Beliedience.

As I was working on this post, at one point my fingers unconsciously typed the non-word, "beliedience."  I decided this must be the Spirit working, proposing this as a way to talk about how what Dietrich Bonhoeffer says in The Cost of Discipleship, that "only the one who is obedient believes, only the one who believes is obedient."  Belief and obedience express each other.  

His focus is mainly on the first part of that equation.  We don't really believe in Jesus Christ unless we are obedient to his commandments.  He questions the all-too-common Protestant attitude that since we are saved by "faith alone," our actions really don't matter.  Indeed, if we focus on our actions too much, we fall into the "sin" of "works righteousness."  Jesus did it all for us, and we're just along for the ride.

But what we don't pay much attention to is the way the second part of Bonhoeffer's expression works.  If faith must be expressed in discipleship, does discipleship at the same time reflect faith?  In other words, does the fact that someone seeks to live as a follower of Jesus mean they trust in him, and if so, what as?  

It is safe to assume we would not follow someone whom we did not trust, at least in some limited way.  I mean, I trust an airline pilot or even an Uber driver to have enough sense and ability to get me to my destination.  I reveal this faith in them when I put my body into their vehicles.  But I would not trust either one to perform an emergency appendectomy, or to give me relationship advice.  Indeed, I would not trust them for much more than a recommendation for a good restaurant.

Bonhoeffer suggests we can only obey Jesus if we believe in him, that our obedience shows our belief.  I would add that what we believe about him is also revealed in the depth of our obedience.  The more of our life we give over to Jesus by our obedience, the more comprehensive, expansive, and ultimate must be what we believe about him.  If we only obey him about trivial and inconsequential things, then we believe he was a trivial and inconsequential figure.  In the same way, if we only obey him in in some circumstances, as one advisor among many, we are showing that we believe he is a wise human teacher.  Maybe even the wisest ever!  And if we don't even really obey him in very much at all but adopt him as our personal mascot or pet, whose function it is to affirm and bless everything about us, then we believe he is little more than a cartoon whom we follow superficially like a sports team or a hobby. 

But if we believe him to really be what the Nicene Creed says he is -- "Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one being with the Father, through whom all things were made" -- then we are saying we trust him with our entire life, and the life of the whole creation, and therefore we obey him in absolutely everything, in life and in death.  Trusting in him at that level would also mean trusting in his providential rule over the world. 

So the question, Is Jesus God? is not just something for theologians to argue about.  It determines how we live our lives.  What we believe about Jesus is always revealed in the way we follow him.  We may dutifully mouth the words of the Nicene Creed loudly and daily, but if there are areas of our life in which we have decided to serve other lords, authorities, and influences, if there is a boundary beyond which Jesus' word does not apply, then we cannot truthfully say we believe or fully trust in the words of the creed.  If our obedience is limited, we demonstrate that our faith is also limited.  At best it is, as we say, aspirational. 

But let's not knock aspirationality; it is the best most of us are going to do.  No one in this life follows or obeys Jesus perfectly and absolutely.  The more we obey Jesus in every decision and action of our life, the more we are confessing with our bodies that he is God.  Obedience is a journey upon which we hopefully make daily progress.

It is, as the early Church recognized, a Way.  Churches are communities of people seeking to follow, which is to say, obey, Jesus Christ ever more fully.  Thereby we witness to him as Way, Truth, and Life, the only One worthy of complete trust, in whom we believe.

+++++++

 

Why the Baptismal Formula Is Essential.

I recently attended worship at a church where I admire and respect the pastor.  On this particular Sunday, there was the Baptism of a bright and energetic boy who is being adopted by a young couple.  It was a blessed and joyful event. 

But when it came to the actual Baptism, the pastor did not use the Baptismal Formula from Matthew 28, but apparently improvised some words about the “Creator, Christ, and Holy Spirit.”

I have to say I have a big problem with this.  Are we Baptized into the Trinity according to formula Jesus gives us: "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?  Or just into whatever a particular pastor's theology is that day?

1.

