Worship and Generational Segregation

This is a great article on keeping children in the worship service with the adults. Here's the thing: don't adult minds wander during a sermon anyway? Do people pay perfect attention to the words of the songs as the sing them? Do they think carefully through every word of each prayer that's prayed? In each case, no. The idea that removing children will remove distraction is a myth. There will always be distractions, even from within the worshipper's own head.

One other thing that the article doesn't mention that would benefit children in worship is an ordered liturgy. It's something that most kids can participate in, or at least follow as they are learning it. And while most people think small children aren't learning anything in worship, I would greatly disagree. They are learning there, just as they are learning everywhere they are - through sight and sound and smell, even though they may not comprehend the words being said.

People will say, "you aren't a parent. You don't understand." I know that. But single people are distracted by children as well. And I say keep them in the worship service.

Naomi Wolf on Creeping Totalitarianism

We in America are used to a democratic social contract in which there is agreement about the rules of the game: When Congress demands an answer, for instance, the president does not simply refuse to pick up the phone. So we keep being startled when the steps of the democratic interplay are ignored: "He can't do that!" It's time to notice that they are playing a different game altogether....

What has happened in the past is that at a certain point in a weakening democracy, would-be dictators pretend that everything is as it should be but simply stop responding to the will of the people and the representatives. While the nation is trying to grapple with this interim period, then such leaders deploy sudden unexpected changes that assertively upend Parliamentary protocols and expectations.

At this point, the speed of these moves itself is disorienting: It takes people some time to figure out what has happened. (In a very moving scene, Italian legislators were still frantically trying to engage in standard political negotiations with Mussolini - even as he simply waited for them to realize that the time for negotiating was over.) That psychological hangover - that delay in "getting it" - is a very dangerous time. This is the moment when action is most necessary, and this is the moment when the window is closing.

In Italy and Germany, legislators kept believing that they were still engaged in the negotiated dance of democracy - even as the militaristic march of dictatorship had already begun.

At a point in both Mussolini's and Hitler's takeovers, citizens witnessed a stunning series of quickly escalating pronunciamentos or faits accomplis. After each leader made his bids for power beyond what the Italian Parliament and the German Reichstag allowed him, each abruptly started to claim all kinds of new rights that were extraparliamentary: the right unilaterally to go to war, to annex territory, to veto existing laws, or to overrule the judiciary.

"I am not a dictator," said Hitler in 1936. "I have only simplified democracy."

At this stage, shock follows shock so quickly that the civil society institutions start to reel. At this point, in weaker democracies than ours, the police forces and the army are negotiated with. In any late shift, the final stage is the establishment of government by emergency decree or actual martial law and the leader's assertion - usually using the law to defend this assertion - that he is above the law, or that he is the law: the decider. -- Naomi Wolf, "The End of America", pp. 144- 145, published 2007

Daniel and Synagogue Worship

Another response I wrote on someone else's page, in which I pat myself on the back for ideas I stole from someone else. The question was: did Daniel participate in synagogue worship while in exile?:

There is actually no absolute proof that synagogues in full were developed during the Exile, though that’s the prevailing theory. Weekly local meetings were ordained by God much earlier (Lev. 23:3), which presumably would have been led by the Levites who dwelt everywhere throughout the land of Israel. Daniel was acting in the manner of Israel’s daily Temple worship that would have occurred were the Temple in repair and Israel back in the land. As Solomon had prayed in his prayer at the consecration of the Temple (1 Kings 8:46-50), Daniel was looking toward Israel, a ”condition” for God to hear the prayer of Israel and restore her to the land. He was acting on behalf of Israel, as their representative. And wrapped up with this, he was imitating the practice of Temple worship in his private (hardly private when sitting in a public place in front of an open window) worship. His private worship was shaped by Israel’s public, corporate worship.

