The Penn State Scandal

Of all the crimes a person can commit, harming a child somehow always winds up at the top of the list of most despised. Even in prisons, pedophiles usually have to be kept in a separate part of the prison for safety so that the other inmates don't harm or kill them.

Thus, it is with much shock and horror that we have watched unfold the scandal of a former assistant coach at Penn State accused and indicted on 40 counts of sex crimes against young boys.

As if this in and of itself were not bad enough - it appears several of the coaches and administrators knew about the abuse...and did nothing. While I personally believe others should be fired in addition to Paterno and President Spanier, I simply want to focus on why Joe Paterno - a beloved and respected coach for the Penn State Nittany Lions for 61 years - was summarily fired once Sandusky was arrested and indicted  by the Grand Jury. After all, according to the Grand Jury report, Paterno is not being charged with perjury like other administrators and he followed "protocol" by reporting the incident of molestation that had been reported to him by Mike McQueary to his the Athletic Director, Tim Curley. 

So why would he be fired for doing what was required legally? Why was JoePa fired for simply following basic protocol? 

I'm reminded of the movie "A Few Good Men." If you don't know the story line, two marines are accused of murder, but claim they were acting under orders. As it turns out - (sorry to spoil it if you've never seen it, but it's been out for 20 years) they were following an illegal order from their commanding officer. At the end of the movie, the two marines are exonerated of the murder charges, but are still dishonorably discharged for "conduct unbecoming a United States Marine."

The first marine demands from the other, "What did we do wrong? We did nothing wrong!" The other marine responds with, "Yeah we did. We were supposed to protect people who couldn't protect themselves. We were supposed to fight for Willy."

They did their job and legally were "not guilty" of any wrong-doing in the death of their fellow marine. But the standard of conduct for a United States Marine goes beyond what is just legally allowable.

Paterno was fired for similar reasons. Paterno was hired to be a leader. A role model. A mentor to young men. Someone who helped shape and mold young men not only into stellar football players, but into adults who would go out into the world having learned the life-lessons their beloved coach had taught them.

In this case what he taught them was - do the minimal amount required.

Is that what he was hired to teach his players? Is that the effort he tells his players they should put into their practices and into their games? Leaders lead not only by what they say, but by what they do. They lead by example. 

As a leader and mentor to athletes at the University of Penn State he had an obligation to uphold the integrity of his office and not just report the incident to his superiors, then stick his head in the sand and forget about it. He had an obligation to follow through and investigate the reports. He had a duty upon learning of the incident to do whatever was in his power to protect an innocent 10 year old from further possible molestations at the hands of one of his former coaches.

Did he do what he was LEGALLY obligated to do? Yes. Did he act in a manner that was representative of the leader and mentor he was hired to be? No.

And that is why he was fired. Because six men at the University of Penn State never picked up the phone and called the police, eight boys (and counting) had their lives irrevocably changed forever.

So now the question is... how do we as Christians respond to these issues? Of course, we are understandably morally outraged not only by the actions of Sandusky but by the inaction of the six men who had the power, knowledge, and ability to put a stop to it and chose not to. They either chose to pass the buck (as in the case of both McQueary and Paterno) or lied and failed in their legal obligations to report the incident to the proper authorities (Curley, Spanier, etc)

But as morally outraged as we are - is there a place somewhere in this mess for forgiveness?

The answer: if we're Christian... then, yes. I would like to believe Joe Paterno truly is repentant of his actions - or rather, inaction - and thus, should be forgiven. He shouldn't be given his job back - there are still consequences to actions - but yes, we can at some point forgive him. Forgiveness, however, does not negate accountability and holding a person accountable for their actions/inaction. God forgave David's sin of his affair with Bathsheba - but that didn't mean there weren't consequences.

And yes... this is the harder pill to swallow... should Sandusky show genuine remorse and repentance for his crimes against these boys, again... we should forgive him as well. It is part of what we are called as Christians to do, because Christ died for even the most heinous crimes we humans can commit against each other. It is the ultimate scandal of Christianity - that we are called at times to forgive what we would many times view as the "unforgivable." But Christ himself said, there was no sin that could not be forgiven, except to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

Forgiveness, again, however, does not mean Sandusky is not held accountable for his actions and that justice is not served on behalf of the boys who were victimized.

Thus we need to first hold in our prayers the victims of these atrocious crimes. The boys who will forever be scarred by Sandusky's actions and the inaction of six other men. We pray for healing, that somehow, someday, they are able to overcome what's been done to them. That they find the love and support in their friends, family and communities that they need to heal.

Second, we need to pray for all those who were responsible for it being allowed to continue for as long as it did, that they take responsibility for their inaction. We pray that the University of Penn State is able to begin the healing process.

And third, yes... we need pray for Mr. Sandusky, that he is at some point able to take responsibility for what he has done, face the consequences of his actions, repent of his crimes, and for God to have mercy on his soul (despite the fact that many of us may be hoping that there is a little spot in hell reserved just for him). 

We must always remember - Christ died for the world, and that includes the worst sinners among us. As a friend of mine recently put it... "If he didn't, then we're all in a lot of trouble."

The Scandal of Infant Baptism

I had a woman today call me to discuss a variety of issues she was having. It seems other pastors had driven this poor woman to despair over many things related to the Christian faith. While pastors are supposed to be preachers of the GOOD NEWS, which is supposed to cause people to NOT despair - that's an issue for another posting (when good news preachers go bad, or something like that). But what incensed me more than anything else was that she had been informed that her infant baptism "didn't work" and "didn't count" because she did not make the choice as an adult to be baptized.

Now, this has been an issue I've personally been going over anyway for other reasons - and I had been working on ways to make it not sound quite so passionate - more scholarly and less emotion tied to it. While I've been a little ticked off in the past over people telling ME my infant baptism is "null and void" because it wasn't done as an adult, I admit, I've never felt the, for lack of a better term, "burning anger" I felt today when this woman, in tears, wanted to know why her infant baptism wasn't sufficient. Why God's grace and loving promises that had been delivered to her as a child did not carry over into her adult-hood. It's one thing for people to attack me personally on this issue - I can take that. It's another for me to see someone despondent over the issue. After all - not only had she been baptized as an infant, but her parents and siblings, who had all passed on, were all baptized as infants as well. The grief she felt over now feeling as though they had all been doing something "wrong" all this time was finally the "tipping" point for me.

Truthfully - it made me want to scream. But since I have a sore throat at the moment, I decided to write instead.

As most of us in the Lutheran tradition know, infant baptism has taken its hits over the past several years... it's been called a false teaching at best, the work of the devil at worst. It's been crucified (pun intended) by those who argue baptism cannot possibly be for those who most certainly are incapable of faith (ie: infants). That baptism cannot possibly deliver the promises of Christ (ie: the forgiveness of sins) as most Lutherans claim, because it is merely a symbol - something a well-informed child or adult chooses to do out of obedience to God (though most take their time in being obedient). But save us from our sins? Deliver unto us the promises of Christ through water and the Word? Impossible.

