Is Baptism necessary for Salvation?
Some Christians believe that Baptism is necessary for one to be saved. Supporters point to Mark 16:16 “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever doesn’t believe will be condemned.” (ISV) Here, they claim, Jesus commands that we be baptized. As one supporter put it,
“How much clearer must we have it said by the Lord Himself than this… Why would Jesus tell His disciples to baptize if it were not necessary? Don’t you think that if the Lord had intended baptism to be optional that He would not have made such a strict command out of it here.”
The problem, however, is that it could have been clearer. Notice that only belief is mentioned in both parts of statement. Thus to be clearer Mark could have written the second half as “but whoever doesn’t believe or is not baptized will be condemned.” That would have been very clear. It would also be clearer if baptism was consistently mentioned as a requirement for salvation, but it isn’t. There are many passages which discuss what must be done to be saved that do not mention baptism.
When Jesus was directly asked in Mark 16:16, “‘What must we do to perform the actions of God?’ Jesus answered them, ‘This is the action of God: to believe in the one whom he has sent.’” (ISV) If baptism were required, why didn’t he mention it? If Baptism were required for salvation, how could Paul say that Christ is not send him to baptize? (1 Cor 1:17)
But there is a deeper issue here, one that goes to the core of how we are saved. Eph 2:8-9 says, “For by such grace you have been saved through faith. This does not come from you; it is the gift of God and not the result of actions, to put a stop to all boasting.” (ISV).
Salvation is God’s work in us. We can accept it or we can reject it, but we cannot earn it. The real problem with saying that baptism, or any other work, is required for salvation is that it means that Christ death on the Cross is insufficient; that something else is needed. It would hold, contrary to Eph 2:8-9, that salvation is not completely a gift but something that must be earned, at least in part, as the result of the action of being baptized. One can believe that Baptism is necessary, or one can believe Eph 2:8-9. It is not possible to hold both and remain consistent.
Does this mean that we don’t need to be baptized? As the supporter above asked, “Why would Jesus tell His disciples to baptize if it were not necessary?” Jesus commanded a lot of things, if we took all of them as requirement for salvation, we truly would be putting ourselves back under the law. Fundamentally this confuses what is important with what is required.
But if they are not required for salvation, why do we follow them? John 14:21-24 lays this out. As verse 23 says, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word.” We are not baptized to be saved. We do not avoid sin to be saved. We do on serve others to be saved. If we do any of this to earn salvation, our works will be as filthy rags. Rather we should do all of this and more, out of love. We serve our Lord and Savior because we love him. A gift offered to earn something will be judged based on its merit, a gift offered in love, will be judge based on the love in which it was offered.
I have a painted rock sitting on my desk. It has sat there for over two decades now. It is not some expense piece of abstract art. And for many people, it is just a rock with sort of face on it. But for me it is very valuable. This is because it was given to me by my daughter, and it was given in love.
That is how God looks at our works as well. Not for their intrinsic merit, but for the love in which they are offered.
The Problem With Unions
Unions have been in the news quite a bit lately, with Wisconsin at the head of 37 states seeking to limit the impact of state employee unions on their strained budgets. For the unions, given the decline in union membership over the last several decades, the fight is a matter of life and death, as government is about the only place they are still growing.
An obvious question is that if unions are so good, why are they in such trouble. Union members often blame the oppression of business for their problems, but rather than an explanation of the problem, that union members give this explanation is itself an indication of the real problem.
In the 19th century, unions battled real problems. The transformations of the economy brought about by the industrial revolution radically changed the relationship between the employer and employee and it took a century for society to adapt to the new circumstances. Union played an important role in this process.
For decades now, these problems have been addressed, and many of the union’s demands have not only been accepted, but were put into law. More importantly, businesses have continued to develop and grow. Thus, most businesses in the 21st century bear little resemblance to the businesses unions battled against in the 19th. The Robber Barons of old have, for the most part, been replaced by CEOs who focus includes things like stakeholders and how to improve employee retention. But while businesses have changed, many unions have not.
This is the core of the current problem with unions: while the world has changed around them, they are still fighting the battles of the past. Worse still, the adversarial tactics and strategies they employ against management are not only anachronistic; they are counter-productive in the current business climate. The current business environment is much more competitive, much more customer and market focused, and one in which change is far more rapid, than in the early days of unions.
