I find that whenever I try to be exceptionally clever in my Sunday school lessons, I end up skewing children's theology.
I taught the kids about Paul and Lydia a few months ago and had the brilliant idea of using dipping something into dye as a picture of water baptism. I now wonder if my primary motivation for giving this example was the fact that I thought tie-dying socks would be super fun. In any case, the kids were pretty confused and over the next month whenever I asked, "What is baptism?" one little boy always confidently replied, "It's when you dip yourself in dye." Sigh.
Ben Witherington III probably never had a Sunday school teacher with a sick need to tie-dye socks, thus he has a solid grasp on the meaning of baptism and a new book called "Troubled Waters: Rethinking the Theology of Baptism."
Check out this link for a few of his thoughts on the subject and let me know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think that Thomas Aquinas must have used that illustration in his children’s Sunday school class as well. He apparently had to refute this error in the Summa:
“The water which flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross, was not the phlegmatic humor, as some have supposed. For a liquid of this kind cannot be used for Baptism, as neither can the blood of an animal, or wine, or any liquid extracted from plants.” (Summa Theologica pt.III q.66 art.4 Reply to Objection 3)
It seems that he had to remind the kids that dyes are often extracted from plants and are therefore unsuitable for use in baptism.
In your case, I’d consider you pretty lucky. At least they haven’t requested to be baptized in wine or animal blood yet. You know how parents can get really sensitive about those kinds of things . . .
Not that I've actually followed the link yet, but considering the potential "Why We Do What We Do" sermon series I mentioned, I could see that being quite helpful. I had it in mind to do a week on baptism. So thanks!
phlegmatic humor
Ok, read the blog post. Here are my initial thoughts.
(1) Books that argue for rapproachment between positions sometimes seem easy to write, because the author can criticize both sides as he/she pleases. However, I think such books are often helpful to the church.
(2) Props to Ben for taking seriously the semantic elasticity of baptism language in the NT. I think he is right to contend for a distinction between literal and metaphorical in such language.
(3) Ben assumed that the Holy Spirit was the agent of baptism in 1 Cor 12:13. I'm not so sure, given that (a) believers are baptized en the spirit, which could be translated as by, in, or with, (b) Jesus is the agent of baptism in the gospels and in Acts.
(4) I want to read this book.
that's all
jeff
Brian, I think you're the only person I know who could pull that apt of an Aquinas quote out of his pocket. Amazing.
Post a Comment