Here's the ironic part... the same was said about Jesus... claiming he could actually forgive sins was a large part of why he was crucified. Now, one of the means through which that forgiveness is delivered unto humanity is said to not be possible. That God would surely never do something as scandalous as "force" his promises on tiny babies who are incapable of faith. Besides, the Bible never tells us that "infants" were baptized, only adults. Furthermore, many claim that our sinfulness is not a state, but rather, it is an action, a choice made by our free will - and thus, any ideas regarding "original sin" cannot possibly be true. And of course, the only way God works faith in a person is if we open ourselves up to it and allow God to work in us.

My response to that: Why is your faith in God so limited? Why have so many been led to believe that God is an impotent God unless 'asked' to do something by a reasoning, sound-minded adult? That this is the ONLY way in which God can work in a person's life and that 'believer baptism' must be an adult response to God's gracious action in our lives? Why is it so hard to believe that God's gracious action cannot be delivered in baptism - no matter what the age?

Oh, yes - I've heard all the arguments. Infants can't have faith. Infants are born innocent and aren't accountable for their sins since they don't know the difference between right and wrong yet. The book of Acts never talks specifically about infants being baptized. It's a response to hearing the gospel and believing and is a public affirmation of one's faith. It symbolizes outwardly an inward change.

Yes - I've heard them all. Yet, the believer baptism proponents opt to neglect certain parts of scripture that point us to how God regards infants, their faith, and what the purpose and point of baptism is - and nowhere - NOWHERE does it say it's a "public affirmation" (since it was sometimes done in private - ie: the Ethopian Eunuch) or that it is an "outward symbol of an inward change." Nor is it preceded by some sort of "believer's prayer" for God to work in a person's heart. (In fact, you'll find nothing about a believer's prayer anywhere in scripture, either)

But this is what many have been led to believe - and have been told that scripture does not support infant baptism. Thus many have gotten re-baptized, believing their infant baptism was of no benefit to them.

I beg to differ. And I'll start with the first of these claims - an infant's faith.

Does Scripture Teach Faith Is Impossible for Infants?
Well, I'll tell you what I have found and what I have not found. What I have found are references in scripture to infants having trust in God (aka faith) and of little children/infants "believing" in Jesus. What I have not found are any references whatsoever to a child or infant being incapable of faith.

In fact, David makes a rather bold and somewhat disturbing claim in Psalm 22:9-10. He states:

Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast. From birth I was cast on you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

Two problems with this text for most believer/adult-baptism proponents. #1 - it suggests God imposes his will and "makes" someone trust him. (Shocking idea - of course, God wouldn't have placed himself on the road to Damascus, blinded a man named Saul, and told him that he would be His witness to the Gentile world, thus imposing his will for Saul's life on him and giving Saul/Paul very little choice in the matter. That would be coercion, and God would never engage in coercing someone's will... that's just crazy talk!)

#2 - it states that David trusted God from the moment he was born. That God had always been his God from the moment he emerged from his mother's womb.

Eh. What did David know anyway? He's good for a few songs and some messianic prophecies, but really - how could he know that he had faith in God from that early age? Surely that's not really what David meant.

Well, what did Jesus think about infants and children? Were they incapable of faith? Should they be denied his gifts until they've reached an age of accountability? (Whatever that may be)

Scripture actually does talk about newborn infants and little children. In Luke 18, scripture tells us of an event where some infants (the word in Greek is "brethe", which means newborns, tiny children, infants, and babies) were being brought to Jesus so that he could pray for them. When the disciples attempted to stop them from being brought forward, Jesus got a little cranky, telling them:

"Let the little children/infants come to me, and do not stop them. For it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs."

Now, the word Jesus uses is different than the word that was used to describe the "brethe" or "infants" - he uses "paidia" which yes, can mean either "little children" or "infants." Apparently in Jesus' mind, the two words were somewhat interchangeable in this instance and he didn't see a lot of difference between the infants and little children that were being brought forward. He lumps them all under "paidia."

The same account is retold in Matthew's gospel in chapter 19 (though in this instance, "paidia" is used exclusively in Greek rather than both "paidia" and "brethe" like in the Luke text. Luke apparently liked to use synonyms a little more).

One chapter earlier, however, in Matthew 18, these "paidia" we are told "believe in" Jesus. Well, actually - to be fair, Jesus simply summons a "paidia" as an example initially, then refers to children in general as "little ones" (or literally, in Greek, "those of the least importance"), and it is these "little ones," or those of least importance, who "believe in" him.

Whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me. If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea.

OK. So, fine - infants and children might be being brought to Jesus, and they might be capable of faith even... this still does not mean we should baptize infants.

True enough. To take these passages alone are not enough of an argument to establish the legitimacy of infant baptism. After all - isn't Jesus making the argument here that children are "innocent"? That their faith is so pure that they are "untainted" by sin or doubt, that they are not yet "accountable" for their actions? The solution then to salvation is to make ourselves sin-free like we were when we were infants... right?

Are We Born Sinful? Or Do We Become Sinful As We Get Older?
Well first off, I guess the question is, where do people get the idea of an "age of accountability"? It comes from Isaiah 7:16, when the prophet is telling King Ahaz of Judah not to worry about the invading Syrian and Northern Israelite Kingdom, that God will protect Judah from these invading forces, so don't become a vassal state to the Assyrians. He says God will deliver, and tells Ahaz to pick a sign for God to perform so that he will know this is true. Ahaz refuses to pick a sign, quoting scripture, that he shouldn't put the Lord to the test (ignoring the fact that he's been ignoring Isaiah, God's prophet, which tests him anyway!). So, God picks a sign for him, saying that a child will be born of a young woman, and "before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." Hmmm... ironic that Matthew refers to this particular incident as also being a prophecy regarding what God will do through Christ - deliver His people. In Isaiah - it's deliverance from an attacking army. With Jesus - it's from sin itself. Odd that God opted to deliver despite Ahaz's lack of confidence in God's ability to do this. But, I'll come back to that whole being delivered thing a little later.

So - children are innocent and are not sinful because they don't know they are committing a sin, and therefore - require no forgiveness from God at this juncture. Right?

Well, at least one minor problem with this. Psalm 51:5-6.

"Indeed! I was sinful (or guilty) at birth, a sinner when my mother conceived me. You desire truth in the inward being; you teach me wisdom in my secret heart."

And then of course there are the passages like Genesis 8:21 (the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth) and Mark 7:21 (the human heart is where evil intentions come from.) And 1 John, "He who says he is without sin deceives himself and the truth is not in him."

