Water Baptism by any other means besides Immersion?

Water Baptism by Immersion

Water Baptism is something practiced by Christians to symbolise the believer's commitment and union with Christ. It is not something to be taken lightly. In fact, some converts seem to consider this as the turning point of a person's life more so than they do the act of accepting Christ into their hearts. In addition, some non-Christian parents I know think it's ok for their kids to attend church and be a Christian, but put up a tremendous fuss when they want to be baptised. (Mine included! So this is based on experience and not some random thought! Hehe).

Anyway, that was just a thought. Here's the main issue of this post: I know and believe in Baptism by Immersion to be not just popular, but also the most adequate method in symbolising the meaning of baptism. (By the way, I'm assuming you already know the symbolism of Baptism. But just in case, it symbolises the death - through immersion, and resurrection - through emergence, of Christ and our union with Him). It (immersion) also appears to be the method that was used in the New Testament. It was indicated so in the case of Jesus in John 3:23 and Mark 1:10, as well as in the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip (Acts 8:38-39). So here's the big question: Just because it was done in the OT, does that mean we have to do it now? Can we use any other methods or modes of baptism? Should we allow for modes to be used?

Emergence from the water symbolises a resurrection into a new life without sin.

To be honest, I don't know of many other forms of baptism. I do know of the Sprinkling of water over the believer, and possibly also the pouring of water over one's head. But frankly speaking, it doesn't quite do justice to the symbolism of Baptism, does it? Therefore, in my opinion, no, there shouldn't be any other methods allowed other than immersion. But the next issue is this, what of those who are terribly terribly sick and cannot get out of the bed, the terminally ill, or those in a coma? What about young infants who can't swim? Do we then just exclude them from the priviledge of making this commitment?

Well... *sweat*... baptism does NOT affect one's salvation. Regardless of whether a person is baptised or not, as long as he or she has placed their faith in Christ, they can be assured that they are saved. Choosing to be baptised is making a commitment to follow after Jesus and it should be a decision made by no one else other than the candidate. Therefore, this rules out the case of the comatosed person and the infant.

Next, what of the person who is terribly sick or terminally ill? The simplest answer I can think of for the sick person is why not just wait til they are better? Again, baptism does not affect one's salvation, so if the sick person wishes to be baptised, just be patient. Now, here's when it gets really tricky. What about those who are bed-ridden or who are terminally ill and still wish to make a declaration of their commitment to Christ? Well, I suppose arrangements can be made with doctors or nurses for the baptism of the patient. But I understand that this is not always possible. Perhaps then we can encourage the person to declare their commitment to Christ in some other form? Living a life of faith, writing a statement of faith, and remaining faithful til the end can all be forms of commitment declarations. But don't just take my word for it. What do you think...?

Would've loved to have been baptised here, no?

Church Evangelism in a Pluralistic Society

Happy 51st Merdeka, Malaysia!

Ever thought about the society we're living in here in Malaysia? Since we just celebrated our 51st Merdeka recently, I doubt anyone could have let slip the fact that we are a nation of different races and cultures. You don't have to be around the past 51 years to have known this, and should have noticed it even if you had just arrived at the airport yesterday. We celebrate our diversity, and at the same time promote unity.

If one of the purposes of the Church's existence is to evangelise, how then does she make herself relevant in such a society? If unity is to be promoted, then maybe a general all-inclusive approach is used. But the problem with general approaches is that it may be just that: Too general! Specific issues or needs are not tackled, and the church is accused of being shallow and imitating the Western style.

The other approach then would be to take a more targetted or specific approach, where churches are called to reach specific groups. Various ministries begin to mushroom targetting at different age groups, at different languages, at various social concern needs. The problem then is the lack of unity, lack of labourers, and lack of funds.

It would seem then that there is no ideal approach for evangelism for the Pluralistic Society. Let me suggest then that the church needs to be certain of her call from God if she is to target a specific group, and to trust that He will then supply for whatever needs that may arise. But the keyword here has to be "certain" of her call. As for the general approach, really, there can only be one general language that is understood by all, and that is the universal language of love.

Let the Church then seek to speak this language to whichever society she belongs.