of the gospel."
Ok, it's not ground breaking theology, but it expains a lot of how I feel. And since I couldn't find the information I was looking for, this serves two purposes: 1) it gives me something to put here and 2) it will help remind me of a basic tenant of my belief.
If anyone's interested, the full article on a totally separate subject is here. I'm very interested in any comments on this statement...
The article contained a definition of "sola Scriptura", which is Latin for "only the Bible". (I like quoting Latin, it makes me feel important". It said:
"Some Christians chafe at the discussion because there is no Bible verse (on subject of your choice). This charge is especially relevant to a Protestant such as this author (and this author), who believes in the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura.
"But sola Scriptura does not mean that Scripture is the only authority to which one should listen, but that Scripture is the final and non-negotiable authority, the norm that norms all other norms. I look to (my favorite mapping tool), not to Leviticus, to find my way from Louisville to Chicago, but if (my favorite mapping tool)—or the Third Vatican Council or the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention—tells me there was never a City of Jericho, I submit to the authority of Scripture over theirs.
"Moreover, sola Scriptura has never meant merely a concordance approach to the Bible (Where’s a verse on sex reassignment surgery? Not one? Then it’s fine? Well, no). There is a comprehensive storyline to Scripture, against which we must judge our actions, especially the actions of our churches as we testify to the reality of the gospel."
Ok, it's not ground breaking theology, but it expains a lot of how I feel. And since I couldn't find the information I was looking for, this serves two purposes: 1) it gives me something to put here and 2) it will help remind me of a basic tenant of my belief.
If anyone's interested, the full article on a totally separate subject is here. I'm very interested in any comments on this statement...
Monday, October 22, 2007
What a weekend!
The weekend was busy!! As normal for our house, we had an invader for the weekend, our 18 month old grandson. He has more energy than both of us combined. The big event was a surprise birthday party for my 80 year old mother (Happy Birthday Mom!).
I was nominated to put together a slide show with old pictures, so I finished pulling them all together Friday night. Of course first, we had dinner with some of the folks who had come into town for the surprise.
Saturday involved finishing up last minute details and getting ready for the party. A little setup, a little moving furniture, then everyone started arriving. Three hours of meet & greet, take tear down it all and then to dinner again (we're a family that likes to eat).
Saturday night we crashed as soon as the 18 month old invader would let us. Sunday morning, I had the privelege of hearing my favorite singer worship her (& my) Lord by singing at my mom's church (another birthday present for Mom). And of course after church, what else, but go eat again.
Yes, a busy weekend, and no time to think about things I normally blog about. But it was a good weekend.
I was nominated to put together a slide show with old pictures, so I finished pulling them all together Friday night. Of course first, we had dinner with some of the folks who had come into town for the surprise.
Saturday involved finishing up last minute details and getting ready for the party. A little setup, a little moving furniture, then everyone started arriving. Three hours of meet & greet, take tear down it all and then to dinner again (we're a family that likes to eat).
Saturday night we crashed as soon as the 18 month old invader would let us. Sunday morning, I had the privelege of hearing my favorite singer worship her (& my) Lord by singing at my mom's church (another birthday present for Mom). And of course after church, what else, but go eat again.
Yes, a busy weekend, and no time to think about things I normally blog about. But it was a good weekend.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Obama speaks at church - Updated
Last Thursday, I posted a blog showing that Sen. Obama intended to violate the constitutional [sic] requirement for a separation of church and state. Since I'm sure most of my readers don't read the local newspaper or listen to local newsradio, I thought I'd update here.
The article can be found here. Apparently, Sen Obama stuch to his faith-based message and didn't drift into politics. He reported that his late-blooming faith is "what keeps (his) eyes set on the greatest of heights."
A listener to the local Christian talk radio program phoned in with his view. He reported that Obama seemed shocked by what he saw at the racially diverse congregation and probably wondered what role the government might have (none) since this was already diverse. He said Obama was stunned and for 20 minutes didn't even realize the congregation was standing. This listener said he spoke to Obama after the service and told him that "God can not bless you until you drop your pro-abortion stance".