Many unions, however, seek more pay and benefits, without any corresponding improvements in productivity, all the while locking in numerous work rules, greatly limiting companies’ ability to adapt to changes in the marketplace. When faced with the short-term threat of a strike, many businesses have sacrificed the long term health of their company.
Thus much of the decline in union membership has been from companies and industries failing because union contracts simply priced them out of the market or kept them from adapting to changes in the marketplace.
Given the marketplace pressures, the only place that unions have done well is in government which is not directly subject to such pressures. Yet they are not completely immune. The constant push by unions for increased pay, benefits, and regulation of the workplace has had an effect in government as well, creating an imbalance where public sector workers get paid a third more than private sector workers, while getting over two thirds more in benefits. As a result, in public schools for example, before public sector unions we spent a lot less, but taught a lot more. Schools had music programs, sports programs and did not struggle getting textbooks and other school supplies.
A big part of the problem is that public employee unions have become major political forces. They throw their support behind politicians who, once elected, are then beholden to them. The resulting huge imbalance that has emerged between public and private sector workers, while certainly not the only factor, is part of the financial problems faced by so many states, particularly those with long term contract and built in raises which limit the state’s ability to deal with deficits.
In the past, states dealt with the problem by simply raising taxes in order to pay for union contracts. But like the proverbial straw and the camel’s back, many states have already raised taxes so high that those with money are fleeing to lower tax states. Yet even with their high taxes, states still have huge unfunded commitments to unionized employees. Just as unions have bankrupted so many companies, they are now bankrupting many states.
Still, unions demand ever higher taxes, and often seem to have convinced themselves that it will only be the rich and greedy businesses that will pay them. But private sector workers pay taxes as well; so do retired people living on fixed incomes. When public employees unionize, they may be negotiating with politicians who are beholden to them for their offices, but it is the general public who will be left with the bill.
While many public sector workers like to delude themselves with the grandiose ideas of how much money they could make in the private sector, their pay and benefits far exceed their private sector counterparts. Their demands that taxes be continually raised to maintain their high level of benefits, is little more that a demand that those who are far worse off than they are, do with even less, so that they can have even more.
So is it any wonder that there is a growing movement to limit public sector unions?
President Palin?
As 2012 begins to come onto the horizon, two question will take on increasing importance for Republicans, will Sarah Palin run for President, and possibly more important, can she win. The first is really up to Sarah Palin. She is the one that will ultimately make the decision one way or the other. On the will-run side is the fact that she is in a very unique position. People with a far less chance of winning the Presidency than she has, have found the opportunity hard to resist. On the other hand, despite what her critics say, she has shown considerable political savvy, far more than many of her pundit critics, and she may decided that she has more power and influence as a “potential” candidate, somewhat along the lines of Newt Gingrich in previous years, someone who early on seems to be running but never quite pulls the trigger. Finally, she may decide that she is still young, and to wait for 2016 or 2020 or even later. She has the time to wait.
That brings us to the second, and possibly more important question, can she win? The short answer is: of course she could. This should not be taken to mean that she is by any means a slam dunk, as she could also lose. The first issue is whether or not she is qualified to be president. She certainly meets the Constitution’s formal requirements, but does she meet the informal requirements of voters? Here again the answer is yes, at least when compared to past presidents. To see this one has only to look at the current President.
Obama had been a community organizer who had been elected to state senate, and then was U.S. Senator for less than half a year when he began running for President. He had no executive experience, and before being elected President his political experience had been in winning races where his main opponent had been kept off the ballot, Chicago style.
Sarah Palin, on the other hand was a successful mayor of a small town, and then went on to become Alaska’s first woman governor and its youngest. As an executive, she has a record of bring spending under control, fighting corruption, and getting things done, all with an approval rating in the 80s. This is what made her a rising star in the party and ultimately brought her to the attention of John McCain.
In fact, probably nothing reveals a person’s bias more than the claim that Obama was qualified, but Palin is not. Granted, there are people who think neither are/were qualified, a position bolster as Obama’s lack of experience has become clear in his handling of the presidency. Still, they are not really comparable as Obama had no executive experience, while Palin has a good record, even if a somewhat limited one.