Well... who's right then? Isaiah, or the writers of Genesis, Psalm 51, Mark and 1 John? Well, it's not that Isaiah is "wrong" - it's the interpretation that's gotten skewed. The point Isaiah is trying to make is about how quickly God will deliver Judah - soon. Before a child has been taught what "no" means. That there are things they are not supposed to do. The problem of course of assigning this "age of accountability" is that every child is a little different regarding how quickly they learn there are some things they just shouldn't do. However - it doesn't take a long for a child to learn what "no" actually means. It isn't a statement about a child's "innocence." In fact, it upholds the fact that children are, naturally, sinful. Isaiah upholds what the rest of scripture states - the natural inclination of the human heart is to sin.

So scripture upholds that all people - including infants - are guilty of being sinful, which means they are in need of forgiveness as much as any adult.

How Are Our Sins Forgiven?
This one should be a no-brainer for most Christians - no matter what denomination or tradition they come from. Scripture tells us that Christ's death and resurrection was for the purposes of salvation and the forgiveness of sins.

• Acts 5:31 – God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel.
• 1 Peter 2:24 – He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.
• 1 Peter 3:18 – For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.
• Hebrews 9:22 -- In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
• Colossians 1:13-14 – For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
• Ephesians 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace. 

Now, if Christ's death and resurrection have won us salvation and the forgiveness of sins, how is that all delivered to us?

Well, according to scripture, God has given us three ways in which we can know and have that forgiveness actually given to us in very real and tangible ways. You might say he delivers forgiveness and salvation in a rather "triune" way.

• Through his preached word
• Through the Lord's Supper
• Through baptism

Let's look at what the Bible says the purpose and function of each of these is.

The Preached Word

Preaching the Word of God verbally proclaims the reason behind why Christ died on the cross and was raised again - for our salvation and the forgiveness of sins. Paul states that faith comes through hearing these words preached to us. They are spoken, and God, active in His Living Word, creates faith in the person who hears that Christ died and rose for salvation and forgiveness of sins. 

Romans 10:17 - So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ. 

Hebrews 4:12 - For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Now few Christians will argue these points regarding the fact that God is active in His proclaimed Word. The problem is, many churches stop there and believe that this is the only way in which Christ is proclaimed, and the only way in which the forgiveness of sins is delivered. They will state that both baptism and communion are only mere symbols and do not deliver to us these exact same things. They are merely something we do because it's been commanded we do it.

Yet, once again, scripture tells us something different! 

The Lord's Supper
Christ claimed that eating his body and drinking his blood was for the purposes of delivering forgiveness of sins and eternal life (salvation). 

• John 6:54-56 - Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food, my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 
• Matthew 26:27-28 - Then he took the cup, gave thanks, offered it to all of them saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

I could spend a lot more time discussing the significance of ingesting the Word of God, taking Christ within ourselves like Ezekiel eating the scroll in order to internalize the Word of God that delivers unto us the forgiveness of sins and eternal life - but that is not the point of this posting. The point being - we are delivered the promises of salvation and forgiveness of sins in the holy meal.

Baptism

So now - what is it that baptism does for us and accomplishes? What's the point of being baptized? 

Most believer baptism proponents will claim that baptism is an act of obedience, nothing more, nothing less. We do it because Jesus tells his disciples to baptize all people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and therefore, it's a good idea to do it at some point once one has "come to faith." In this understanding, Baptism is reserved for those who already believe; it simply confirms their decision to serve as a disciple of Jesus.  Many who grew up in churches that practice infant baptism, when bombarded by this view, start believing that infant baptism is not scriptural, believing that their own infant baptisms are invalid and not only get re-baptized, but then choose to withhold their children from the waters of baptism until they are old enough to choose it on their own.  

Yet, this is not what scripture tells us. What scripture states about baptism is that baptism serves the following purposes: that through baptism we may receive the forgiveness of sins, that through baptism we are saved, and that baptism unites us to these promises that were achieved in Christ's death and resurrection. 

Below are but some of the scriptural references regarding the purposes of baptism:

1. Forgiveness of sins

• Acts 2:38 – Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
• Acts 22:16 – And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.

2. Salvation

• 1 Peter 3:21 – And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you-- not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
• Titus 3:4-7 – But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he 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.

3. To unite us with Christ and his promises of resurrection.

• Romans 6:3-5 – Or 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 through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.

This does not sound like something that is fundamentally merely a symbolic gesture. Christ's promises are actually coming to us and DOING something in baptism. 

In fact, this is in part the argument Jesus has with the Pharisee Nicodemus in John 3. It's actually a debate regarding baptism. Now while there were many forms of "baptisms" or ritual washings that the Jews underwent, and of course the baptism that John was performing, there was another form of baptism that occurred in Judaism. According to the Talmud, there is a ritual baptism that is performed on Gentile converts to Judaism. The term utilized for these Gentile converts who were baptized was called being a "newborn" or "born again." So the term being "born again" was not new to Judaism. Jesus didn't invent it.

Now at this time there was a rabbinical debate regarding whether or not this baptism, or this being 'born again,' actually accomplished anything other than getting wet. Was it something that was merely symbolic? Or - was there something more to it? Jesus' argument was that yes, it did accomplish something more than mere symbolism. If one wanted to enter the Kingdom of God, they had to be born of BOTH water AND spirit. Baptism is about more than just getting wet. There is a spiritual reality tied to the water baptism. This is why Jesus asks Nicodemus why he doesn't know this, because as a teacher of Israel, he should know and understand that there is a spiritual reality tied to the ritual act of water baptism. Elsewhere in the New Testament, we are told that this is the point of the water baptism, to wash one's sins away. If there were no spiritual element tied to the ritual act of water baptism, if nothing actually happened in water baptism, if the Spirit were not connected in a very real and tangible way to the water, then this would not be a necessary element of being "born again." Baptism would be incapable of washing anything spiritually-speaking. Yet Jesus says there actually IS something going on in baptism.

Furthermore, Nicodemus is undoubtedly annoyed at this answer, ("how can this be!?") because not only is Jesus stating that there is spiritual significance tied to the act of water baptism, but he's telling Nicodemus that "you ALL" must be "born again." The "you must be born again" is a plural you - meaning not just a generic "one" in reference to a Gentile convert, but that the Jews as well - you ALL - must be born again through both water and spirit. A Jew must undergo the same ritual act of cleansing just like a Gentile convert in order to be "born again" because the Spirit's work, being "born from above," which is an action of God, is tied to this act baptism - this act of Gentile conversion. Jews, as well as Gentiles, need to both be spiritually and physically reborn.

For a Jew like Nicodemus, the fact that Jesus tied the two together was not the only problem, it was an affront because Jesus was stating he was like Gentiles. Jews saw no need to be "born again" like a Gentile because they were already under the covenant of circumcision. Yet Jesus is saying simply being born "once" as a Jew isn't going to pass muster anymore. You have to be born from above spiritually, as well as physically, just like the Gentiles have to be born twice. It evens the playing field and puts Jews and Gentiles in the same need for being baptized with both water and spirit. 