We baptize people into the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, who explicitly gives us specific words to say in this regard.  We share these ritual words and actions with all Christians, going back practically to the first century.  We use his particular words and actions, and tell his story, and in so doing we become part of his community.  I can think of no other words that unite all Christians across time and place.  I mean, we say the Lord's Prayer differently, and the wording of the Creed is slightly different here and there.  And of course churches understand the Eucharist in different ways, using different versions of Jesus' Words of Institution.  But the Baptismal Formula has remained a constant across time and space. 

2.

The particular pastor's replacement language, “Creator, Christ, and Holy Spirit,” makes creation a function of only the first hypostasis of the Trinity, removing the other two hypostases from participation in God’s work of creation.  This is not the faith of the Bible (God creates by Word and Spirit in Genesis 1) or the Church.  It also also tends to undermine the relational character of the Trinity, as “Creator” and  “Christ” appear to be unrelated individuals.   

The Church affirms, on the contrary, that everything God does is done as the energizing, living community of intimate, interactive, personal relationship of Trinity.  Creation is the work of the Trinity’s overflowing divine love.  It is the basis for a panentheistic understanding of God as present with and within creation.

I understand that some view "Father" and "Son" as problematic and exclusive.  Briefly, the wording describes a specific relationship in the Godhead and should not be taken as an endorsement of patriarchy or male hegemony, of which Jesus was generally critical.  Indeed, calling God "Father" is a testimony to the failure of human fathers, just as calling Christ "Lord" was a deliberate rejection of Caesar and other men claiming to be "lords."  That the powers found a way to misinterpret this is not the fault of the language.  Anyway, the result, a modalism that introduces a division of labor into the Godhead, is worse.

3.

We Presbyterians have invested several generations in building ecumenical bridges with other branches of global Christianity.  After painstaking conversations, we all (mostly) now recognize each other’s Baptism.  This is a huge step because it means, whatever major and significant differences remain between us, we at least accept each other as followers of the same Lord and participants in the same family of faith.  This means, for instance, that if someone baptized in a Presbyterian church wishes to be married in or join, say, a Roman Catholic church, they will not need to be re-baptized.  Other churches accept Presbyterian baptism as legitimate, because we use the same baptismal formula, indicating that we worship the same God. 

If we choose not to use that formula, then in all honesty we need to inform people that, in the future, if they want to join, or sometimes be married in, another church there is a good chance they will be required to be re-baptized. 

We would also need to notify our ecumenical partners.  Making the Baptismal Formula optional endangers our various agreements with other denominations.  It could even become problematic for Presbyterians to be welcome at the Lord’s Table in some churches, and frankly even other PCUSA churches.  

I was a presbytery Stated Clerk for 18 years.  When I was asked by folks from other branches of Christianity about how Baptism is done in the PCUSA, I had to be able to reassure them that the Baptismal Formula was used. 

4.

Finally, it is our rule in the PCUSA that the baptismal formula must be used.  Our Directory for Worship, which lays out the guidelines for worship in a local church, does not have many requirements.  But it does have this one:

“Accompanied by a visible and generous use of water, the minister of the Word and Sacrament shall address each person by their Christian or given name and say: ‘[Name], I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’ (Matt. 28:19).” (W-3.0407, emphasis added.)

In other words, we are required to use the words at baptism given to us by Jesus.  We don’t have any leeway here. 

This is not just mindless keeping of a rule for its own sake.  I have always functioned with a "rules are tools," approach.  They are supposed to make mission and witness happen better.

This touches on who we are as followers of Jesus and how we relate to other followers of Jesus.  It seems to me we can't with integrity claim to be followers of Jesus if we don't at the very least use the words he gave us to use in Baptism.  We can hardly criticize other Christians' rejection of Jesus' teachings in favor of some imaginary anti-Gay, pro-capitalist, immigrant-hating, patriotic "Jesus," if we do not ourselves accept his own words here, at this most pivotal moment in the life of discipleship.  Whatever is supposedly gained by not using these words... is it worth separating ourselves from the rest of the Church of all times and places?

(Incidentally, I also know many Progressive and even radical pastors who have no trouble using the Baptismal Formula.)

So, hopefully this is not a trend.  The consequences of having the Baptismal Formula become effectively optional in the PCUSA would be dire.

+++++++