While the synagogues may have been allowed to function in Babylon, I must say I have my doubts. I imagine a situation of small gatherings of believers at best, maybe not functioning fully the way a synagogue would have. At least, Daniel was carrying on his own worship as a part of the larger whole, longing for and looking to Israel’s promised return to the land and her worship.

On Boycotting Businesses that Support Evil

A friend sent me an email asking me about businesses that openly support evil, and whether or not Christians should patronize them. Below is the response I wrote to her.

*********************************************

I think it's difficult to make hard, fast standards about this. In the New Testament, we see the believers in the young church having to deal with idolatry dominating in the marketplace, and that affecting where they would buy there food, and even whether or not they were able to get a job and make a living. But that was clearly stated idolatry. The food and wine were literally offered to idols in acts of worship before being sold in the market. And in order to be part of the local guilds, you had to offer incense to Caesar as a god, and maybe even to some local pagan deity in addition.

The question in my mind then is how far we go in applying this. Do I not shop with a certain retailer because they sell a cd by a band that is clearly Satanic? Do I not buy clothes from a certain business because they sell clothes that are too revealing for women to be wearing? I think one guideline is that once the money has been exchanged between myself and the business for whatever I purchase, I am no longer responsible for what they do with it. It may be going to an employee supporting her family, or it may be going to some pro-homosexual organization. It's impossible to trace anyway, and with everything operating on credit in the world economy anyway, the "money" I give them is hardly money.

Romans 14 and 1 Cor. 10 apply in places. So if Starbuck's were to clearly say, "for every purchase of a beverage, a dollar goes toward pro-choice activists," then I would have to withhold my money. But that normally isn't the situation. You're purchasing a product, not supporting wickedness. That isn't to say there isn't a place for boycotts; that's a perfectly legitimate thing to do. But it's all about the greater good. If I were a parent responsible to buy diapers at the cheapest price, and Target was the cheapest, that's where I would go. My first responsibility is to my family, and I can't neglect their good for the larger good of society. Our responsibilities in life have a hierarchy to them - what and who are nearest to me, who are under my specific care and headship, who will God specifically hold me accountable for in the day of judgment? That doesn't mean it's always easy to make those determinations. But I pray for the Lord's guidance in all things, and make the best decisions I can, trusting in His forgiveness when I make a wrong move, which I will inevitably make sometimes.

"Christian Romanticism" is a Myth

We often fail in our duties before God because we take too Romantic a view of the Christian life. Love, joy, obedience, worship - we behave as if these are things that normally attack us when we aren't looking. No doubt this is part of the reason marriages and friendships so often fail these days. But the reality of the matter is that the Christian life is one of deliberate intention. We reduce Christian virtue to emotion. But while all of salvation is a work of the Spirit, the way we achieve fruit is by the doing of it. If we lack joy, it is because we aren't actively rejoicing in God. If we are hung up in negative emotions, one of the first places to look is to one's life of thanksgiving, to examine onesself to see if we are living a life of expressing gratitude to God for His innumerable blessings towards us. Nothing could be more unbiblical than sitting around passively and waiting for "Christian" emotions to wash over you.

Review of "October Baby"

For those who continue to be exercised about my three-year old review of "Jonathan Sperry", here is Dr. Peter Leithart's review of the recent film "October Baby", and his commentary on Christian films more generally:

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/04/messages-at-the-movies/peter-j-leithart

On the Importance of Church Buildings

Church buildings testify that, while this life is brief for each of us, the Church remains forever, as she is united to her ever-reigning King Jesus. All dominion belongs to Him, and He rules on earth, even as He rules in heaven. To then allow a pagan culture to force us into our homes to worship, out of sight where we may not convict the consciences of others by our devotion to Christ, is to implicitly affirm the pagan lie that Jesus isn't Lord. True religion is not private and individual, but is public and corporate. It is said that the person you really are is what you are when no one is looking. But it is equally true that if you will not be devoted to Christ for all the world to see, then you will never be devoted to Him when no one is around.

