David Bahn – Reflections

I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, ² but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. ³ In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. ⁴ But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, ⁵ to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. ⁶ And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” ⁷ So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

⁸ Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. ⁹ But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? ¹⁰ You observe days and months and seasons and years! ¹¹ I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.

I was in my first semester of my first year of seminary. Sitting with 20 other “Sem one’s” in Dr. Heino Kadai’s Church History class when he asked a question. “Do you know why we Lutherans don’t baptize by immersion?” No one ventured a guess. “It’s not because we believe you cannot be baptized by immersion.” Still no one offered an answer. Finally I offered what I thought was a reasonable explanation and answer, “Well, the idea of drowning little babies isn’t very appealing.” The class burst into laughter.

He stifled a laugh and said, “No, actually that’s not the reason. We don’t baptize by immersion because the bana-baptists insisted that the only valid means of baptism is by immersion.” Luther felt compelled, under those circumstances to refuse to practice baptism by immersion – even though he would otherwise have preferred this mode of baptism. He noted that immersion was practiced historically. He saw it as symbolically rich, particularly in representing dying and rising with Christ (Romans 6:3-4). But he emphasised that the mode was not the important thing. The key, for him, was the faithfulness to Christ’s institution of baptism and the proclamation of God’s promise through water and the Word.

Paul was dealing with people who were saying certain ceremonies (circumcision being one of the main ones) were essential to full expression of the Christian faith. This is why he expressed his displeasure about their celebration of certain days and months and seasons and years. To require these observances as essential to the true faith was antithetical to the truth of the Gospel.

The Lutheran Confessions express it this way, “It is not necessary for the true unity of the Christian church that uniform ceremonies, instituted by human beings, be observed everywhere.” To impose only a certain type of worship, specific instrumentation (or prohibition of such), architecture or style of music on a church or group as essential to the true faith is antithetical to the freedom we have in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We all have our preferences. And as long as we keep them in that category no problem. We acknowledge all modes of baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We recognize that not all people everywhere will find just one type of hymnody edifying or beneficial. But take Christ away, and his message of grace and truth, and we can end up clinging to our preferences to our shame and eternal harm. Better we cling to Jesus and his word.