This last comment comes off sounding very negative. When the speaker reported it on the radio, it didn't come off that way. Rather it sounded like he was impressed with Obama and wanted to share his opinion. Reportedly Obama looked down and went to the next person. Again, this wasn't reported as negative, just factual. I did not get the impression that the speaker took it negative. If you infer that either side of this was negative, I did a poor job reporting.
My point here is that Obama did what many conservatives do, and that is to speak in front of the church. Let's not forget this when Bush speaks in a church and is accused of violating this constitutional edict.
Update -
Where is the equal time? Will Fred Thompson or Sen. McCain be allowed to speak? Also, if there is such a push to shut out Rush Limbaugh, why not shut out this church?
The article can be found here. Apparently, Sen Obama stuch to his faith-based message and didn't drift into politics. He reported that his late-blooming faith is "what keeps (his) eyes set on the greatest of heights."
A listener to the local Christian talk radio program phoned in with his view. He reported that Obama seemed shocked by what he saw at the racially diverse congregation and probably wondered what role the government might have (none) since this was already diverse. He said Obama was stunned and for 20 minutes didn't even realize the congregation was standing. This listener said he spoke to Obama after the service and told him that "God can not bless you until you drop your pro-abortion stance".
This last comment comes off sounding very negative. When the speaker reported it on the radio, it didn't come off that way. Rather it sounded like he was impressed with Obama and wanted to share his opinion. Reportedly Obama looked down and went to the next person. Again, this wasn't reported as negative, just factual. I did not get the impression that the speaker took it negative. If you infer that either side of this was negative, I did a poor job reporting.
My point here is that Obama did what many conservatives do, and that is to speak in front of the church. Let's not forget this when Bush speaks in a church and is accused of violating this constitutional edict.
Update -
Where is the equal time? Will Fred Thompson or Sen. McCain be allowed to speak? Also, if there is such a push to shut out Rush Limbaugh, why not shut out this church?
Labels:
abortion,
Blog,
church,
conservative,
liberal,
Senator Obama,
Separation of Church and State
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Separation of Church and State
Another case of a presidential candidate trying to use religion to get votes. See the details here.
Seems that Sen. Barack Obama is going to speak at Redemption Outreach Center, a non-denominational church, in Greenville this Sunday. In the past, similar actions have caused an outcry for "a wall of separation" between the Church and the State.
My reaction may surprise people on both sides. First, I think each candidate is guaranteed the right to speak about his/her faith (or not to speak as they desire). I personally hope each one explains his/her faith position and how it will impact their decisions should they win the White House. Maybe the answer is it won't affect them, that's ok too. At least I'll know where they say they stand.
I would like to go hear the Senator speak. I heard his speech at the Democratic National Convention and was impressed. I realized then that this was a Senator to watch. While I disagree with most of his positions, I think he is an excellent speaker and he brings a lot of good thinking to the floor.
It's unlikely that I will be able to hear him, I have commitments at my own church this weekend. It's not clear what time he will be speaking, so it's still possible.
Seems that Sen. Barack Obama is going to speak at Redemption Outreach Center, a non-denominational church, in Greenville this Sunday. In the past, similar actions have caused an outcry for "a wall of separation" between the Church and the State.
My reaction may surprise people on both sides. First, I think each candidate is guaranteed the right to speak about his/her faith (or not to speak as they desire). I personally hope each one explains his/her faith position and how it will impact their decisions should they win the White House. Maybe the answer is it won't affect them, that's ok too. At least I'll know where they say they stand.
I would like to go hear the Senator speak. I heard his speech at the Democratic National Convention and was impressed. I realized then that this was a Senator to watch. While I disagree with most of his positions, I think he is an excellent speaker and he brings a lot of good thinking to the floor.
It's unlikely that I will be able to hear him, I have commitments at my own church this weekend. It's not clear what time he will be speaking, so it's still possible.
