Meditation on God: Husband

*** Unusual content warning. :) ***

The other day in a class I'm taking on Christian spirituality we did a meditation in which a single word speaking of God is used as the focus of meditation. The leader suggested some possibilities such as Abba or Father, Lord, Shaddai, Shepherd, Husband or Bridegroom, Lord, and so forth. I didn't know how far I was going to get with most of them, so I decided to take a risk: husband or bridegroom. The Bible often portrays God in general and Christ in particular as husband or bridegroom. I chose it because some of the others seemed fairly impersonal. I probably should have foreseen that this would lead to some very personal reflections ...

I'm posting this in hopes that it will be a useful meditation for those of us walking the paths of our lives alone.

God as Husband

Stands with me
Cherishes me
Loves me
Is kind and tender toward me
Glad to see me
Watches over me
Listens to me
Takes away the shame of abandonment
Takes away the shame of being unloved
Defends me from unkind reports
Advocates for me with others
Wipes away my tears
Makes me beautiful
Hears my sorrows
Hears my joys
Makes me glad by his presence
Makes me look forward to the future with gladness because I will not be alone

Patristics Carnival: Call for Submission

For those of us interested in patristics (the study of the church fathers), the next Patristics Carnival will be hosted here. Send submissions / nominations to the carnival email by 09/30/2007. The Carnival is scheduled to be posted mid-week next week. Read here for guidelines and addenda. The Patristics Carnival is a worthy addition to the Christian blog carnivals and is organized by Phil Snider at hyperekperissou.

What Does Pop Spirituality Offer?

I have a number of friends who are into "spirituality". Not any specific spirituality, mind you, but more of a generic spirituality. I would not necessarily call it "New Age" because some of them have beliefs that might be considered "New Age" while others that label might not fit so cleanly (if that concept even applies to New Age spirituality). So here I speak of the popular / generic spirituality of some of the folks I know. I wonder how much it's like the generic spirituality of anyone you know?

1. Pop spirituality makes no judgments: therefore it cannot distinguish real from imaginary, true from false, right from wrong.
2. Pop spirituality will never confront you with your shortcomings: therefore it can never make you grow out of them.
3. Pop spirituality will never teach hard truths: therefore it can never make you think to your utmost.
4. Pop spirituality will never tell you there is objective reality behinds its beliefs: therefore it can never offer certain comfort in times of trouble.
5. Pop spirituality will never tell you there is a right or wrong path: therefore it can never give you guidance.
6. Pop spirituality will never call you to repent: therefore it cannot work in you to create a clean heart.
7. Pop spirituality views spirituality as a private matter: therefore it rarely builds a community where a person belongs.
8. Feminist pop spirituality has no place for men: therefore it cannot help women where their lives involve men.
9. Pop spirituality has no place for marriage: therefore it cannot help with sustaining a life-long love.
10. Pop spirituality sees humanity as the highest authority: therefore it cannot inspire us to go beyond ourselves.

---

That's other than the obvious: Jesus rose from the dead: therefore we have certainty that he speaks the truth about these things.

Proselyte Baptism and Infant Baptism in Classical Judaism

The Christian practice of baptism is a descendant of the previous Jewish practices of ritual washing. Classical Judaism established the practice of ritual washings for converts to the faith. The Talmud records an early conversation about this between the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel:

If a proselyte was converted on the eve of Passover, - Beth Shammai maintain: he performs tebillah [ritual washing] and eats his passover-offering in the evening; while Beth Hillel rule: one who separates himself from uncircumcision is like one who separated himself from a grave. (Pesachim 92a)

At the end of the passage above, the Soncino Talmud has a commentator's footnote on the purifications of one who separated himself from a grave (contact with death):

He must be be sprinkled with the water of purification on the third and seventh days after the circumcision; hence he is not yet fit in the evening. (editorial footnote to Pesachim 92a)

The first comment's inclusion in the Mishnah rather than the Gemara, along with its reference to the schools of Hillel and Shammai, suggests an early historical date for Jewish baptism of converts. The Christian practice is then the inheritor of the Jewish practice.

The Talmud also speaks of the Jewish practice of baptizing very young children, and special status is given to those who grew up in the faith, having been baptized at under 3 years of age. It stipulates

A minor proselyte is immersed by the direction of the court. (Kethuboth 11a)

The Talmud also here discusses opinions if the baptized child rejects conversion upon coming of age.
The general approach of Judaism regards conversion as a family affair, with the children being considered proselytes along with the parents and being baptized along with them. There are some differences to the Christian pedobaptist practice in that baptism was not the normal mode of entry to the covenant, but only the mode of entry for those not born into the covenant. Children born to parents who were already baptized were considered part of the covenant already.