Christian Sports Celebrities, or Heroes of the Faith?

First Tim Tebow, then Jeremy Lin, and now Bubba Watson. We are apparently saving the world one sport at a time - and said saving is strangely most celebrated by those who believe this world can't be saved, but is getting worse all the time. Yet as I look back through church history, I see little mention of sports figures being the ones most significant in advancing the cause of the church. So here's a challenge: tell me the sports the above three figures are associated with. Now, can you tell me who Martin Luther was, what the major ideas were that he advanced, and what movement he was associated with - and do it without looking it up? My suspicion is that many who have been in the church for a long time, maybe even all their lives, can do the former, but not the latter. And I would suggest that this shows that our priorities are a bit off balance.

Contemporary Ritualism

One of my first significant steps out of the Plymouth Brethren, Bible Church background of my youth was a visit to an Evangelical Covenant church when I was living in New Hampshire. A co-worker attended there, and asked me to go with her one Sunday, in order to sing and play guitar on a couple of numbers during the service. It was a bit foreign to me, particularly due to the carefully laid-out order of worship. In a later conversation with the chaplain of the ministry I was working at, the chaplain asked me what I thought of the service. "It was okay," I said, "except for the liturgy." "Everybody has a liturgy, even the Plymouth Brethren," he said. Looking at his watch and pretending he was in a Brethren worship service, he said, "Brother Bob should be standing up in three, two, one, and there he goes," referring to a man standing to lead the congregation, presumably spontaneously led by the Holy Spirit. I realized how right he was. Though the attempt is to be spontaneous, that can only be achieved to a degree. God made man to be a creature of habit, of ritual, of liturgy. This is a good thing, and we naturally look to create order in every aspect of life. Even the free-form approach of the Brethren has a certain structure - at a certain time the meeting begins, it ends at a certain time, the bread and the cup are distributed at a certain point, and so on. If spontaneity were a sign of genuine worship, why can't this order also be counted as "stifling the Spirit"? The truth is that, far from a Biblical notion of true worship, this spontaneity finds its roots in Revivalism and 19th century Romanticism, and not Scripture. God is a God of order, and to assert that structure is somehow unspiritual is contrary to the Bible. Yet the idea continues to be propagated in contemporary circles. A contemporary church can cry out against rituals and yet have a specific order of worship every Sunday. Every contemporary church, if it really is a church, observes the Christian rituals of baptism, the Lord's Supper, and preaching. If they are Christian, they pray, and most often end their prayers with the liturgical "in Jesus' name, Amen." They pray before their meals, and have their "quiet time" regularly. And praise God that they do. Order is discipline, and shows reverence to God and to those around us. One can cling to cliches like a security blanket and decry the "ritualism" of "all those traditional churches", or "all those denominations" out there, as if they were the only ones that could fall into the error of cold, sterile worship. I would suggest that more careful thought on the matter is in order. It may very well be that those cliches are the worst form of ritualism of all.

The Meditative Monotony of Gardening

Many gardeners will agree that hand-weeding is not the terrible drudgery that it is often made out to be. Some people find in it a kind of soothing monotony. It leaves their minds free to develop the plot for their next novel or to perfect the brilliant repartee with which they should have encountered a relative's latest example of unreasonableness. -- Christopher Lloyd

"Our Father"

Was struck by this quote from D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones read by Michael Horton on the White Horse Inn today. Dr. Lloyd-Jones is commenting on the Lord's Prayer:

"Our Father." Yes. But because of our debased conception of fatherhood, he hastens to say, "Our Father, Which art in heaven." The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is the kind of Father we have. But there are many people in this world today, alas, to whom the idea of fatherhood is not one of love. Imagine a little boy who's the son of a father who is a drunkard and a wife-beater, and who's nothing but a cruel beast. That little boy knows nothing in life but constant, and undeserved thrashings and kickings. He sees his father spend all his money on himself, while he himself has to starve. That is his idea of fatherhood, and there are many. If you tell him that God is his father and leave it to that, it's not very helpful, and it's not very kind. The poor boy of necessity has a wrong idea of fatherhood. That is his notion of a father, a man who behaves like that. So our human, sinful notions of fatherhood need constant theological correction.

