My theme for the 28th is PEACE. Is this one of the ways that peace comes...when we begin to understand ach other, to communicate?
Rev Janet in CNY
To respond to Rev Janet,
I think that peace can only be achieved by living as a Christian community, following the commandments given to us. The first that comes to mind is that we should love one another, which I interpret as caring for each other as we would care for ourselves - even caring for others before caring for ourselves. If we could only do that, none would lack for companionship in old age, material needs, help when we really needed it (and not just a nice meal at Thanksgiving and Christmas, when it makes the congregation feel better about themselves). If we only loved one another, we would automatically forgive each others' transgressions, and overlook each others' faults. Our concerns would be truly outward, not inward. Christ works on the inside of us, so that we will work on the outside of the world. We ARE the hands of God in this life. Peace begins with how we treat each other on the "other" six days of the week. But feel free to differ with me. I still love you, as I must always try to. Tunica Mike
I have been reading the book “Fresh Faith” by Jim Cymbala. In this book the author makes a point that has been guiding my sermon preparation this Sunday.
“We cannot life of the commands of God, but rather the promises. The commands of God reveal his holy character to us, but they hold no accompanying power” (page 151).
For the past few weeks now the lectionary has been hammering on the theme of love. Jesus then, in today’s Gospel reading, puts it in the form of a direct commandment. If you are like me that is not always an easy commandment to just follow. (There are some folks that are difficult to love or that I don’t particularly want to love.)
Enter the Holy Spirit (Readings from Acts and First John). Here is the promise that we are called to live in. The Holy Spirit.
If we try to live by the commandment, it is like trying to live by the law. We can’t do it alone, we can’t do it good enough, we just set ourselves up for failure. (How many times as a pastor have I had to deal with a distraught parishoner who was riddled with guilt because they were not ‘good enough’ as a Christian or at living the Christian life?)
By merging the three readings (1 John, John, and Acts) we can put the quote from Cymbala into practice. This is liberating. No longer do we have to be confined to trying to fulfill a commandment, we are freed to live in the promise of the Holy Spirit and power to love which flows forth.
Just some general thoughts to contribute to an already worthwhile discussion.
Peace,
DWR
I've been doing a series (mostly) on the "lifestyle of the resurrection" based on the Acts texts, and Romans 8:11 "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you." In this case Peter is astonished to see the result of his preaching (the preaching was the text for Easter Sunday). The Result is that the Spirit falls on the Gentiles just as it had fallen on the group of Jews in the upper room. I think of another verse from John 3:8, "The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit". An aspect of resurrection lifestyle is that we may end up in unexpected place, we may see unexpected things, we may discover unexpected commonalities with those we may have thought were beyond God's reach. We may discover we are empowered with an unexpected power.
I appreciate this forum. Thanks to all!
MattMN
What is this "circumcised" party?
Were they ordinary Jews (lay people) who had begun to believe in Jesus of Nazareth?
Did they believe that only Jews could be saved and thus those outside and marginalized could not enter the covenant through the Cross?
Peter, the great traditionalist, opens himself to the movement of the Holy Spirit and recognizes the presence of God within the lives of these Gentiles thus bringing them to baptism.
Is not this love - to reach beyond the circle of what is acceptable in order to bring the unacceptable into that circle which is God.
tom in ga
To DWR -- It seems to me that to separtate the promise from obedience to the command is like accepting a gift without recognizing that someone else paid for it. The world tells us that it is impossible to love people because they will let you down; turn you away; stab you in the back. But the power of God defeats that attitude of the world. And the only way we can make that power real is to obey the command to love. In some ways it is the old "chicken or the egg" question, Which comes first, the power and the promise, or the obedience? Of course God loved us first, but the cycle deffinately breaks down when we fail to respond in obedience. The power to obey grows out of our relationship to God through the Holy Spirit, but if we stop responding to that power by becoming all wrapped up in our own interests (and therefore not loving), not only do we become isolated from our brothers and sisters, but we also become insulated from the promises of God.