On the matter of acting on behalf of children and securing their baptism, it was reasoned,

That it is an advantage to him and one may act for a person in his absence to his advantage? Surely we have learned this already: One may act for a person in his absence to his advantage, but one cannot act for a person in his absence to his disadvantage! (Kethuboth 11a)

In light of the pre-existing Jewish practice of infant baptism along with a proselyte household, the household baptisms recorded in the New Testament have a historical context by which they should be understood and interpreted. Household baptism, which included infant baptism, was an established practice and was continued in the New Testament. In light of the historical context of household baptism, infant baptism cannot justly be said to have no Scriptural warrant in the New Testament.

---

I am deeply indebted to Uuras Saarnivaara's Scriptural Baptism, in which he begins to develop this argument without Talmud citations, but gives enough of the text of the quotes for me to chase them down in an on-line searchable Talmud.

Proclaiming Softly: Christian Reconciliation Carnival #8 is Up

Thank you to Proclaiming Softly for a great job of hosting Christian Reconciliation Carnival #8. Due to her networking and fellowship skills, we also have some new players this month. Stop by and give them a read.

Origen and the baptism of infants

In the recent debates over pedobaptism and credobaptism, Dr. Pursiful makes brief mention of Origen's comments on the subject. In the interest of broadening the discussion, I would like to cite Origen more fully:

The church has received from the apostles the tradition to give baptism even to infants. For those who were entrusted with the divine mysteries knew that all men have the natural pollution of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit. No man is free from the defilement of sin, even if he is one day old. Since the inborn uncleanness is washed away through baptism, little children also come to be baptized. For unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (Origen, "Commentary on Romans," V. 9)

I have a question for credobaptists or for anyone who holds that pedobaptism is invalid: If the early church held infant baptism to be of apostolic origin, on what basis would you deny that it is of apostolic origin? And if it is of apostolic origin, is there any valid basis for a Christian to reject it? Here we may see different constructions of Sola Scriptura come into play. Lutherans hold to the primacy of Scriptures but are still informed by the witness of the early church, especially in cases where the early church explicitly cites the apostles' teachings not elsewhere written.

Christ, Eternal Life, and Merit

This post continues a conversation with Jeff the Roman Catholic over at Cross-Reference, who has done an exemplary job keeping the conversation peaceful.

By this stage of the conversation on Christ, faith, works, and merit, we have established a few points on which we agree, and it is probably simplest if I begin reviewing Jeff's post with an eye to the things on which we already agree:

• We agree that, in having Christ, we ourselves have changed.
• We agree that if there is no visible sign of change, there is cause to question whether we do in fact have Christ.
• We agree that followers of Christ will grow in our desire to become worthy of Christ.

For all these agreements, the disagreements are still substantial. For convenience' sake I am splitting them under two major headings here: fulfilling the requirements of the law, and merits v. rewards.

Fulfilling the requirements of the law

Of course, we are sinners, so we must repent and ask forgiveness often. -- Japhy

This is what I mean when I say we do not fulfill the requirements of the law. Anyone reading along -- or with any background in the argument -- already knows that Roman Catholics and Lutherans disagree on whether we Christians fulfill the requirements of the law. Jeff did me a kindness by stating the Roman Catholic position in his own words lest anyone suspect me of misrepresenting it.

And as for "the divine law", it is qualified by "according to the state of this life", meaning, as I show below, the avoidance of those behaviors which disqualify one from inheriting the kingdom of heaven. {And hoping I've picked out the pertinent parts below ... WF} Clearly none of us hopes to go the grave as an adulterer or a thief. The commandments of God are not burdensome: the yoke of Jesus is easy and his burden is light (cf. 1 John 5:3; Matt 11:30). ... Why all this concern with being made worthy? Because there's a whole laundry list of people who won't inherit the kingdom of heaven (idolaters, thieves, fornicators, etc.). Such behavior is not found in a life worthy of God.

There is a disconnect between what Jesus and his disciple John are saying on the one hand (see passages cited) and the idea of fulfilling the requirements of the Law by avoiding a certain laundry list of behaviors on the other. Just as a case in point, notice that the laundry list stops short of mentioning hatred and strife, which appear on some of Paul's list of "such as these shall not inherit", etc. If Rome had taken up Christ's and John's and Paul's and James' teachings on love fulfilling the requirements of the Law and covering a multitude of sins, Rome's position would be on much more solid ground. But the "avoid deadly sins" approach -- hey, am I clear, I'm not defending deadly sins here -- but that approach of simply avoiding certain major sins really cuts short the requirements of the law.