So how does Nicodemus and Jesus' debate regarding being "born again" relate to the issue of baptizing infants? While Jews did not see the need to baptize their own children, because circumcision was "the sign" that brought them into covenant with God, this was not the case for the children of Gentile converts. They were unclean and tainted just like their parents, thus, in need of being cleansed through the ritual washing of baptism. So, when a Gentile convert became a Jew, his or her entire household was baptized into the Jewish faith. The general approach of Judaism regarded conversion as a family affair, with the children being considered proselytes along with the parents and being baptized along with them. Children, slaves, etc. were all baptized into the new faith. Jews saw no issue with bringing the children into the Jewish faith, acknowledging that the child later in life would be free to reject the baptism that was done on their behalf. The Rabbinical argument from the Babylonian Talmud essentially stated that to do such a thing on behalf of a child could only be for the child's advantage, not its disadvantage.

Thus, the practice of baptizing entire households when an individual came to faith in the New Testament (in particular Acts) was common practice and given Jesus had stated that there was actually something occurring in the baptism, that the Spirit was indeed linked to the act in some fashion, the Jewish Apostles would have seen nothing wrong or out of the ordinary with the practice of baptizing infants. Because it was God working through the water - not man working through it.

Additionally, in 1 Corinthians 10, Paul makes a very bold statement about the act of baptism. He likens the Christian baptism to the baptism the Israelites received when they passed through the cloud and the Red Sea. He states they were all "baptized into Moses" - meaning baptized into the covenant with God, brought into a relationship with Him. Paul goes on to state that the Israelites were in fact even "eating and drinking" the same spiritual food and drink Christians ate and drank from, because it came from the same "rock" - Christ.

The significance of Paul using this event of deliverance as an example is that it is an example Jesus himself utilizes in the Gospels to parallel what God is doing through him. The Exodus event was the great act of deliverance God performed upon the Israelite people, freeing everyone - men, women and children - from their bondage and slavery in Egypt. These people were born into this bondage and it took a great act of deliverance from God to free them - they couldn't free themselves.

The Exodus was the precursor to what God would then do for all humanity. Humanity, being born in bondage to sin, is freed by Christ who leads people through the waters of baptism like God led with a pillar of smoke and fire through the Red Sea. Children were among those delivered and "baptized" into God's covenential relationship. 

Paul's reason for bringing this up is to use the Israelites as an example. Once freed from their bondage - what did they do with their freedom? Once baptized into that relationship - how did they respond to what God had done for them? Many abused their freedom and fell into idol worship and licentious behavior. Paul is warning Christians - just because God has freed you and put you back into right relationship doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want now or that obedience to God is not still important.

This serves as an important example for us today as well. Not everyone who was baptized into God's covenant remained faithful to God. In fact, twenty-three thousand of those who had been baptized through the waters of deliverance were destroyed after the golden calf incident. Then an entire generation was forced to wander through the wilderness for the next forty years so that their children who had been carried by their parents through those waters would now be the ones to inherit the Promised Land.

Baptism may not assure that faith will ultimately be the response, but it is, as Peter calls it, an appeal to God. And indeed - there are times when a child is baptized and brought up in the faith that for reasons that are unknown, the child rejects the faith of their youth as a teen or an adult.

Far more often in today's world, however, it is not that children are brought up in the faith, it is that their parents never reinforced the faith at home, never saw faith as a priority in their children's lives - and then wonder why their child's faith died.

While there is still benefit to baptism, let's face it...if one is baptized and then never brought to church to hear the word preached and receive communion, it's like giving your child a first meal, then starving it to death. Faith must be fed and renewed constantly, just like we need to eat and be refreshed and renewed constantly. Likewise, baptism is not a one-time event. We die daily to sin and are raised daily to new life in Christ. This is the ongoing activity of baptism in Christ. The ritual itself is done once - but that is just merely the beginning of the life of faith, of being immersed for a lifetime in the Spirit and Word.

Even for those who have seemingly fallen away from or lost their faith, that is not to say that the Holy Spirit is still not at work. Part of the Holy Spirit's work is to draw people back to Christ, to draw them into repentance, because repentance is also called a "gift" from God - it is something that is granted, that we are drawn toward. For God desires that all people repent and turn back to Him.

Repentance Is A Gift Given By God
Repentance is usually the main argument and sticking point for the believer/adult baptism proponents. After all, Peter calls out to the people who hear his first sermon on the day of Pentecost, "Repent and be baptized!" (Repentance meaning to turn toward God) We usually think repentance is something that we do all on our own, that we turn to God of "our own free will" that God is not part of that drawing and turning us back to Him when we have strayed and wandered. Yet scripture tells us that repentance is in fact something God is very much involved in and responsible for.

• Acts 5:31 – God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel.
• Acts 11:18 – When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, "Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life."
• 2 Timothy 2:25 – Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth…

God gives and grants repentance to people. He not only allows it to happen, but he gives it as a gift. What we do no hear being said, however, is that people "opened their hearts" - as in opening their own hearts - to God and prayed for Christ to come and enter into it. Not once do we hear the Apostles ever ask the question, "have you received Christ in your heart as your personal Lord and Savior?" What IS found in the Bible, however, is God opening people's hearts for them so that they may receive his Word and Spirit:

Acts 16:14 - The Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul

This is the fundamental crux of the issue when it comes to the believer/adult baptism vs. infant baptism argument... who is at work? God, or man? Is baptism a work of God, or is baptism a work of man that only has personal significance? That can only be received by someone who is consciously accepting the act of baptism?

Part of the reason many people have become such proponents of the "believer's baptism" or "adult baptism" is because they do not know the source of their own faith. They believe they came to it on their own. That it was their own decision and choice and "willingness" to be open to God's Word that they came to faith. This should not surprise us, for as Jesus says in John 3, "The spirit/wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." We recognize faith when we see it, we know faith when we hear it... but our problem, like Nicodemus' problem, is he didn't know where it came from. It comes not from inside us, but "from above." And it's not predictable. There's no rote methodology to how one is drawn to faith by God - whether from infancy or later in life. It goes wherever it chooses to whomever it chooses.

To acknowledge something like baptism and faith are not works of man, are not things that we come to of our own "free will," would mean acknowledging we are not in control - even over the workings of our own hearts. That God can do things to us, act upon us, even change and open our hearts - without us "willing" Him to do it. It is acknowledging - we are the creature, he is the Creator. That he is truly the potter and we are the clay being shaped and formed according to His will. It is acknowledging that Jesus actually meant what he said when he said "no one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me," (John 6:44); "no one can come to me unless it is granted by the father," (John 6:65); and "all that the Father gives to me will come to me." Or that Paul meant it when he said, "It has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him," (Philippians 1:29) and "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith - and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." Grace and faith are God's gifts given to us by God and his action.