The Lenten Gardener

Every experienced Christian gardener knows that there is a spiritual spring which comes just as surely as nature's spring. The Lenten spring is God's invitation to prayer, fasting, penance. Like the deep-rooted thistle weed, some of our worst habits withstand all but the most persistent, persevering, and strenuous exercise. A quick pull on the root, however, will not do the trick, nor will an aggressive chop of the hoe. Patience is needed, and the humble willingness to drop down on one's knees and work carefully with the hand fork and trowel. The Christian gardener patiently picks sin from the soul's soil and cultivates it with care and attention to the tender new growth of faith. The Christian gardener also respects the fact that God appoints each soul to be "the sort of garden it is to be." "Your job," Underhill admonishes, "is strictly confined to making [your soul] as good as it can be of its sort." Some of us will be contemplative in the manner of a rose garden, and others are more earthy and restless, like a potato patch. -- Vigen Guroian

"An Epistle to the Reverend Mr. George Whitfield" by Charles Wesley

The following is Charles Wesley's poem "An Epistle to the Reverend Mr. George Whitfield". Wesley wrote this as a reflection on the separation of fellowship he and his brother John had from Whitfield, stemming from their debates on salvation and the sovereignty of God. Separation in a sinful world is often inevhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifitable. But nothing is so beautiful as the restoration of fellowship (Psalm 133; 2 Cor. 2:5-11, 7:8-11).

Those who wish to learn more about the relationship between Whitfield and the Wesley's can check out this article:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1993/issue38/3834.html

**************************************

Come on, my Whitfield! (since the strife is past
And friends at first are friends again at last,)
Our hands, and hearts, and counsels let us join
In mutual league, to' advance the work Divine,
Our one contention now, our single aim,
To pluck poor souls as brands out of the flame;
To spread the victory of that bloody Cross,
And gasp our latest breath in the Redeemer's cause.

Too long, alas! we gave to Satan place,
When party-zeal put on an angel's face;
Too long we listen'd to the cozening fiend,
Whose trumpet sounded, "For the faith contend!"
With hasty blindfold rage, in error's night,
How did we with our fellow-soldiers fight!
We could not then our Father's children know,
But each mistook his brother for his foe.
"Foes to the truth, can you in conscience spare?
"Tear them, (the tempter cried,) in pieces, tear!"
So thick the darkness, so confused the noise,
We took the stranger's for the Shepherd's voice;
Rash nature waved the controversial sword,
On fire to fight the battles of the Lord;
Fraternal love from every breast was driven,
And bleeding charity return'd to heaven.

The Saviour saw our strife with pitying eye,
And cast a look that made the shadows fly:
Soon as the day-spring in His presence shone,
We found the two fierce armies were but one;
Common our hope, and family, and name,
Our arms, our Captain, and our crown the same;
Enlisted all beneath Immanuel's sign,
And purchased every soul with precious blood Divine.

The let us cordially again embrace,
Nor e'er infringe the league of gospel-grace;
Let us in Jesus' name to battle go,
And turn our arms against the common foe;
Fight side by side beneath our Captain's eye,
Chase the Philistines, on their shoulders fly,
And, more than conquerors, in the harness die.

For whether I am born to "blush above,"
On earth suspicious of electing love,
Or you, o'erwhelm'd with honourable shame,
To shout the universal Saviour's name,
It matters not; if, all our conflicts past,
Before the great white throne we meet at last:
Our only care, while sojourning below,
Our real faith by real love to show:
To blast the aliens' hope, and let them see
How friends of jarring sentiments agree:
Not in a party's narrow banks confined,
Not by a sameness of opinions join'd,
But cemented with the Redeemer's blood,
And bound together in the heart of God.