In equating "avoiding deadly sins" with "fulfilling the requirements of the Law," all the most difficult requirements are set aside, all mentions of love of God and neighbor are removed, all mentions of sins of omission are removed. "The requirements of the Law" are then reduced to a rather short laundry list of egregious sins that even conscientious atheists might hope to avoid. It is on these grounds that Lutherans on this matter consider Roman Catholics to be "antinomians" -- those who set aside the Law or are lax with the requirements of the Law. We see a move like this as using the Law to justify ourselves, even though we know that nobody is justified by the Law, but rather through the Law we become conscious of sin and are condemned. In order for the Law to have its proper force against sin and sinners, it must be allowed to do the job of condemning us to death so that our old natures may be condemned and die, with ourselves being crucified with Christ and raised to new life. In this way Lutherans see the Roman Catholic avoidance of being condemned by the Law as badly missing one of the main points of the Law: to anchor that condemnation by which we die to our old selves. Japhy, I don't know where you stand on this next part, but just speaking from experience of conversations with Roman Catholics, as a group you all are awfully skittish about acknowledging that the Law condemns us and we deserve to die; while acknowledging the idea in principle, in practice you all can hardly leave the topic quickly enough. (You share that tendency with a number of other Christian groups.) Allowing the law to condemn our sinful natures to death is a necessary part of true repentance. It is as much a mistake to gloss over that condemnation too lightly as it is to dwell on it too obsessively. The Law has a good and useful place not only in upholding the good as the Noble Fellow's Aspirations, but also in condemning the negative as a scouring pad for our hearts. And I think it is precisely the need to see yourselves as meriting eternal life that leads to that kind of self-justifying move where the law is shortlisted to something loveless and without reference to God, something that even your standard issue bitter despairing atheist can manage. ("You say you love your brother ... Who doesn't do that?") Remember the prayers of the publican and the sinner? The one who went home justified before God is the one who knows the Law condemns him and who pleads for mercy, not the one who imagines that the law justifies him, even though he credits God that he is such a good fellow and thanks God for how many merits he has. Of the two, "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner" is the better prayer. And as one modern theologian has commented, if the fellow who said "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner" is the one who went home justified, then why do we want to send the sinner back the next week with the other fellow's speech in his pocket about what a good boy he has been? Again, I'm not defending sin, but I am defending an honesty about the fact that we are all sinners, that the right grounds for justification is not shortlisting the law until we can self-justify using the law, but that the right grounds for justification is acknowledging that we are sinners and trusting God's mercy.

Trent (Session VI, Chapter XI) said: "no one should use that rash statement [...] that the observance of the commandments of God is impossible for one that is justified".

I think you already answered this in the way I would when you said

Of course, we are sinners, so we must repent and ask forgiveness often. -- Japhy

If it is true that we are sinners so we must repent and ask forgiveness often, then "the observance of the commandments of God" either has to be shortlisted to the point where other groups suspect you all of antinomianism, or it has proved impossible in practice for everyone who finds themselves at confession with something to confess. Again, our major complaints against Roman Catholicism on this point are first the mishandling of the law and second the self-justification of rerouting the road to God's approval so that it does not depend on mercy.

Merits v. Rewards
There is a kind Roman Catholic fellow that Japhy linked in regards to the conversation on merits v. rewards, posting Do we merit eternal life through our good works? Being Roman Catholic, he naturally defends the position that we do merit eternal life through our good works, and considers this not to be anti-grace on the grounds of infused grace. If any of my readers should stop by to visit Vivator, please honor his brotherly attitude. Vivator unfortunately provides a perfect example of what I've referred to as "Bible verse playoff theology" -- where he collects a set of verses that he believes support his position that eternal life is merited by good works, and then uses those passages to "defeat" a verse that he believes opposes his position. As I've posted here before, that approach generally shows that the position held is not built based on all passages of Scripture, but comes from outside and uses Scripture primarily to find support for an opinion already held. Bible verse playoff theology serves to remove part of Scripture from the playing field and is only necessary when a position is not fully Scriptural.

Vivator does not seem aware that his two dueling sets of Scriptures are discussing two separate topics: rewards on the one hand and worthiness or merit on the other. Vivator's general argument is that because God rewards us for such goodness as we have shown, therefore we were worthy of the reward and merited the reward. That actually does not follow. Before in conversations with Japhy I had mentioned the parable of the workers in the vineyard, where the precise point of the parable is that the reward we receive from God's hand far exceeds what we have merited: the reward graciously surpasses that which we are worthy of receiving and is beyond what we have earned. There is no need to play off these Scripture passages against each other or to abrogate the force of part of God's word; both sets of Scriptures stand at full force. And this is precisely where Roman Catholics and Protestants disagree on faith and works: whether the reward God gives is something we have actually merited, something of which we are actually worthy, or whether the reward is beyond our merits and worthiness to receive it and is in fact in every way a gift rather than a thing deserved. When a Roman Catholic reads Jesus' teaching about the sheep and the goats, I have often heard the argument from there go along these lines: "Works matter, God rewards us, we merited it with God's help." When a Protestant reads the sheep and the goats, our view takes account of the disproportion between the acts we have done and the reward received, and is more like this: "Christ would grant eternal life for a work of kindness so small as visiting the sick. What a gracious Judge!"

---

Let me know if you're interested in a play-by-play response to some of the passages you quoted. I wanted to stick with the overall arch of the argument, and most of your quotes were on the desirability of worthiness in a series of different contexts, against which I have no objection.