What is the purpose of baptism?

A month or so ago, Perry Noble and Steven Furtick baptized almost 1,000 people between them in a remarkable day when they sprung the opportunity on people who had come to church with no knowledge of what they’d end up being asked to do.

As I showed you back then, Noble spent just a few minutes actually talking about what baptism meant. The message boiled down to something like, “Go public for Jesus. Get dunked.”

Is baptism really a wet public relations exercise? If it’s all about going public, why would Jesus ask us to do it in church, or in pools set up behind a church? An announcement on Facebook or Craig’s List would be a much more effective way of telling the world of our devotion to Christ. If it’s about going public, Philip did it all wrong when he baptized the Ethiopian eunuch on the side of a desert road (Acts 8:26-40).

Although baptism is a public sacrament, telling the world about the state of our heart is not its purpose. By putting ourselves at the center of the sacrament, we invert its real meaning and function.

Baptism has three purposes.

1. Cleanse us.We are, by nature, corrupt and sinful. Nothing we can do can cleanse us from the stench of our sins that stand as an offense to a perfect and holy God. By his grace, God provided a means of cleansing us of those sins, a method introduced in the Old Testament through sacrifices and blood. This relationship between blood and cleansing is found in a number of places, including Hebrews 9:13-14.
   

   If the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

   Verses 19-21 in the same chapter describe Moses’ washing the people and vessels of worship with blood to cleanse them before God.

   Jesus’ blood becomes a once-for-all substitution of the blood of goats and bulls and washes us from our sinful filthiness. The reason that John prepared the way for Jesus by baptism was to introduce Jesus as the ultimate baptizer. Note John’s first words of identification: “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). The Lamb’s blood cleans us from our sin. Jesus baptizes us.

2. Unite us with Christ.Once we are cleansed, it becomes possible to become a child of God. Baptism is a sign of our cleansing and subsequent unification (though not in the sense of being God) with Christ. We see that idea in Romans 6:3-4 where Paul explains why grace is not a license to sin.
   

   Don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him though baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live in new life.

   If you re-read that passage and substitute united in place of baptism, Paul’s argument does not change.

   In fact, Paul does use that word in the very next verse to extend the argument.

   If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. (Romans 6:5)

   We see this sense of unification through baptism in Acts 8:14-17.

   When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

   Again, substitute united for baptized and the meaning of what is going on here becomes clear. Not only are we united with Christ through baptism; we are also united to the Holy Spirit.

3. Point to the Holy Spirit.If the Holy Spirit is an integral aspect of baptism, his role is going to be consistent with the existing purpose of baptism. Titus 3:5-7 shows us the relationship between baptism, Jesus’ blood and the Holy Spirit.
   

   [God] saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

   God give us his grace, Jesus offers his purifying blood, and the Holy Spirit washes us from our sin.

   This Holy Spirit baptism is seen clearly for the first time in Acts 2, though Peter explains that Joel predicted it.

   In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. (Acts 2:17)

   It is no coincidence that we also see the Holy Spirit as a participant in Jesus’ own baptism.

   John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’” (John 1:32-33)

Baptism is a profoundly beautiful and simple sacrament that tells the story of God’s grace to us. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us and cleansed us from our sin, making us right with God.

That means that baptism is a sign of something that God does to us, not something we do for God.

Just as the symbols of the Eucharist match the reality of their referents, we might expect that the mode of baptism will match the spiritual reality of what it represents.

But that’s a topic for another day.

Filthy Roman Sponge

Troubling.

Thoughts?

Prettying up people who are far from life

I ran into an old friend today and asked what he’s doing for a job.

“I help people who are far from life look their best,” he said.

“Oh, so you sell makeup,” I replied.

“No, not really. But I do apply it.”

“You’re one of those beauty consultants at the mall?”

“No, I said I do it for people who are far from life.”

“You mean, you’re a mortician?”

“Yes.”

“And your clients are dead?”

“No! That’s cold. I prefer to think of them as just being far from life.”

The conversation is ridiculous and fictional. Much less fictional is a theology that seems to guide a growing number of churches who tell us that they are reaching people far from God.

Or, more accurately and bluntly, people who are dead.

Before we go further, perhaps it’s worth explaining why semantics matter. When you have an action-oriented theology that ditches creeds for deeds, the best way to know what some of these innovative churches believe is by looking at what they do and say. The new church movement (emergent, seeker-sensitive, purpose-driven, etc.) is quite deliberate and generally successful in trying to change the speech patterns of its adherents. Speech influences and reveals thinking, so I think it’s important to flag and challenge the thinking and the doctrines (creeds, if you will) that are behind the words being used in so many modern churches. Important words mean important things.

Saying that someone is far from God is about as useful as describing a corpse as being far from life; it’s just an attempt obscure the awful reality that the corpse is dead.

What does God think about our “far from life” status?

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins (Colossians 2:13)

There’s nothing a dead man can do to get closer to life. It’s a fundamental element of our faith that Christ alone saves us and that there is nothing we can do to initiate or reject it. If Christ decides not to save us, nothing we can do can change his mind. If Christ does mercifully decide to save us, there’s nothing we can do to resist him.

Describing sinners as being far from God is a fiction that, while trying to preserve the dignity of the sinner, ignores the absolute wretched position that he finds himself in. It’s a fiction that incubates thinking that if we could only change the way the unsaved think about Jesus, Christians or the church, that they would start to close the distance between themselves and a God who wishes they’d come closer.