Can we forget from whence our union came,
When first we simply met in Jesus' name?
The name mysterious of the God Unknown,
Whose secret love allured, and drew us on
Through a long, lonely, legal wilderness,
To find the promised land of gospel peace.
True yokefellows, we then agreed to draw
The' intolerable burden of the law;
And jointly labouring on with zealous strife,
Strengthen'd each other's hands to work for life;
To turn against the world our steady face,
And, valiant for the truth, enjoy disgrace.

Then, when we served our God through fear alone,
Our views, our studies, and our hearts were one;
No smallest difference damp'd the social flame:
In Moses' school we thought, and spake the same:
And must we, now in Christ, with shame confess,
Our love was greater when our light was less?
When darkly through a glass with servile awe,
We first the spiritual commandment saw,
Could we not then, our mutual love to show,
Through fire and water for each other go?
We could:- we did:- In a strange land I stood,
And beckon'd thee to cross the' Atlantic flood:
With true affection wing'd, thy ready mind
Left country, fame, and ease, and friends behind;
And, eager all heaven's counsels to explore,
Flew through the watery world and grasp'd the shore.

Nor did I linger, at my friend's desire,
To tempt the furnace, and abide the fire:
When suddenly sent forth, from the highways
I call'd poor outcasts to the feast of grace;
Urged to pursue the work by thee begun,
Through good and ill report I still rush'd on,
Nor felt the fire of popular applause,
Nor fear'd the torturing flame in such a glorious cause.

Ah! wherefore did we ever seem to part,
Or clash in sentiment, while one in heart?
What dire device did the old Serpent find,
To put asunder those whom God had join'd?
From folly and self-love opinion rose,
To sever friends who never yet were foes;
To baffle and divert our noblest aim,
Confound our pride, and cover us with shame;
To make us blush beneath her short-lived power,
and glad the world with one triumphant hour.

But lo! the snare is broke, the captive's freed,
By faith on all the hostile powers we tread,
And crush through Jesus' strength the Serpent's head.
Jesus hath cast the cursed Accuser down,
Hath rooted up the tares by Satan sown:
Kindled anew the never-dying flame,
And re-baptized our souls into His name.
Soon as the virtue of His name we feel,
The storm of strife subsides, the sea is still,
All nature bows to His benign command,
And two are one in His almighty hand.
One in His hand, O may we still remain,
Fast bound with love's indissoluble chain;
(That adamant which time and death defies,
That golden chain which draws us to the skies!)
His love the tie that binds us to His throne,
His love the bond that perfects us in one;
His love, (let all the ground of friendship see,)
His only love constrains our hearts to' agree,
And gives the rivet of Eternity!

On the Death of Don Cornelius

The apparent suicide of Don Cornelius is a sad thing, to say the least. Soul Train wasn't of interest to me, but I remember it coming on TV every Saturday afternoon after American Bandstand when I was a kid. Very little has been said in the articles I looked at about the fact that this was a suicide. Perhaps it's a reflection of the degenerate state of our culture, or perhaps it is just considered inappropriate, or too early, to comment much on that aspect. But it's amazing how common something like suicide is among the famous, or maybe moreso among the formerly famous. I can't say whether Don Cornelius was a Christian, of course. But it is certain that whatever the case was, he wasn't looking to Christ as his source of salvation. There was at least a serious failure in the realm of sanctification, or he never would have considered suicide. When this life is all you have, though, and especially if you think you've screwed that up, then it's easy to see why some consider suicide an option. But this sets out in sharp contrast the difference between the righteous and the unrighteous, the children of God and the children of the Devil. It's easy for the righteous to envy the unrighteous in their momentary pleasures. For a brief time, and with a limited view, they can fool most anybody into thinking that they hold time in their hands, and that their prosperity will follow them forever. But they fade like the beauty of the flower, as Scripture says, and meet the same end as everyone else. The wealthy, the famous, the talented - they aren't all they seem. We do ourselves well to refrain from thinking too much of celebrities.