And that is a fundamental problem that exists within the communities that reject infant baptism - an unwillingness to acknowledge God is in control and that things like faith and salvation are ultimately the realm of God's work, not our work. Because we want it to be our work. We want to feel as though it's up to us to "give" God permission to do what He does. That we have to pray something like the "believer's prayer" to ask God into our hearts. Yet, not only is this "believer's prayer" never in scripture, the exact opposite is shown to be true throughout the Bible. Moses did not send himself to Egypt - God called Him and appointed Him to it, despite all of Moses' objections to the task. Jonah attempted to run away - God found him and brought him back. Saul of Tarsus was on his way to persecute more Christians when the resurrected Christ blinded him and set him on a new path. David did not choose to be king - God appointed him to that honor. The list goes on and on of the people who God elected to do his will; and even of cleaning up after their mistakes when the human "free will" frustrates God's will.

Ultimately the main problem is we forget that we are children. We are God's children. God Himself refers to us in this way. We may look like "adults," but we are still children in his sight. Now I don't know about you, but I don't know many parents who allow their children to just do whatever they please. Yet - we expect God to not be a loving parent - to not instruct us, teach us, care for us, and include us in His family unless we "will" for Him to do so. Unless we, the children, invite the parent to be a parent. Logic would dictate - this is quite backwards. We are parents to our children, whether they like it and want it or not.

Forced Hearing - But Not Forced Baptism?
Now, as parents, even the believer/adult baptism proponents agree that as a parent, it is their duty to rip away their child's "choice" and decision regarding whether or not they go to church and hear the Word of God being spoken, because how are they to learn unless they are taught? How are they to come to faith if they are not exposed to the teachings of the church? So even the believer/adult baptism proponents know their child's will is bound by their parental duties.

But if we can conclude that baptism, preaching, and communion all deliver the gifts of Christ Jesus to us, why do one, but not the others? If you believe preaching is able to open one's heart and that the Spirit is active in God's living Word that is delivered through a preacher, and the person who is hearing those words is a passive participant (you don't actually do anything while being preached at except sit in a chair or a pew, or whatever, while being bombarded with words), why would the act of being baptized as a child be so aggregious? You "force" your child to sit in church on Sunday and hear the word being preached, to learn about God in Sunday school, and find nothing wrong with this because it is your duty as a Christian parent to make sure your child has been exposed to the Word of God so that faith might develop within them.

But when it comes to baptism, you're not willing to let the Spirit work on your child through the water and Word as well? This seems like a lack of confidence in God's abilities to create faith in the human heart through any method but one. Do we not believe Jesus when he tells us "with God all things are possible"? (Matthew 19:26)

Was it not Peter cited earlier who said that we baptize as an appeal to God for a clear conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ? You're willing to make that appeal on your own behalf, but not willing to make that appeal on your child's behalf? Thank goodness, as children of God, God did not take the same attitude.

In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God. (Romans 8:26-27)

Other Functions of Baptism
Now, I am not denying there are not other uses and functions for baptism. Scripture itself points us to how baptism is used in a variety of other functions, such as bringing us together in Christian community and for use in a life of Christian discipleship.

Christian Community
No one would deny that children are, or at least should be, an integral part to Christian community. For Paul states, "There is one body and one Spirit-- just as you were called to one hope when you were called--  one Lord, one faith, one baptism;  one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”  (Ephesians 4:4-6) To not baptize our children into the "one baptism," however, is essentially telling your child - "you're not part of the community yet. You are not yet a member in the body of Christ." Yet, as shown earlier with Jesus' attitude toward the little children, he rebuked his disciples for attempting to stop them from being part of what he offered. To not baptize them into the body of Christ is, as my friend Pr. Robert Myallis pointed out, "to exclude them intentionally from the body of Christ."

Pr. Myallis went on to state, "When Peter encounters the believing Gentiles at Cornelius' house on in the book of Acts, he is overwhelmed by their Spiritual gifts and declares they must be baptized (10:47). I imagine that if I went to a church that did not baptize children, as I witnessed the faith [and spiritual gifts] of children time and time again, I would declare with Peter, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized?”"

In fact, Jesus stated that if we hindered children from being brought to Christ, if we caused one of those children to stumble in their faith, if we kept them from His promises of new life - we, as adults, would be held responsible for that. I think the stern warning Jesus gives to adults about having millstones wrapped around our necks and dropped into the sea has not been taken seriously enough by parents and other adults in the faith community. Jesus is saying: parents and adults have responsibilities for the faith lives of their children. And if we are the ones who stand in the way of our child's faith life - if we are the ones who have become the stumbling block and stand in the way of Christ being delivered unto our children in every way possible - should we not take Jesus' warnings to heart?

That should be reason enough to desire your child be brought into the body of Christ as soon and as quickly as possible.

Christian Discipleship
There is no argument on the part of infant baptism proponents that a life of discipleship is one of the intents and purposes of baptism. Baptism is not the end of one's faith life, or even the middle - but the beginning. One's walk with Christ begins the moment they are baptized into his body.

Jesus himself was baptized so that he could "fulfill all righteousness" and it marked the beginning of his public ministry. It was the start of ushering in a new way of life and God's new action in the world.

The problem is not with the fact that the Bible outlines baptism as part of Christian discipleship, but that people have latched on to it as the ONLY purpose for baptism and thus should be reserved only for those with a "mature" faith; believing that real sin, real repentance and real discipleship begin in the teenage years or even later in adulthood.

Yet scripture, as has been outlined earlier, has taught us this is false. The call to repent and the call to follow Jesus, so closely connected with baptism, comes to us at every age. When we do not baptize children, we teaching them that their sin is not an inherent condition - which the Bible states it is. Moreover, when we do not baptize our children, we're suggesting a lack of faith on our part in God's ability to work in their lives.

Thus, we should baptize our children with a sure and bold confidence in the ability for God to make disciples of all nations and people - including our children. As His disciples we are called to not fail in bringing our children to be baptized, hear his word, and eat his supper. After all - Jesus stated go and baptize all people/nations - not go and wait until the people have made an informed decision and chewed on it for a while to baptize them. Go, do as Christ commanded, and let us leave it up to God to work His Spirit in their hearts. Therefore if a child stumbles in their faith - let it not be because we have placed the barriers before them.

Sadly - baptism has not been properly taught in most churches for at least the past fifty years. For many churches that still practice infant baptism, it's utilized as the "catch-all" and "just in case" far too often, not by parents who fully intend to keep their child fed and nourished with God's Holy Word. This does not mean God cannot still draw those children to Himself later in life - but it does mean more and more people see infant baptism as ineffective and, like Nicodemus, a ritual that does nothing more than get them wet. Christian discipleship has not been taken seriously enough by the parents - and thus, the children now suffer. We have caused them to stumble.