But ultimately people do not vote for President based on resumes. If we assume for the moment that Palin does run, she will be judged on how she runs her campaign. To be sure, she will have to overcome the extremely negative press bias against her. If she is unable to do that, she will not even win the nomination.
Right now most of her critics view her through the lens of the Couric interview and Saturday Night Live skits. In fact, for many Tina Fey is Sarah Palin. But if she does run, people will begin to see her, not Fey. She will have to be very careful not to play into her critic’s image, but she has shown an ability to go over the heads of the press connect and with voters not seen since Reagan. So while the vicious press coverage, and sheer hatred of her on the left, means she will start out in a hole, she has, at least potentially, the tools to overcome this and go on to victory. It is important to remember that President Carter wanted to run against Reagan because the Democrats bought into their own political rhetoric and believed that he was, in Speaker O’Neil words, an “amiable dunce.”
So if Sarah Palin runs, she could win, but it is still only a maybe. The simple fact is that there are four main factors in any Presidential election: The candidates, their campaigns, the mood of the people, and events. For the sake of argument let’s assume the candidates are Obama and Palin and both will run good campaigns, as both have run winning campaigns in the past and no one sets out to run a bad one.
As for events, they are really unknowable. After all, one of McCain’s strongest points and probably the reason he won the nomination was his strength in foreign policy and military affairs. While known as a budget hawk, he himself admitted that he was weak on the economy. Following the conventions, McCain was in the lead, and so he looked like a good choice. Then the markets locked up, and TARP shifted the focus to economics, McCain’s weak area, and the campaign was lost. What will the events be around 2012? No one knows.
That brings us to the mood of the people, while also unknowable and subject to events; this will be the real key for Sarah Palin’s chances. Right now the mood is very much anti-Washington, anti-big government. It is also likely to stay this way, as with a divided government there is not much prospect for change. This is a perfect spot for Sarah Palin, and she does seem to be positioning herself as a real outsider candidate. On the other hand, if the mood changes, she could be running as the outsider when people are looking for an insider who can “get things done.”
So can Sarah Palin win? Certainly, but like everyone else, she has some advantages and some disadvantages, and for her to win will take a lot of hard work, a lot of skill, and ultimately some luck.
How can Christians be Conservative? Part III
The final question, posed to me on how Christians can be conservatives dealt with the issue of how, since they are so against government intervention, can they seek to use government to impose their view of morality on others, in particular with the Pro-Life movement?
While a common question, it has several problems. For one, conservatives are not against all government. There is, for example a difference between libertarianism, and conservatism. Thus there is nothing inconsistent with conservatives seeking to, as the question puts it, “use government to impose their view of morality on others.” But the question is more complex.
When you get right down to it, the slogan “You can’t legislate morality” is just silly. Virtually all laws legislate some view of morality, and thus impose that view on others. It is not that all morals should be legislated, but rather that laws are basically the morals of a society that are believed to be so important; the power of the state should be used to enforce them.
Murder is morally wrong. In fact, it is so morally wrong, we do not want to leave it up to individuals to decide this particular issue for themselves. Therefore, we use the power of the state to enforce the moral view that murder is wrong and to impose that view on others.
What does distinguish conservatives from, on the one hand, liberals, who seem at times to want to right every wrong by passing a law, and on the other hand, libertarians, who often seem to be boarder line anarchist, is that conservatives, for the most part, have different standards depending on the level of government. At the federal level, they are much closer to libertarians wanting very little government. Yet the closer the level of government is to the people the boarder the latitude they give the government to pass laws, and thus in that sense are closer to liberals when you get to local government, at least in their willingness to use government.
For example, while I oppose prostitution, I would also oppose a federal ban on prostitution, as that is not a federal concern. If a state or better yet, a community wants to ban it as in most of the country, or legalize it, as in a few areas of Nevada, then that is their concern.
So how does this come into play with abortion? There are two parts to this question. The first is the closely related, but somewhat different issue of Roe v Wade and the constitution. Many, but certainly not all, conservatives seek the overturn of Roe, and this is very consistent with conservatism in general. This is because an overturn of Roe, would simply remove the issue from the federal level and return it back to the states. Before Roe, abortion was already legal in many states, illegal in others, but the trend was towards legalization at least in cases of rape, incest, or threat to life of the mother.
