Update: If you really want to see the video it is still available at A Little Leaven.
I found this video on A Little Leaven today. It depicts a man trying to administer the holy sacrament of baptism on himself. I imagine the creators (Cornerstone Church - Oklahoma) thought it was funny, but what was there point? Does anyone find this video offensive? Should we expect another one for the Lord's supper? There may have been a teaching point that the church was trying to make, but it is not clear. I did not find any explanations on their site or their YouTube page. As it stands, the video is mocking something that God takes very seriously. That is the definition of blasphemy.
Pastor Erick taught on baptism this week at VCC's adult catechism class. If there was anyone there that is reading this blog post I would love to hear your thoughts. If you were not there, I still would love to hear your thoughts.
HT: A Little Leaven
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
A couple things:
1. Notice that the Word was not connected with the "baptism," therefore it was not a true baptism (not to mention that it was self administered).
2. Was that supposed to be funny? I'm not asking it even because of it's mockery of baptism, but I just didn't see why it would be funny?
Guess there must have been quite a bit of feedback to the owner of the video, as when I tried to watch it had been removed by the user.
It's hard to comment on the video since it's been revoked, but based on the blog comments...
To the first comment (Anonymous): whatever mockery was evident in the video aside, is there scriptural support against the "self"-administration of baptism (presuming it is a baptism infused with God's Word)? While baptism within a congregation is a beautiful display of God's glory and grace, are earthly witnesses "required"?
Side note: whenever I've been asked if I've been baptized, never did anyone ask for anyone's testimony but my own.
And then to the point of the Lord's Supper: is there any reason why this invitation to the body and blood of Jesus Christ cannot be cherished while alone ("alone" being temporal, while in Spirit gathering among the communion of fellow saints)? Again, congregational communion being preferred. The source is, before all, the Word.
Again, I didn't see the video - so, evident mockery aside.
Ben,
These are both good questions. First, with baptism, the reason the church has always required that someone administer baptism is because the bible always speak about baptism as something being done to us. Every example we have in Scripture is of someone baptizing another.
Second, with the Lord's Supper, the only example we see in Scripture is that it is done in the presence of other members of the Body (1 Corinthians 11 and Acts 2 for a couple of references).
Response appreciated, Pastor Erick.
Along the same lines, Martin Luther wrote this in Article II of the Smalcald Articles (which I just read a few minutes ago):
If anyone says that he wants to administer the Sacrament to himself as an act of devotion, he cannot be serious. If he sincerely wishes to commune, the surest and best way for him is in the Sacrament administered according to Christ's institution. To administer communion to oneself is a human notion. It is uncertain, unnecessary, even prohibited. He does not know what he is doing, because without God's Word he follows a false human opinion and invention. It is not right (even if otherwise done properly) to use the Sacrament that belongs to the community of the Church for one's own private devotion. It is wrong to toy with the Sacrament without God's Word and apart from the community of the Church.
Luther's comments given due weight, I more appreciate the direct biblical references you provided.
Further comment reserved for discussion :)
Post a Comment