So What If I Haven't Been Baptized or Have Not Baptized My Children?
Then I would ask - what are you waiting for? Like the Ethiopian eunuch who realized there was nothing barring him from inclusion into the family of God anymore (Jewish circumcision obviously was not something a Eunuch could take advantage of), there is nothing barring anyone - age, gender, race, ethnicity, etc. - from being baptized into the body of Christ.

However, if you are afraid that somehow by NOT getting baptized and you die tomorrow, or not getting your child baptized and something happens to them that God won't forgive you or them, that has missed the point. If that were the case, then baptism becomes just another "law" that we have to "do." Baptism is not a law. It is the opposite of that - it is a means of grace through which God comes to us. And baptism is but ONE of the means through which his forgiveness is delivered. Like the thief on the cross who was never baptized, God has mercy on whom He will have mercy and faith and faith alone is what justifies us.

Baptism is, however, a gracious gift God has given to us. A tangible way in which we are able to grasp hold of the promises of Christ and have a clear conscience when we are assaulted and confronted with our sinfulness. We are driven to repentance daily and reminded that we ARE children of God. We have been baptized into his promises of forgiveness and eternal life, and nothing can separate us from those promises.

My God, My God... Why Have You Forsaken Me?

Last Wednesday was Ash Wednesday - the beginning of Lent. We had ashes smeared on our foreheads to remind us that we are dust... and to dust we shall return. A reminder that our precious moments in this world are numbered. Lent is a time to pray, to reflect, and if some adopt the original discipline - it also involves fasting. It's a time of self-denial. A time to remember what God has done for us on the cross.

Hearing those words... and actually living into those words, however, are sometimes very different things.

Friday morning we awoke to news of a horrific tragedy. An 8.9 magnitude earthquake that shook the foundations of the world's third largest economic country, followed thirty minutes later by a tsunami that swept inland for 6 miles, destroying everything - and everyone - in its path. The world watched in horror as the surging waters literally wiped out entire towns and villages, sweeping away not only homes and vehicles - but people and animals.

In a strange and perhaps morbid way - what has happened is truly the essence of Lent - the epitome of human suffering, of having everything taken and ripped away from you. Of actually facing death. We may do some symbolic gestures as a spiritual discipline. The Japanese, however, are experiencing it literally.

I think the truly humbling aspect to all this is the very blatant reminder - we are NOT in control, no matter what we may think. Since the beginning of recorded history, humanity has been attempting to control its environment. Attempting to control the world around us. Earthquakes by themselves are frightening enough - but the Japanese had worked diligently in their attempts to outsmart mother nature by having very strict building codes that would sustain a massive earthquake. And indeed - it seemed many of the structures initially survived the 8.9 trembler.

But the tsunami... humanity has yet to figure out how to stop a force of nature that is that strong, that sudden, and that destructive. All the earthquake-resistant structures in the world can't stand up to a wall of rapidly moving water.

And now - to make matters worse - the nuclear plants that were built in this area are exploding and releasing dangerous radioactive particles into the atmosphere. They now face a potential meltdown that would rival the Chernobyl disaster.

It all sounds like a really bad made-for-tv disaster flick on the SyFy channel... only this is reality. This is really happening. People are really dying - there is no heroic last ditch miracle like in the movies. This is the real world - and not in a fabricated MTV sort of way.

As we watch the destruction and the attempts to bring humanitarian aid to this part of the Pacific Rim - I can't help but feel a sense of overwhelming helplessness. Sure - I donate my money to the ELCA Disaster Relief Fund so those trained to actually respond to such disasters have the supplies they need. But let's face it - most of us feel better if we're actually physically DOING something to help. And for most of us - physically doing something is a problem of logistics - not to mention the fact that no doubt, like in the Haiti earthquake just over a year ago, too many volunteers can actually hamper relief efforts.

So we sit and we watch in horror - our hearts breaking for the lives that have been lost and destroyed. And it causes many to ask - as most disasters usually do - where is God in this? What hand does He have to play? Is he punishing the people of Japan for being greedy as the Governor of Tokyo recently suggested? Is He just sitting idly by watching this all unfold as part of some "grand plan" to bring about the end of the world? Is God indifferent to the suffering? The death? The destruction? Is God just sitting back being amused at our attempts to control the uncontrollable? Or... worse yet... has God taken a permanent vacation and left us to fend for ourselves?

I recently was sent a video of a young woman who claimed she had started praying on Ash Wednesday for God to reveal to the atheists of the world that there was a God - and to show them that God loved them. She interpreted the earthquake and tsunami as a sign that her prayer had been answered. That God had grabbed the predominately heathen people of Japan, shaken them so as to say, "I'm here, don't you see?" Apparently the resulting tsunami was just another added little greeting card from the Almighty. "See how much I love you? Here comes a devastating earthquake and tsunami... now you'll worship me, no doubt."

Indeed - many are pointing to scripture - Japan, one of the great economic greats - represents the fall of Babylon - much like the fall of the World Trade Center Towers represented the same thing almost 10 years ago. Surely, people claim, Jesus will come soon now - since nation is rising up against nation, and there are wars and rumors of wars, and earthquakes in many places, etc. etc. The Biblical proof-texting regarding end-of-the-world scenarios at the hands of an angry and wrathful God are flooding the cyberspace bandwidths with theories and ideas about how God is punishing the world for not worshiping him. And most will point to the Book of Revelation to confirm their theories.

The irony (or should I say tragedy?) of this interpretation by many Christians is that the Book of Revelation actually points out that disasters and terrors do NOT cause people to turn to God in worship - but rather, cause people to curse His name. "And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible." (Rev. 16:21) And the disasters do nothing to alter how they worship or behave.

The rest of mankind who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood—idols that cannot see or hear or walk. Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts. -Rev. 9:20-21

Revelation acknowledges - disaster is not how God gets people to turn to Him. Revelation 10 & 11 point out that God's judgment on humanity is not a full on assault, but rather it is in fact muted. Before the seventh trumpet can blast - when the seven thunders proclaim their judgment... John is told not to write the judgment down. God stops it. There has to be a different way. Disaster and affliction isn't working. So instead, John is given a scroll to eat that tastes sweet, but makes his stomach turn sour. It's reminiscent of Ezekiel eating the scroll - it's how the Word of God is internalized. So as John takes the Word of God within him, it is sweet - but also bitter because in order for God's purposes to be fulfilled - more of the faithful will have to fall at the hands of the wicked. John is told to once again prophesy to the nations, to proclaim the gospel once again. And we see a vision of the two witnesses, who embody the characteristics of the prophets of old, being killed and after three days being raised back to life.

When the people witness this feat - when they encounter the good news of the resurrection, that is when they give their praise to God. Yes, there's an earthquake midway through chapter 11 - but the earthquake is muted. Only 7000 are killed - a reversal from Elijah's day when only 7000 faithful remained.

