[Update: I've had to reverse the outcome of the table tennis match here.]

Imagine, if you don’t see this as too disrespectful, the Father and the Son playing table tennis. At the Olympics. In the finals. Now, the Father and the Son are both equally powerful, equally skillful…equal in every way. Therefore, Neither would be able to win. Not only would Each be able to return whatever lobby the Other sent Their way, They would know what Each Other would do in every situation. A deadlock. Except…

The Father is the head of the Son (1 Cor 11) and the Son brings glory to the Father (John 14) so the Son would forfeit the game so that the Father would win.

When the Father was on the podium, He would invite the Son to stand next to Him to share His glory with Him because the Father loves the Son. (John 17:24)

This is interesting when you compare the Christ/Church relationship. The Church submits to Christ and Christ glorifies the Church (Romans 8). Also with marriage. The husband is the head of the wife, the wife submits to the husband, the husband is to love the wife and by implication, glorify her (Ephesians 5).

So, the biblical pattern is, in terms of glory, the one submits and gives glory to the other; the other loves and gives glory to the one.

Love leads to glorifcation.

[Of course, beyond this simple framework, there is the fact that the Son is given the glory of the Father to glorify the Father (John 17:1), the Church is given the glory of Christ to glorify Christ (John 17:22, 10) and husbands...give glory to their wives? In many ways yes. In our culture husbands give their name, protection, provision etc. for the benefit of their wives and their wives honour and respect and give (and are called the) glory of the husband (Prov 31:23, 1 Cor 11:7). Oi, have to think that through a little...]

A lot of time has passed since Katrina hit the US and I have felt a little guilty for not saying anything about it. Of course, I haven’t said much about anything recently, so perhaps I can relieve myself of guilt that way :). But in truth, what do I have to contribute? Every other blog on the net is commenting and I myself live so far away that anything I typed would seem a little contrived. What do I know of that type of situation?

But I was preaching at church on Father’s Day and in the days leading up to that Sunday I saw the awful devastation and thought, “I cannot preach without addressing this.” And so I did. To see what I said, go here.

There’s been a lot of comment on baptism recently, due mainly to Bethlehem Baptist (pastored by John Piper) opening up the possibility of allowing membership in their church to those who believe that biblical baptism includes sprinkling, pouring and baptising infants/children. This has been opened up for consideration because the qualifications for eldership have been tightened to include the need for elders to believe and teach believer’s baptism by immersion.

Jollyblogger, a Presbyterian pastor, has made characteristically wise and generous comments about this move.

I, on the other hand, have recently come to the conclusion that, biblically, the “how” of Christian baptism is limited to using water. This came from feeling the tension of being able to read the Biblical accounts as supporting both pouring and immersion (though on further investigation I have decided that pouring is the most likely biblical method). This tension along with the conclusion of one particular article (it’s argument leading to sprinkling as the method is interesting, but not what I value it for) lead me to the position that using water is the only requirement for Christian baptism.

I may explain my arguments in full later, but right now I want to look at some ramifications if this belief is correct. Consider this:

1. Nowhere does the Bible explicitly state how Christian baptism was performed (though the Bible does explain fairly precisely how other baptisms were performed).
2. The arguments for sprinkling, pouring or immersion are all indirect and all the indirect arguments can be read to fit into each view.
3. Nowhere does the Bible even hint that the method of Christian baptism is important (though the method of OT baptisms are explicitly laid out).
4. Therefore, any division over the method of baptism is a division based on something God chose not to specify in the Bible. Why, then, do we argue over it as something so important?

Now, before the “yes, but”’s get too loud, consider the following.

5. If the amount of effort that has gone into figuring out the exact method of baptism went into figuring out the exact method of the other protestant sacrament - communion/eucharist/the Lord’s Supper - the celebration of communion would look far different in most churches than it does today. Use wine? Why not? The Bible is clear that wine is the correct drink for communion. If you use grape juice you are not really celebrating communion. And unleavened bread should be the type of bread, otherwise it is not communion you are partaking in. And communion should be celebrated while having a shared meal. How many churches do that? Does this mean that most churches do not actually celebrate communion? No, because the Bible does not specify that all these things must be present for communion to be shared.

6. On the other hand, 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 lays out direct and explicit instructions about what to do when Christians gather together. How many churches who are so concerned about the indirect evidence of something the Bible draws no explicit attention to (i.e, the method of Christian baptism in water) pay attention to 1 Cor 12 and 14? Very, very few.

My only conclusion is that the church has been and continues to be divided over an issue that the Bible pays no attention to itself.

How are we to be baptised? I agree with the conclusion of the above article: WITH WATER! Can the disagreement over method not be considered non-essential opinion? Could it be…might it be…possibly…that divisions over this matter are, in themselves, sin?

I know they are not a new phenomenon (depending on how you define “new”) but self-described evangelicals who accept homosexuality as ok raise interesting questions.

Christians have always disagreed on how to interpret the Bible and yet were able to call each other brothers and sisters in their common conviction of some basic truths of the gospel, convictions such as the deity of Jesus, salvation through faith alone and so on.

So what do you do with someone who believes everything an evangelical believes but they do not interpret the Bible as being anti-homosexuality? They are not saying the Bible is wrong, they are saying that the Bible has been interpreted wrong. Complementarians accept people who believe women can be pastors and elders as Christian. Why not those who accept homosexuality as ok?

This is a different liberalism to that of the early 20th century. That liberalism did not believe the Bible was God’s Word, hence the distinction. What is the new distinction between liberal and conservative in this case?

My thoughts at present are that a person who becomes a Christian and continues in the belief that homosexuality is ok can be educated otherwise. Those are Christians and then decide homosexuality is ok according to the Bible…I’ve got to say I’m question their salvation. Sounds harsh, yes, but I don’t know how else to see it.

Pro-homosexual Evangelicals? I suppose if the term evangelical continues to change it might be true. Pro-homosexual Christians? No, I don’t think so.