When it comes to opposition to abortion itself, it really comes down to how one views the fetus. It is biologically alive and genetically a human life distinct from that of the mother. Thus those who are pro-life believe that the power of the state should protect innocent human life in the womb, just like it protects it in a lot of other areas.
Now granted things get very complex at this point because there is not just one human life to consider, but two. Exactly how the rights of the two humans are balanced and in what circumstances one can take precedent over the other, is a matter of consider disagreement and a discussion of this would go well beyond a blog post. But, in short, pro-life conservatives believe that the Declaration of Independence’s claim that we have been endowed by our creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness applies to human life even if it is in the womb.
Thus they don’t see any contradiction is pushing for laws to protect human life in the womb, just like we have laws protecting it out of the womb.
How can Christians be Conservative? Part II
I am continuing to answer the questions, posed to me on how Christians can be conservatives. This time I will address the question, how can conservatives show such a lack of concern about the uninsured as seen in their objection to ObamaCare?
The question itself has some problems, the main one being that it confuses the lack of support for a particular governmental program, with a lack of concern for a problem. This is something that I have addressed before (e.g., here, here, and on health care here). For many liberals the ideal of government activism is so strong and ingrained, it is hard for them to conceive of any other solution to a social problem. In short, as a general rule, the solution to any social problem is to be found in government programs, and to oppose a government program is to show a disregard for the problem itself.
But however strong the view, it is still fallacious, and is in fact the fallacy of a false choice. Not only are there other non-governmental options for addressing these problems, the simple fact is that, right or wrong, as a general rule conservatives believe that market based solutions grounded in choice and competition for consumers are better than government solutions.
The conservative view is often mischaracterized as an absolute position which would permit no role at all for government. This is not the case, nor is it correct to say that the conservative view is based on a trust of business or and corporations. It is also not the case. In fact, often conservatives share many of the same doubts and question about business as there liberal counter parts. This is why conservatives believe that choice and competition are so important, as they serve as the main check on businesses driven by the profit motive. This is also where conservatives see a significant role for government that of ensuring that the market place allow choice and competition.
So it is not that conservatives trust big businesses, it is that they mistrust government because choice and competition do not apply. If you don’t like a particular business, you are free go to another one. If you don’t like government, you are stuck.
When it comes to health care in general, and ObamaCare in particular, the problems Conservatives see are many, and I have written about some of them (here, and here). As I summarized this in another post,
Thus the Democratic Health care bill will increase regulation and reduce effective choice even if it doesn’t end in single payer. While in theory it may be able to reduce cost and expand coverage, it cannot do this while improving health care. In short, it is doomed. And this is best case. Given the past record of government programs, the actual likelihood is that it will not even be able to control costs and we will be left with worse health-care, even higher costs and a system that is even more difficult to change.
The reason for this is actually very simple. Improvements in Health care will come, as such improvements have always come, from innovation. Yet government does not innovate, it regulates, and regulations kills innovation.
None of this should be taken as satisfaction with the current system. Healthcare in the US is one of most highly regulated areas of the economy. It is far from a system where choice and competition are driving factors. Conservatives see the problems and want to solve them. The real problem here is not a lack of concern for “the least of these,” but rather a difference of opinion on how best to address the problems. The opposition to ObamaCare is rooted in the belief that it will not make things better, it will make them worse.
One final comment; while there certainly are absolutists, many conservatives acknowledge that market solutions will not solve all problems. No matter how much market forces improve the health care system, you cannot purchase healthcare if you don’t have any money. Here conservatives consider two additional mechanisms.
The first is charity. While liberals at time discount the viability of this option the fact is that here are hospitals across the country that deliver health care on an ability to pay basis or for free. This focus on charity by conservatives and government by liberals is perhaps behind the difference in charitable giving between red state and blue states, between liberals and conservatives, and as revealed in Aruther C. Brooks’ book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatives. If conservatives truly were heartless and greedy, why is it that on average, they give more to charity than liberals?
Finally, surprising as it may seem to some liberals, conservatives to not reject a government option as a last resort, for those with no were else to turn. The difference would be, however, that it would be a last resort, not the first and only resort, pushed by so many liberals.
So again, it is not a lack of concern that leads conservatives to reject ObamaCare, it is in fact an abundance of concern that ObamaCare will only result in making matters worse.