Wow, is that a lot of rambling, or what? Anyway, in a nutshell: if we are to continue to receive the promises of God, we must continue to be obedient to the command to love. -- Fisher in TN
"Open up your Frontiers" This really follows up on a theme with which I dealt last sunday as Philip broke the ground in taking the Gospel to groups considered to be outside the circle of the chosen children of Israel. Where are our modern frontiers? Are those beyond our socio-economic circumstance, national origin, or philosophical leanings our new frontiers? I believe one has to look beyond the issue of circumcision which is pretty much a non-issue today at those self-erected barriers that represents petty notions (arbitrarily erected) that keep us from discover those fields that are white unto harvest. TN Mack
To DSS-
I think your question about what in our contemporary society compares to this moment in Acts has more than one aspect to it. One aspect is that the Gospel spreads to people that the disciples did not expect to receive the Gospel. We would have to ask ourselves, "who would we least expect to receive the Gospel?" Wouldn't it be great to have someone we didn't expect to receive the Gospel stand up and give a testimony about receiving God's love in Christ. For some, that might be a "biker with lots of tatoos" (no offence to my brothers or sisters who are bikers or tatooed). Within the hard line evangelical community there seems to be an insinuation that some are beyond God's love and reach, like gays or lesbians. While I have my own internal struggle with that, I firmly believe that God's love reaches to them.
A second aspect of your question would involve the manifestations of the Spirit, like speaking in tongues, another controversial issue. It does happen. While some, I am sure disagree, I think perhaps God wants to give us more gifts than we are sometimes ready to receive. I think a transformation from skepticism and unbelief about these gifts to an openness to whatever the Spirit wants to give us, makes the gifts more likely to show up in our midst.
--MattMN
The truth may be found in the book Reaping the Whirlwind, by Langdon Guilkey. He asserts that organizations are strengthened when recognized by other meaningful groups. As minority Christian Jews, who would have the authoritative clearance to open the new frontier? When God empowers the Gentiles with his Holy Spirit the mission just got bigger. When the great Peter witnessed the Spirit of God falling on the gentiles, it was his authoritative voice who could verify the power of God in these gentiles, from his past experiences of seeing God's power at work. God expanded His own mission. He expanded His mission through the work of Peter. I suspect, this was a great relief and affirmation to the early Jewish Christians struggling to hold on to their faith in difficult times. Remember, the 'circucised', their faith now was true faith and not institutional survival. wes scot
10:47 "Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
My, how often we try! Plain and simple, if the water is withheld, it's not baptismal water.
I agree with Matt in MN, that the power of baptism, the power of the Holy Spirit reaches to those (amd, I might add, particularaly to those) whom we'd least expect to receive them. But we try and try to withhold, to make it our own special practice.
Someone asked for modern-day examples ... Here's one: Last Fall, I was asked to lead a women's Bible study at the local community center. I was glad to do it, and looking forward to it until the director of the center put me in touch with a woman who wanted to be involved. It was clear that the woman's agenda was to make sure everyone was saved correctly (and baptised correctly) because - and I quote - "they may think they're saved, but might not be." The clear message I got from her is that unless you follow the theology she evidently followed, you might not even be allowed into God's Kingdom. That, further, you could be punished, or face eternal damnation unnecessarily because you hadn't been saved correctly, or baptised by immersion, and the worst part of it is, these would be folks who thought they were OK. Needless to say, I backed out - I, myself, hadn't been saved according to her formula, and I didn't want her to go to work on me, or to be at odds in the group.
Sally in GA
On the other hand, come to think of it, isn't there an appropriate time to withhold baptismal waters? In our UM tradition, we're expected to give due counsel to anyone seeking to be baptized. I went to six sessions with my pastor before mine. When someone answers the invitation I give every week, after I come to, do I go get the water right there, or do I offer to make an appointment to counsel with them?
While the Bible is clear that the eunuch and the Gentiles were baptized right then and there, I'd counsel with the people first. I don't want anyone to take such an important step on an impulse. Is this un-biblical, un-spiritual, or good pastoral leadership?
