Matthew Chapter Three
I'm a beginner at poetry, so take it easy on me. I've titled this one, Matthew Chapter Three:
Sun-streaks pierce haunted clouds while Prophet John preaches
Anticipation: the Kingdom hovers close by.
Popularity piques powerful interests, though
Rebuffed with thunder reminiscent of Sinai.
And then he appears. Gentle, yet regal. The King.
Religious leaders disappear without fanfare.
Prophet John bows in deference, pausing to worship.
Creation halts, awaiting terrible warfare.
And yet, gentleness. No violent army summoned.
No commands bellowed. Instead, a simple request.
Prophet John balks at the idea: the True King in
Submission to him! He refuses in protest.
The King issues his first warm command: Let it be…
Prophet John engulfs his King in a liquid tomb,
Holding his breath until the Life-Giver exhales.
The Spirit descends. God’s voice roars at full volume.
And yet…
The chapter is incomplete without me.
I discover myself in the riverside crowd,
Challenged with the idea of following Jesus
Underneath a sun-streaked sky filled with haunting clouds.
COMMENTS:
It's ironic that baptism was the main show in town in the religious world I grew up in, though the group that called themselves "Baptists" were seen as our main enemy. Maybe that's why John the Baptist didn't get as much airplay with us - his name was an immediate turn-off.
:-)
But over the years I've done a lot of thinking about a lot of things, and baptism has been one of those standing thought questions. This is not to say that I know much of anything about the subject; just that I've done a lot of thinking about it over time.
One of the things that I've thought about is that baptism seems to be the beginning point in the Gospels (as opposed to the end of a road to salvation). I've found that thought interesting. Baptism isn't portrayed as a culminating event, followed by figuring out what to do in worship assemblies or how to set up a church, but more of a launching point to a new way of life living in the wake of Jesus.
But this past week it has hit me that, of all the thinking I may (or may not) have done about baptism, the role of good old John the Baptist hasn't had much airtime.
Baptism makes it's appearance in the Bible with John. It wasn't portrayed as a custom beforehand: it just appears out of seemingly nowhere with John, and with little explanation - although I realized this past week that there is probably more explanation right there in Matthew chapter three than I had ever considered, mainly in terms of, as they say in the real estate game, "location, location, location."
John baptized in the Jordan River, a quite significant place in the history of Israel. It was here that the children of Israel crossed over into the Promised Land. It was where Moses stopped and where Jesus (oh, the Hebrew word was Joshua) began. I find that interesting.
In Matthew chapter two, we had seen a man named Joseph have a dream and end up in Egypt (just like in Genesis), followed by the fact that a brutal king decided to murder baby boys in an attempt to preserve his power. In both stories, God protected a baby boy as a savior to the people and led that person out of Egypt toward a Promised Land. It was at the Jordan River where a new world order would begin for Israel in Genesis, and God's people would have to "pass through" the Jordan to begin this new life with God. The same thing seems to be happening in Matthew chapter three.
I think it is also significant that Jesus passed through Jordan with the people. Although he did not need to "change his life" as the prophet, John, had been hammering the people with, he did so in concert with God's plan to save people. And when Jesus did, God's Spirit descended like a dove, reminisent of Noah and the Flood, and in effect, a new world had begun.
Sun-streaks pierce haunted clouds while Prophet John preaches
Anticipation: the Kingdom hovers close by.
Popularity piques powerful interests, though
Rebuffed with thunder reminiscent of Sinai.
And then he appears. Gentle, yet regal. The King.
Religious leaders disappear without fanfare.
Prophet John bows in deference, pausing to worship.
Creation halts, awaiting terrible warfare.
And yet, gentleness. No violent army summoned.
No commands bellowed. Instead, a simple request.
Prophet John balks at the idea: the True King in
Submission to him! He refuses in protest.
The King issues his first warm command: Let it be…
Prophet John engulfs his King in a liquid tomb,
Holding his breath until the Life-Giver exhales.
The Spirit descends. God’s voice roars at full volume.
And yet…
The chapter is incomplete without me.
I discover myself in the riverside crowd,
Challenged with the idea of following Jesus
Underneath a sun-streaked sky filled with haunting clouds.
COMMENTS:
It's ironic that baptism was the main show in town in the religious world I grew up in, though the group that called themselves "Baptists" were seen as our main enemy. Maybe that's why John the Baptist didn't get as much airplay with us - his name was an immediate turn-off.
:-)
But over the years I've done a lot of thinking about a lot of things, and baptism has been one of those standing thought questions. This is not to say that I know much of anything about the subject; just that I've done a lot of thinking about it over time.
One of the things that I've thought about is that baptism seems to be the beginning point in the Gospels (as opposed to the end of a road to salvation). I've found that thought interesting. Baptism isn't portrayed as a culminating event, followed by figuring out what to do in worship assemblies or how to set up a church, but more of a launching point to a new way of life living in the wake of Jesus.