And then comes the clincher... when the seventh trumpet finally sounds... rather than disaster as one would expect, we find the angel declaring: "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and ever." (Rev. 11:15) When people encounter the Good News, they encounter the Kingdom of our Lord on earth.

So what can we say about God? Are his purposes ultimately destructive? Is God out to get us?

Contrary to popular opinion... not according to Revelation. According to Revelation - God is looking to heal the nations, not destroy them. (Rev. 22:2)

So if God is not using the tsunami and earthquake to grab the world's attention, how is he doing it? And what, then, is with these horrific disasters?

Revelation states that the way God has made himself known is through the lamb who was slain. The lamb who ransoms us, heals us and nourishes us. The lamb who washes the faithful clean by his own blood - not the blood of others. By the lamb entering into the battle of Armageddon armed only with the sword of His mouth and wears a robe dipped in his own blood. It is the sword of His mouth - His word - that overcomes and triumphs in the battle of armageddon - not missiles, bombs, literal swords, or any other form of warfare.

While this event is indeed a horrific reminder to us about how fleeting life can be, how quickly the structures of our world can fall down around us and be removed or destroyed - Christians are faced with a unique opportunity in the midst of this destruction. Rather than sitting back and proclaiming God's judgment upon the godless, now is the time for Christians to be focusing on how the Lamb who was slain can enter into this situation. How the Word of God who seeks to heal the nations of the world by promising to wipe away every tear, to destroy death and hades, can - and does - enter into human suffering. For us to be the hands and feet of Christ to the Japanese people - offering food, water, shelter and clothing. To be with them in their grief. To enter into their sorrow and feel their pain so that we might provide a comfort that can only come from the gracious arms of God.

This is what Ash Wednesday and Lent are all about. The beginning of our reflection on what God did in and through the person of Jesus Christ. God entering into the human experience. God coming down and suffering along with us. Not magically whisking us away from suffering - but entering into the death and the destruction that we face on an all-too-regular basis. Experiencing for himself what we feel during these times - that God is not there. God is not present. God is not listening. "My God, My God... Why have your forsaken me?!" These are not empty words. These are cries of anguish from the lamb of God... knowing what it feels like to be separated from God. To feel as though God is not listening and does not see or hear his pain.

It's what we - and especially the Japanese people right now - undoubtedly feel in the midst of this tragedy. God is absent. Or at the very least - cruel and punishing.

But my faith goes in a different direction than the angry and vengeful God hell-bent on destroying the godless. Instead - I believe God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son to walk with us in our times of distress. Its not "God so loved the world he sent an earthquake and tsunami to get people's attention," but rather, its God so loved the world that He sent His Son to live and dwell among us, and to die an excruciating death for us.

Earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes... these are all natural disasters that are a part of our fallen world. The earth itself is in as much need of redemption as we are. "We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." (Romans 8:22) 

So if I could ever have the chance to speak to the woman who prayed that God would reveal his love for the atheists - I would tell her that He did that already, through the blood of the lamb of God who was slain. His love for us has been revealed in Jesus Christ - not earthquakes and floods.

Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. - 1 Kings 19:11-12

The Rapture Ruse

Recently, billboards in Omaha have gone up claiming "The Rapture is Near!" Not only is it near, but apparently, a date has been selected... May 21, 2011. (Dang... and I was so looking forward to Nebraska joining the Big 10!) A few months later, on Oct. 21, the world is apparently set to come to it's crashing and violent conclusion. Awesome. I suppose it would be silly of me to point out Jesus' words, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matthew 24:36) I know, details, details.

Like most American Christians, I grew up believing in the "rapture" - believing that at any moment, "zap!" my family and friends would disappear and I would be... left behind. It probably didn't help that at the age of about 11 or 12, my mother (unwittingly) took me to the local Presbyterian church to watch a series of movies called "A Thief in the Night," "A Distant Thunder," and "Image of the Beast." These movies warned that while they were fiction - the prophecies they were based on were not fiction and to watch and be aware so that we might avoid the scenes that were about to unfold in the film.

The movies instilled so much fear in me, that, like one of the girl's in the movie, I once thought I had been "left behind" when I got up one evening and went downstairs, only to discover the TV and lights on - but no parents sitting in their chairs. I began screaming (only to discover they were sitting on the deck enjoying the pleasant evening). Of course, everyone told me, as long as I believed, I would be fine - there would be nothing to fear. But the girl in the movie, Patty... she was a Christian, and she'd been left behind. Perhaps my faith wasn't a strong enough faith. The good Lord knew I was far from a perfect child. Surely if anyone deserved to be "left behind" to have their head cut off by "Brother Christopher" - it would be me.

Looking back on those movies now, they of course seem hokey and utterly unrealistic. But it was the late 70's and early 80's. Things didn't seem so hokey back then. And I was 12.

I know my story is hardly a unique one (and coincidentally - my mother has since regretted ever taking me to see those films, but a neighbor had told her we needed to see them, because "it was what was going to happen!"). But it's one that has led me on a journey that has ended not with fear of the rapture - but rather, with love for the lamb who was slain. The Book of Revelation no longer terrifies me as it once did. Disturbs me - yes. But then, it was designed to disturb us and shake us out of our complacency.

What it was NOT meant to do was to make people think that God was going "rapture" all the Christians out of the world and abandon it for the next 7 years while the Anti-Christ ran amok and plague after plague afflicted those who had been "left behind."

The sad part is, most people think that when they read books or watch movies like "Left Behind," they're getting a blow-by-blow re-enactment of the book of Revelation. And as long as these books explain it - why read it for themselves. Unfortunately, what few realize is that Left Behind and books like it that follow "premillennial dispensationalism" are not actually telling you the story of Revelation. They're following a "system" that has been developed by taking various parts of scripture, and plugging them into a "script" regarding how the end-times will unfold.

When I was 28 and reading one of the "Left Behind" books, (I think I got as far as book 8, "The Mark") - something just suddenly started nagging at me, telling me to go and re-read Revelation for myself. So I did. And I read it again. And again. And I still did not find what I was looking for.

I never found "the rapture." The only place in Revelation that even remotely passed for "the rapture" was in Revelation 11, where the two witnesses are killed and then raised from the dead, and like Christ, then ascend to heaven. However, that's not the way the rapture was ever explained to me. According to rapture proponents you don't have to die first before being called up to heaven. So where did this idea of the rapture come from?

To find the so-called "rapture" one must go outside Revelation, to scripture references like Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4.

"But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left. Keep awake therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. But understand this: if the owner of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour. (Matt. 24:36-44)

For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever.  (1 Thessalonians 4:16)

When plopped into the "system" that had been developed and told that they are speaking of the rapture - sure - you might buy into it. The problem? That's not what these passages are talking about if read in their full context. Or in the case of the 1 Thessalonians text, if you just read it closely there are huge flaws with their idea. 

