Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Epicenter 02.10.07
This coming weekend we will look at Acts chapter 16 and probably 17 as well. (We will see how many tangents our conversation takes this week!)
I enjoyed the conversation this past weekend and I hope it was profitable for those of you who were able to attend.
Our root question was again how would we update the Jerusalem Council's admonition to the early church to abstain from meat offered to idols, meet that is strangled, blood, and sexual immorality -- with the understanding that these recommendations all would have served to maintain unity in diversity. Our conversation ranged broadly from our current understanding of baptism all the way back to the Jerusalem council and right back to the question of whether higher standards of behavior should apply to Adventist leaders with many diversions in between. These are the thoughts I keep coming back to.
The discussion on Baptism may have been more related than we initially thought. Is it possible that the baptismal vow and commitment serves a function similar to the Jerusalem Council's opinion for new believers? (If you have no idea what the vows and commitment are you can read them in the Seventh-day Adventist church manual.
In other words, the Adventist church officially does not have a creed. However, the 28 fundamental beliefs (which are intended as a viscous description of the commonly held beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists rather than a concrete list of required beliefs for membership in the church) are often treated as if they were a creed. The baptismal vow and commitment then are often treated like a check list to ensure that new members are theologically sound and meet certain standards before entering Adventist fellowship.
What if, on the other hand, the baptismal vow and commitment are instead recommendations to maintain unity in diversity as new members with diverse opinions and backgrounds enter? This perspective changes my own opinion a bit.
However, my next question is this. In Acts 15:19 James said, "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God." Therefore, are there portions of the baptismal vows and commitment that could be trimmed in order to make joining our fellowship less difficult? Or, as was suggested last week should we increase the recommendations (requirements?) in order to encourage full and total commitment to Christ? (Or, anyone for making Baptism into the Body of Christ and membership in the Adventist movement two separate things?)
This leads into my final thought (for now). A theme we kept returning to is succinctly summed up in the Moravian motto "In essentials, unity; In non-essentials, diversity; In all things, love." What things are essentials? Is this a topic that would be useful to explore this coming weekend?
Maybe a better question would be, does any of this relate to Acts 16 and 17? Come this weekend and find out!
I enjoyed the conversation this past weekend and I hope it was profitable for those of you who were able to attend.
Our root question was again how would we update the Jerusalem Council's admonition to the early church to abstain from meat offered to idols, meet that is strangled, blood, and sexual immorality -- with the understanding that these recommendations all would have served to maintain unity in diversity. Our conversation ranged broadly from our current understanding of baptism all the way back to the Jerusalem council and right back to the question of whether higher standards of behavior should apply to Adventist leaders with many diversions in between. These are the thoughts I keep coming back to.
The discussion on Baptism may have been more related than we initially thought. Is it possible that the baptismal vow and commitment serves a function similar to the Jerusalem Council's opinion for new believers? (If you have no idea what the vows and commitment are you can read them in the Seventh-day Adventist church manual.
In other words, the Adventist church officially does not have a creed. However, the 28 fundamental beliefs (which are intended as a viscous description of the commonly held beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists rather than a concrete list of required beliefs for membership in the church) are often treated as if they were a creed. The baptismal vow and commitment then are often treated like a check list to ensure that new members are theologically sound and meet certain standards before entering Adventist fellowship.
What if, on the other hand, the baptismal vow and commitment are instead recommendations to maintain unity in diversity as new members with diverse opinions and backgrounds enter? This perspective changes my own opinion a bit.
However, my next question is this. In Acts 15:19 James said, "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God." Therefore, are there portions of the baptismal vows and commitment that could be trimmed in order to make joining our fellowship less difficult? Or, as was suggested last week should we increase the recommendations (requirements?) in order to encourage full and total commitment to Christ? (Or, anyone for making Baptism into the Body of Christ and membership in the Adventist movement two separate things?)
This leads into my final thought (for now). A theme we kept returning to is succinctly summed up in the Moravian motto "In essentials, unity; In non-essentials, diversity; In all things, love." What things are essentials? Is this a topic that would be useful to explore this coming weekend?
Maybe a better question would be, does any of this relate to Acts 16 and 17? Come this weekend and find out!
Comments:
<< Home
This seems too simple but what comes to my mind is; we are not joining a country club that “people” make up what makes others "worthy" to join whether it be money or heritage…... When the Holy Spirit has lead someone to the point of giving their hearts to the Lord and wanting to make a public show of that through baptism, who are we to measure them worthy or not.
# posted by 
: 7:44 PM
: 7:44 PM
Thanks for your comment Tamie. I agree.
What you are describing is similar to the way I think the early church figured out that circumcision and keeping the mosaic laws was no longer necessary. I don't find a well reasoned, rational argument for no longer keeping the Torah. Instead, their experience was that uncircumcised Gentiles who did not observe Jewish laws received the Holy Spirit. So, who were they to require circumcision and all that came along with it.
And, indeed, who are we to measure someone's preparedness for baptism when the Spirit is moving in their life.
Post a Comment
What you are describing is similar to the way I think the early church figured out that circumcision and keeping the mosaic laws was no longer necessary. I don't find a well reasoned, rational argument for no longer keeping the Torah. Instead, their experience was that uncircumcised Gentiles who did not observe Jewish laws received the Holy Spirit. So, who were they to require circumcision and all that came along with it.
And, indeed, who are we to measure someone's preparedness for baptism when the Spirit is moving in their life.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]