Mark 12:34 does tell of a particular Pharisee whom Jesus describes as being “not far from the kingdom of God.” It’s a curious account because we don’t know whether the man did eventually enter the kingdom, though I suspect that Jesus was telling him that by God’s grace he was being drawn. The Pharisee had affirmed Jesus and demonstrated a clear understanding of Scripture, which is something that’s impossible to do without God’s help. One thing we do know about the Pharisee, he was not seeking God before his encounter with Jesus; he came to challenge and test Jesus with the intent of tripping him up. Although he sought God with evil intent, it appears that God demonstrated his mercy and gave the man a new heart. By his actions and intent, the Pharisee was living and running far from God, but by Jesus’ love and power he was brought close to God.

After this, no one dared asked Jesus any more questions. Why not? A hostile sinner asked Jesus a question and it probably appeared to all observers that he had been converted. When Jesus speaks to you, you change.

Look at Romans 3.

There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.

All have turned away, they have together become worthless.

The most moral sinner is just as far from God as the most murderous tyrant. Just as the distance between life and death for a dead man is infinite, so the distance between my unregenerate self and a holy and just God is infinite and terrifying. I am either so far from God that distance is irrelevant, or I am an integral and valued part of his body by virtue of his saving grace.

Once a part of his body, although I can be far from sanctified maturity, I can never be far from God.

This is the wonderful miracle, security and beauty of grace.

If not fame, then what?

I’ve argued against overusing the phrase To make Jesus famous. What, then, could we replace it with?

How about To make Jesus known?

1. It describes evangelism and discipleship equally well. Fame is too heavily biased towards presenting Jesus to the unsaved and leaves the family of faith in the cold. By emphasizing knowledge, we acknowledge both the need to fish for men and to feed Jesus’ sheep.
2. It demands that we offer the world substantive truth. Fame thrives best in a world of happiness, glitz and glamor. While Jesus brings joy, he also places demands on us that our unregenerate human nature recoils from. Knowledge lets us present all facets of Jesus’ nature.
3. It focuses on individual responsibility. Fame is a collective quality; once I’m aware of someone, that person can’t become more famous in my life. Fame only increases when someone else also thinks of the famous person. Knowledge exists on an individual level and can increase over time.
4. It better describes the relationship between the divine and me. Fame made some quality of Christ dependent on me. Knowledge reverses that dynamic. Jesus is all and in all, complete, perfect, infinite. My knowledge of Christ can improve or deteriorate, but neither state affects his nature. He is the rock that I throw myself against and on. It is my responsibility to know him, and by his grace he has given me all the tools I need to do that. It’s the church’s responsibility to introduce me to Jesus through the logos he’s left us.

What do you think?

Does Jesus really want to be famous?

One or two commentators have referenced Newspring’s oft-repeated mission of making Jesus famous, a term that is also in widespread use beyond Newspring. It’s a phrase that has long bothered me for its carelessness. I’ve tried to use Google to help me understand what its users think the term means and where it comes from, though I haven’t been able to turn up anything substantive yet.

Perhaps someone can tell me what is meant by it, but I suspect that its overuse is more a product of a fame-fueled media culture than of careful biblical reasoning. Here’s why I think it’s a weak foundation to base a church’s entire mission on:

1. Fame is usually incompatible with knowledge. Consider someone like Alex Rodriguez. He’s a  famous athlete, though the more we know of him, the smaller he gets. He may still be as famous, especially since the steroid story attracted the attention of people who don’t pay attention to baseball, but his fame has certainly turned into something very different now. Also, is anyone still listening to Milli Vanilli?
2. Fame is independent of knowledge. We all know of people who are famous for being famous. Paris Hilton comes to mind. In this sense, we see how the fame-making mission of the church is consistent with the usually hostile responses given to people who ask for more teaching about Jesus. You’re being selfish; go and invite someone else to church, is the customary and curt response. Of course it is. Knowledge of Christ is an optional and self-indulgent accessory.
3. Fame is a merely a state of awareness, not an attitude or belief. For someone to be famous, it just requires a relatively large number of people to be aware of a person, regardless of what they think of him or her. For example, Barack Obama is probably the most famous living person in the world, but almost half the people (at least of Americans) who generate his fame disagree with him, and some even want him to fail. Fame and persuasion are very distant relatives.
4. Fame is independent of the famous. A person’s fame vacillates depending on how many people are disposed to think of that person. For example, Britney Spears’ fame increases whenever I think about her (not often), and it decreases when I forget her. This is why you find so many Hollywood has-beens in reality shows; they need to remind people to think of them again. Britney Spears has no inherent fame; it’s totally dependent on us.
5. It suggests I can do something to change some quality of Christ. To emphasize Jesus’ fame puts his wholeness in my hands. My attention has the power to make Jesus greater or smaller. Heaven forfend. If it were possible for the whole world to forget about Jesus, would he be diminished in any way? If the whole world started talking about him, would he be enhanced in any way? Absolutely not. Jesus did not care about fame when he walked the earth; in fact, he often rejected it when it was his for the taking, telling recipients of miracles not to tell anyone about it.

The KJV uses the word fame to describe several instances of news of Jesus spreading throughout the land. Most are simply descriptive of Jesus’ effect on the people, though the most interesting usage is in Luke 5:15, where the news of Jesus is linked to a public response to him. In contrast to other uses of fame, this one uses the word logos, which denotes knowledge based on teaching and doctrine.

Oh, and what did Jesus do after attracting all that fame? Check out verse 16. He withdrew to a lonely place and prayed.

I understand the well-intentioned impulse behind the drive to make Jesus famous, and I recognize, along with the Gospel writers, that preaching about Jesus will have that effect. My argument is that fame is a low-value product of our following the Great Commission, not the raison d’etre for it.

Jesus didn’t ask us to be his publicists. He simply asked us to make disciples.

Update: If not fame, then what?