I also withhold the waters of "re-baptism," which I've been asked to do a few times, and which has made a few people mad. Unfortunately there ARE UM pastors who do re-baptisms on the sly, and that, along with the Southern Baptist influence concerning the Sacraments around here, makes it difficult for those of us who believe in ONE baptism.
I have withheld the waters of baptism for a little boy and girl, b/c their mother only wants them baptized. She doesn't want to be a part of any church (nor did she know that she wasn't baptised. When I asked her about it, she said "I assume mom had us baptized"). In our tradition, and in my belief, baptism means church membership, and that parents promise to bring the kid up in the community of believers. I told her that when she finds a church she wants to join (she live in FL), I'll be happy to work with that pastor and honored to perform the baptisms for them, and their mother.
But, on the other hand, if I baptize them, God's Spirit has still rested on them, and whether their mother wants to lie in the vows, or be a disciple, I could still trust that "the Holy Spirit is working within (them) that having been born through water and the spirit, (they) will be faithful disciples of Jesus Christ."
BTW: is it baptiSed or baptiZed? I'm usually a good speller, but neither "looks" right. Kind of appropriate to the text, wouldn't you say?
And isn't it interesting that often those who would hold the waters of baptism are those who show little evidence of having received the Holy Spirit. OK, there's the judgmental side of me coming out.
Sally in GA
Sally in GA
As a Southern Baptist, we insist that a person make a profession of faith in Christ before they are baptized. The Didache insisted on a lengthy period of probation and instruction before baptism which concluded with two to three days of fasting (by both the candidate and the one performing the baptism, the latter of which might explain its quick lack of popularity among us Baptists).
Many of our churches do have a time of probation and examination. For myself, I question that. Nobody did background checks on the 3,000 who were baptized on Pentecost, the Samaritans, the Ethiopian, nor to this group. The primative church either had the wrong idea and later developed their thoughts into the Didache, or they had the right idea all along - that baptism (even for us who do not baptize infants) is a beginning, not an ending. Those we baptize (or receive into membership in the church) are not "finished products" but are "under construction."
My own thoughts on this passage.
First, we cannot preach these verses alone. You've got to at least read the story - read the whole chapter. I hope to cover many aspects, one of which being that in spite of Cornelius' devoutness, and the fact that he lead his whole family into devotion to the one God (Acts 10:2), there was still something lacking. No matter how great our devotion to God, we must come to Christ.
A second point is, clearly Cornelius was a special man who had a singular love for God and those who show that singular love for God are often chosen by Him for a special place. We must never negate the need for devotion in our own lives if we want to be useful to God.
This final paragraph gives a good 3-pointer, though, on the effects of the Holy Spirit in our lives. (1) Worship - the Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues (which, as has been said, is controversial for us, but not for them) and were extolling God. Has the Holy Spirit implanted in us a desire to glorify God - to live lives of worship? (2) Obedience - they were baptized without hesitation. Do we hesitate to obey what God tells us in His Word? Last week I shared that no matter how small or great is our knowledge of the Bible, our knowledge is greater than our obedience to it. (3) Peter and company were invited to stay for several days. Cornelius was not content to know only a little about God. He wanted to learn more. How intent are we to learn more of God's Word? How many in the church could hold a conversation about the book of Habakkuk? Further, how many of us are willing to delve more deeply into the "familiar" texts. G. Campbell Morgan said he used to read a book 50 times before he studied it. Silly me - I thought that WAS "study."
JGinWI
Great comments on Baptism here. So much... How grace-filled is our use of Baptism?
I've not withheld baptism. I've always had parents who promised to bring their children, but THEIR promise holds no water. If the parents would refuse to make the promise, we'd probably stand there a long time waiting for someone to say "I do." lol
Maybe a sponser/mentor type of person could be recruited to visit regularly with the family, to bring the word of God to bear in their lives, to bring the child (and parent if possible) into the community of God's people...?!?
Michelle
JG in WI
Hope you didn't take offense: it's just that there is often a confusion of what UM laity believe about baptism b/c of the influence of the predominant denomination, which happens to be S. Bapt. We have some VERY different views, and there are often some unique points of view about our Sacraments. I've been asked to dedicate babies, which I also don't do. While I don't oppose someone doing it, I'm a UM pastor and I believe that the baby should be baptised.