In the Matthew text, what Left Behinders do not realize is that in Jesus' day - to be "taken" or "swept away" was not a good thing. First, to be "taken" would bring up reminders of how people just 'disappeared' when the Roman army would come and take them away (similar to how people just 'disappeared' in Nazi Germany when the Gestapo came calling). They were being taken to be imprisoned or executed. Second, the people who were "swept away" and "taken" were those who were taken by the flood and being taken in judgment.

As for the 1 Thessalonians text - well one just has to actually read it in order to see the problems inherent in applying it as a proof-text for the rapture. Paul states: "The dead in Christ will rise first." The resurrection precedes the "rapture" of being caught in the air. And when put back into the context of the rest of the letter, Paul is trying to give edification to those who have been worried about those who have died prior to Christ's coming. Paul is saying, "Don't worry - the dead will rise first and get to see Jesus even before you do!" Additionally, the rapture "system" states there will be 7 years of tribulation following this rapture.

Yet, such an idea is foreign to Paul and absent from any of his writings. Instead of warning about there being a time of increased tumultuousness in the lives of believers, Paul warns that people need to be wary of being lulled into a sense of complacency, stating in 1 Thessalonians 5:1-5:

"Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness."

Paul here is speaking for people to remain alert and awake, to not fall asleep in their faith, to not be lulled into thinking that peace and security can come through any other means other than Christ. Especially given they lived in the midst of the Roman Empire, where peace and security was offered to all those under Roman rule... at a very violent price. His warning here is for Christians not to become too complacent under the comforts offered by the Roman Empire, for Christ may return at any moment.

Revelation also speaks to a similar audience - though in John's case, the Christians he spoke to were a diverse group of seven different communities facing a variety of problems: persecution, complacency and assimilation. If we turn our attention to those seven churches and the book of Revelation for a moment, we will see that much like Paul, John is offering up both a warning and a promise to these communities.

Most Left Behind/Dispensationalist proponents like to skip the first five chapters of Revelation, jumping straight into chapter six and the four horsemen, but the first five chapters lay down the groundwork for what Revelation is all about. It identifies for us the problems the churches were facing, and when we understand their challenges, we understand more readily how Revelation would have been understood by the people it was originally written to.

About the only part of the first five chapters that Left Behind/Dispensiationalists like to use is in chapter three, where the church in Philadelphia is being addressed and told that it will be spared the coming tribulation. In defiance of their usual "literal" reading, they choose to view the promises made to the church in Philadelphia as describing the "future" church that will be raptured, not the church that was present in John's day and facing persecution, having held fast to the word of God despite the affliction that they had come under.

Yet, apparently, no such luck for the church in Smyrna. Another faithful church that stayed true to the word of God, but they were going to come under the sway of these persecutions and would not be protected like the church in Philadelphia. Left Behinders conveniently ignore the plight of the church in Smyrna and don't apply the same futuristic promise to this congregation.

The other churches John was writing to faced problems other than persecution. They were struggling to figure out how much compromise was too much compromise in the midst of their very pagan culture. How separate and diverse did they need to keep themselves? What practices were abhorrent to God and which weren't? Many times, the answers to those questions had serious economic and social ramifications. For instance, in Thyatira, if you wanted to be a successful merchant you had to join the merchant's trade guild. Unfortunately for Christians, one of the requirements of membership within the guild was that you had to sacrifice to and worship the pagan gods of Rome. By not doing so denied Christians access to the trade guild, and thus made buying and selling wares extremely difficult unless they compromised their beliefs.

Ultimately, the idea of Christians being "raptured" so that they can escape persecution or a coming time of "tribulation" is extremely Amero-centric. All around the world, Christians are being persecuted in larger numbers than any other time in history. 500 million people around the world suffer from poverty and famine. If anything, we should be wary of the "coming wrath," given the luxury and prosperity that has been afforded to us, many times at the expense of our poorer and less fortunate neighbor. We should perhaps take heed of the warnings sent to the five other churches in the first three chapters of Revelation and discover where we are guilty. Most of us can see American Christians as being represented by the Laodicean church - we are lukewarm - we are neither hot and soothing/healing nor are we cold, vibrant and refreshing. Or like Ephesus, who has forgotten how to reach out in love to their neighbors. They may have held fast to the teachings of scripture and not allowed for heresy - but they forgot to actually put the words of scripture into action. They no longer loved as they once did. Complacency seems to have been the problem of both these churches.

The people of Pergamum were guilty of compromise and assimilation. Unlike the church in Ephesus, they put their faith into practice, but allowed for heretical teachings to stand. What little we know of the Nicolaitians from Hippolytus of Rome, the Nicolatians were known for engaging in excessive indulgences. Can't imagine that being a problem among American Christians. Ireneaus believed they also ate food sacrificed to idols and practiced polygamy.

Sardis on the other hand had the reputation for "being alive" - of being a vibrant community of Christians. Except - there was a problem. Whatever they were doing was apparently half-hearted and lacking in sincerity. Whatever good deeds they were doing seemed to be in the absence of a vibrant faith life.

All these problems and issues of complacency and compromise are issues modern day American Christians can still relate to, and are still guilty of.

In our glee and joy at the prospect of being "raptured" away, never having to suffer, never having to face what millions of Christians across the globe already face, we deny the power of the gospel and deny the power of the incarnate Christ. In fact, the rapture denies one of Christ's prayers for his followers:

"I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from the evil one." - John 17:15

Jesus knew during this prayer for his followers what hardships and problems were to come, yet his desire was not for his followers to be plucked out of the world, but rather, to remain in it and continue to be faithful witnesses to His gospel, despite the trials and tribulations that would come upon them.

While I could go on and on about all the problems inherent in this end-times "script" that Dispensationalists have laid out, that would take far more time/space than this blog would allow for.

Rather than focusing on whether or not Christians get to escape a coming God-wrought calamity, we would be better-served to instead live out our faith in such a way that like the Church in Philadelphia & Smyrna - God can find no fault with us. To love and reach out to our neighbor. To strive for peace in places of conflict. To offer healing where there is brokenness. To offer life in the midst of death.

Revelation is, and always has been, a book that has asked the question: who do you belong to? The lamb who was slain in order to set us free, or the beastly systems of the world that seek to oppress and distract from God? In both John’s day and today, the distinction between the two is not always clear. We need scripture, like Revelation, to open our eyes to the differences so we can clearly discern who it is that we truly belong to. It was never intended to be a jigsaw puzzle.

For a more in depth study of the problems of this dispensationalist system, join me Wednesday evenings at 6:15 pm at First Lutheran starting Jan. 12, 2011.

For further reading:
The Purpose of Prophecy    The Imagery of Revelation    The Temple of Revelation    How "All Israel" Will Be Saved

Craig R. Koester, Revelation and the End of All Things (Grand Rapids: Eerdman's, 2001)
Barbara Rossing, The Rapture Exposed: The Message of Hope in the Book of Revelation (New York: Basic Books, 2004)