Labels:
campaign,
church,
politics,
prayer,
president,
Senator Obama,
Separation of Church and State
Monday, September 17, 2007
Is there always a purpose?
Yesterday was a good day at church, it set my mind to thinking in several areas. More on that later. But I had an interesting question.
The story was Daniel and the lion's den. Daniel was thrown in, the lions mulled around, Daniel got out, Daniels enemies became lion's lunch.
One of the points of the message was that there is always a purpose? While I believe that is true, and I believe the purpose was a good one, was the sole purpose of that event to be able to tell us the story some 2000+ years later?
If you had met Daniel a week after the event, what would he have said? "Yep, it was a good thing. I had to get rid of the pants I was wearing that day after that lion nuzzled up next to me, but I see what the plan was." If you talked to Daniel a year later, would he have said "I'm glad that it all happened. It worked out so much better than any other way. I can reach so many more people as a result of that experience and I would do it again if I could."
I suspect that Daniel never really understood the purpose. And I suspect that, given a choice, he would have tried to reach the purpose another way.
The story was Daniel and the lion's den. Daniel was thrown in, the lions mulled around, Daniel got out, Daniels enemies became lion's lunch.
One of the points of the message was that there is always a purpose? While I believe that is true, and I believe the purpose was a good one, was the sole purpose of that event to be able to tell us the story some 2000+ years later?
If you had met Daniel a week after the event, what would he have said? "Yep, it was a good thing. I had to get rid of the pants I was wearing that day after that lion nuzzled up next to me, but I see what the plan was." If you talked to Daniel a year later, would he have said "I'm glad that it all happened. It worked out so much better than any other way. I can reach so many more people as a result of that experience and I would do it again if I could."
I suspect that Daniel never really understood the purpose. And I suspect that, given a choice, he would have tried to reach the purpose another way.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Viva Las Vegas
I'm heading to "Sin City" for a week long conference and not sure how much time I'll have to post updates here. Most people hear you're going to Vegas for work and they say "sure, I bet it's work".
I'm not attracted to either to the common sins in Vegas. Sure they can have a woman in your room in 30 minutes, but I have a beautiful woman at home, why would I want anything else? And as for gambling, that's a "sin" that's wrongly named. Gambling implies there's some chance of winning, when I do it it's called "losing".
So I get up east coast time, catch up on work, go to conferences all day, entertain customers at night and come back worn out. Lots of fun.
Churches in Vegas....
I've been to Vegas before, but it's been about 7 or 8 years, so I did some research into the town. It may come as a surprise to you, but there are more Catholic churches than casinos in Las Vegas.
Not surprisingly, some worshippers at sunday services will give casino chips rather than cash when the basket is passed. Since they get chips from many different casinos, the churches have devised a method to collect the offerings.
The churches send all their collected chips to a nearby Franciscan monastery for sorting and then the chips are taken to the casinos of origin and cashed in.
The one going to the casino to retrieve the cash is known as the chip monk....
I'm not attracted to either to the common sins in Vegas. Sure they can have a woman in your room in 30 minutes, but I have a beautiful woman at home, why would I want anything else? And as for gambling, that's a "sin" that's wrongly named. Gambling implies there's some chance of winning, when I do it it's called "losing".
So I get up east coast time, catch up on work, go to conferences all day, entertain customers at night and come back worn out. Lots of fun.
Churches in Vegas....
I've been to Vegas before, but it's been about 7 or 8 years, so I did some research into the town. It may come as a surprise to you, but there are more Catholic churches than casinos in Las Vegas.
Not surprisingly, some worshippers at sunday services will give casino chips rather than cash when the basket is passed. Since they get chips from many different casinos, the churches have devised a method to collect the offerings.
The churches send all their collected chips to a nearby Franciscan monastery for sorting and then the chips are taken to the casinos of origin and cashed in.
The one going to the casino to retrieve the cash is known as the chip monk....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)