I have some pretty firm beliefs, so I wasn't really looking for advice; just trying to expose the conundrums about the whole matter. Truth is, I haven't yet found any denomination who has perfectly defined the Sacraments - which is why we define them as a holy mysteries.
It opens up a whole theology that one must decide which side of the fence one falls on. Is it a human action, based on conversion and making a profession of faith? (ordinance) or is it God's action given freely, without merit? (Sacrament)
What hits me is, "who can withhold the waters of baptism?" Thus, I might very well be sinning by doing so. On the other hand, If parents don't even know what baptism or church membership means, or whether they've even been a part of it, I don't believe they can raise a child to know. I'm not permanently withholding; I'm HOPING to encourage the mother (who lives in another state) to find her OWN relationship with God. I can't advocate baptism as some sort of "nice thing to do because she knows someone who's a pastor" any more than I can advocate it as a superstition against evil.
The eternal paradox of orthodoxy and orthopraxis.
Sally
Wasn't completely clear:
If I believed the children would suffer eternal damnation if they died without being baptised, I'd do it. However, I don't believe they would. I believe God's grace covers them regardless.
My objection is really larger than this, though: my frustration is with how few UM's know what UM beliefs are on the Sacraments and want me to play a part in their inventing their own.
Sally
Sally,
As a UM pastor in the north (NY), the predominant religion here is Roman Catholic. So the idea that a lot of people have is getting the kid 'done'. I have collegues that will baptize a child as a kind of outreach to the parents to try to entice them into joining the church.
I start my conversations with the parents with the question, 'Why do you want your child baptized' which usually elicits a confused look. I base my decision on the parents answer and their understanding of their responsibilities. I have not as yet withheld the waters of baptism, but if I felt that the parents had no intention of following through on their vows, I would. It also would not be fair to the congregation that is pledging to assist the parents in the fullfillment of the vows (if the parents are not going to be around, how could they?)
And as a good Wesleyan, previenent grace doesn't depend on my actions(Thank God!!).
Paul in NY
As one who serves a small community ABC/UCC church in VT i have been faced with the questions of baptizing infants. I am an American Baptist and beleive in "believers" baptism, but I do infant baptisms for those who are in the UCC fellowship and ideals. Recently, I was approached by the mother of twins who is a part-time resident of town. She was wanting to have her kids "baptized" in the stream in her backyard. I asked her about what this was for her and she explained that her mither-in-law was pressing hard for the kids to be baptized. We then got into a discussion about her religious beleifs and she was quite clear that she wasn't a Christian per se, that she wasn't intending on being a part of a church, but that she wanted to make her mother-in-law feel good. Since I believe in the ordinance side of baptism, I "witheld" the waters from her. This was not about her kids, but about her. For me, if there is neither a personal profession of faith or a credible parental committment to begin preparing the child for the time when they will make a profession (confirmation) then this is nothing more than superstitious mockery of the "outward sign of an inward grace" that believers share through our covenant of baptism.
If the converts had not received the Holy Spirit and professed Jesus Christ as Lord would Peter have witheld the waters?
Just some thoughts on your postings.
hungrybird
Sally,
As it is late in the week and you may not see this, I will post it anyway. I have trouble with dedications as well, but when I was asked to do it, I could not find any prohibitions from the denomination. Indeed the hymnal or BOW mentioned dedications. Also it is UM policy, for lack of a better word, to allow the parents to decide what form and when baptism is offered. While the denomination may recommend infant, it certainly doesnt require it. As I read our teaching on baptism, it is more that we allow infant but also believers. If someone really wants for their child to make a decision, and after consultation about meaning of confirmation, I will dedicate the child, but make sure I explain that this is NOT baptism.
Apolloguy TX
Apolloguy TX
--
Wesley said that Christian parents should have their infants baptized. UMs do not do dedication. United Brethren did. We have no infant dedication in the Book of Worship. Please do not confuse our tradition any more than it is. Rev. Pam in Eugene