But this past week it has hit me that, of all the thinking I may (or may not) have done about baptism, the role of good old John the Baptist hasn't had much airtime.
Baptism makes it's appearance in the Bible with John. It wasn't portrayed as a custom beforehand: it just appears out of seemingly nowhere with John, and with little explanation - although I realized this past week that there is probably more explanation right there in Matthew chapter three than I had ever considered, mainly in terms of, as they say in the real estate game, "location, location, location."
John baptized in the Jordan River, a quite significant place in the history of Israel. It was here that the children of Israel crossed over into the Promised Land. It was where Moses stopped and where Jesus (oh, the Hebrew word was Joshua) began. I find that interesting.
In Matthew chapter two, we had seen a man named Joseph have a dream and end up in Egypt (just like in Genesis), followed by the fact that a brutal king decided to murder baby boys in an attempt to preserve his power. In both stories, God protected a baby boy as a savior to the people and led that person out of Egypt toward a Promised Land. It was at the Jordan River where a new world order would begin for Israel in Genesis, and God's people would have to "pass through" the Jordan to begin this new life with God. The same thing seems to be happening in Matthew chapter three.
I think it is also significant that Jesus passed through Jordan with the people. Although he did not need to "change his life" as the prophet, John, had been hammering the people with, he did so in concert with God's plan to save people. And when Jesus did, God's Spirit descended like a dove, reminisent of Noah and the Flood, and in effect, a new world had begun.
posted by Al Sturgeon | 6:10 AM
5 Comments:
I'm interested in hearing your ideas, Cap'n...
I don't know. I think we have a pretty decent argument as to the relative importance of baptism from the New Testament, as opposed to the rest of Christendom. But our arrogance in acting like we've got everything figured out about both baptism and everything else doesn't allow it much of an audience.
I think we've come to worship Church (or our developed version of it) more than Jesus, and I think it would be a big step in the right direction to begin to see baptism as the first step in following Jesus instead of our means of becoming a part of the Church. I think that point is much more than just semantics.
Thanks, guys!
I'll just give a big churchy AMEN to Whitney's comment... :-)
And the same to El Capitan, but you ranted so much you gave me several things to say in reply...
#1: Faith/Works: My favorite viewpoint on this is C.S. Lewis' quote that said something along the lines of "arguing over faith/works is like arguing over which blade in a pair of scissors is more important." That works for me.
#2: When you talk about things you need to take care of before beginning the walk following Jesus and baptism being the last step of that process, I'd just add that I don't see a lot of items in that process (definitely not a distinct five-steps, or six according to Walter Scott who, if I remember correctly, first tried to distill salvation into a step-by-step process). I just kind of see the whole "process" (if you will) as coming to a mental point where one sees following Jesus as the way to go. This is followed by "following." In reading the Gospels, heading down to the Jordan (metaphorically) is numero uno on that path.
(Which, side note, would only lead to the longstanding debate about whether one is saved if they step out in front of a bus on the way to the Jordan River, which has to rank as one of the more ignorant debates around...)
#3: You ended by asking, Why baptism of all things? That was sort of what I was trying to get at a bit in my column when I got to John the Baptist. I think it has a lot to do with metaphoric implication: (a) Noah's flood - sin wiped clean by water with a new world on the other side (punctuated at the Jordan with the dove descent on Jesus); (b) Crossing the Jordan with Joshua (Hebrew for Jesus) - slavery behind us, Promised Land (aka Kingdom of God) before us; (c) New birth - in a sense re-entering the womb & beginning a completely new life; (d) Death/burial/resurrection - participating in Jesus's defeat of the curse.
All these, and maybe more...
I just think we do a disservice to everyone involved when we disconnect the act from its history and weaken it to be a "step" to self-preservation. It appears to be much more than even vocal proponents of the act (like CofCs) have made it to be so far.
To characterize the "hit by a bus" argument as ignorant is a compliment to the arguers. It's either ignorance or idolatry - what size of God couldn't stop a bus?
I could say a lot about baptism, some of which might actually be interesting or helpful, but I'd prefer to take a step back from the CofC bashing and bash a few others as well.
Evangelicals as a whole do not get the idea of salvation as a process. They fuss at us about our stance on baptism but their stance on the "Sinner's Prayer" is the same as ours is on baptism. That's why they say things like, "I was saved on such and such date...." It is the same problem. For them, the idea is to have a person pray the prayer and they're in. There's nothing left to do. For us, it is dunk them and they're in. Then we leave them to their own devices and don't bother trying grow them up. That would be somewhat equivalent to trying to help a baby say his/her first word and then once he/she has said, "Mommy," or "Daddy," not talking to him/her ever again.
Just a brief comment. I agree with Duane, and I would add that another thing CsofC share with the wider Evangelical world that makes the "growing" process more difficult is their radical egalitarianism. CsofC are actually more egalitarian than most Evangelical churches, I'd say, so it might actually be slightly more difficult in CsofC to follow up a baptism (an adult baptism, at least) with the rest of the process.
Post a Comment
<< Home