Waterpalooza
Greg, interesting post and question, brother. I had fun with it. I guess at the end of the day, we are limited in our symbolism by the mode we use, particularly if the practice of the visible symbol isn't accompanied with teaching that brings these other aspects into the observance.
Having said that, though, I think limited symbolism is better than elastic symbolism. Could you imagine all the possibilities with water? Some examples (we had a long elders' meeting last night, so I ask your pardon in advance):
On the whole sprinkle and cleanse the conscience aspect... wouldn't it be better to stick the candidate's head under the kitchen sink and squirt 'em with that little water hose thingie used for washing dishes?
Perhaps "baptism" could better symbolize the beating aspect of the passion. How 'bout we pummel the candidate with water balloons? Or, fill a pinata with water, hang it over the candidate's head, and let the kids in the church take a whack at it until the water gushes out.
The pouring of the Spirit sounds like it should be A LOT of water. So, we could have folks pull a rope connected to a barrel overhead filled with water that comes splashing down on the candidate. Makes a nice waterfall effect. Not sure how to stop the barrel from falling on them too.
But then there is 1 Cor. 12:13, which says "we were all given the one Spirit to drink." Clearly this is either a keg or a wine party! No water needed at all. Wait... we might need another SBC resolution on this one.
Then there is the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove descending on Jesus at His baptism. Why not train homeing pigeons to land on the candidates when they emerge from the water? (Could you imagine the church budget discussions when it was time to approve the annual expenditures on pigeon food and janitorial services?)
Since Christ baptizes with fire... well, never mind. That's too dangerous.
You know, I had a swim coach that used to flick water in our faces and not let us blink.
Maybe we should dunk, and hold them under while we preach a short sermonette, then flick water in their face while asking them to confess sins publicly, then use that barrel contraption with some really hot water (trying to incorporate the fire thing).
It would be quite a show.
Posted by: Brance | May 21, 2008 2:52:27 PM
Perhaps we should be diligent to walk the line between limitation and elasticity. Plenty of Christian doctrine requires fine balance. For example, we must maintain the balance between God's oneness and his threeness. We must also maintain the balance between the two natures of Christ. To go to far to either side is slide into heresy. I don't think the baptism question gets into heresy either way you go. My point is simply to say that balance is important. It may be the case that limiting baptism, if indeed such limitation does not embrace the full scriptural symbolism, is as problematic as allowing all sorts of unbiblical images to creep in. At attmept could be made at balance by allowing the candidate to choose which mode he or she identifies with. Those who identify with their conversion with a cleansing might choose sprinkling. Those who identify primarily with the giving of the Spirit might choose pouring. Those who want to emphasize their death with Christ might choose immersion. If Greg is right that all three may be taken as symbols associated with baptism, the church that teaches all three is making an attempt to embrace the biblical associations of baptism with cleansing, the outpouring of the Spirit, and union with Christ in his death. Balance is not bad. Limitation and excess could be.
Posted by: Matt O. | May 22, 2008 7:17:51 AM