Ex Cathedra

There's something really troubling about the fact that some 150 Evangelical leaders, who promote studying God's Word for onesself and who present themselves as the opposite of Roman Catholicism's hierarchical approach, think they need to get together en masse and declare which candidate all other Evangelicals need to vote for. What makes less sense is that no list of the names of those participating in the meeting has been released. What's that all about? It would be fairly simple to put a list together and post it on the Web. If you won't do that, then why should anybody listen to you? I suppose Evangelicals can forget about that "using your own brain" stuff. The College of Cardinals has spoken.

Foundations That Can't Be Destroyed

"If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3) Many a preacher has used this verse as a rallying cry to the faithful, calling on God's people to rise up to action, in fear that the wicked may destroy God's work. And it has been useful to stir up emotion, and, no doubt in some cases, to bring about genuine diligence in the service of the Lord for His glory and for the blessing of His Church. But I think this is a misreading and therefore a misapplication of the verse. There is a quote that begins in verse 1 with the phrase "Flee as a bird to your mountain," and the question is: where does the quote end? I would suggest that it ends after the phrase "what can the righteous do". The speaker, whom the writer David is hearing and responding to, has lost sight of the all-seeing, all-directing, loving and sovereign Lord, in whom David trusts. Should I flee to the mountain? Should I fear when the wicked bends his bow? No. The foundations can't be destroyed. The Lord and Maker of the universe is in control of all things, including the wicked acts of wicked men. God will bless the righteous, but the wicked he will bring down in judgment. Rather than being used to stir up fear, this psalm is meant to give us comfort when we seem to be surrounded by evil, when we are tempted to believe there is no hope.

A Short Defense of Infant Baptism

In an email dialogue tonight, a friend asked me to articulate a defense of infant baptism. A better defense would have been longer, but I threw this together rather quickly, brevity being key. I believe it gets to the core, and does a decent job explaining why we believe infant baptism is consistent with the teaching of Scripture.

***********************************************

God's way of relating to man is through His Covenant. The Covenant takes many forms throughout Scripture, which is something I won't get into right now. But we see in the Old Testament that the Covenant included not just believers, but also their children. In the Old Testament, the sign of the Covenant was circumcision. That's why God required Abraham, the recipient of God's covenant promises, to circumcise not only himself, but also his sons, his male servants, and their sons. They were all in God's covenant under Abraham's headship, so they had to receive the sign that they were in the covenant. The New Testament makes it clear that circumcision is no longer something to be practiced, because the Old Covenant (or Testament - the words are interchangeable) is over. A new sign has been instituted, though, and that is baptism. Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant. Lest we think that children are no longer in the covenant, and recipients of the covenant promises, Peter says in Acts 2:39, "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” And in the same breath, in verse 38, he commands all to be baptized. Rather than excluding children, he seems to very clearly include them. And in that context of his sermon, it's clear he is talking about the Abrahamic Covenant. Colossians 2:11-12 seem to associate circumcision and baptism together - the circumcision of Christ, in which the body is put off, is the burial and resurrection of baptism.

One argument to consider is this: Hebrews 8:6 refers to the New Covenant as being a better covenant than the Old Covenant. How can it be a better covenant if children are excluded from it?

The baptist will say there are no infant baptisms in Scripture. But we would say that's irrelevant. There are three household baptisms mentioned in the NT: the Philippian jailer's household (Acts 16), the household of Lydia (also Acts 16), and the household of Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16). The implication of the word "household" is such that if infants were present, they would be included, as the whole household was baptized, none excluded. Also, while there are changes from the OT to the NT, there are lots of things that aren't changed. And we are offered no evidence in the NT to suggest that children are no longer in the covenant, and therefore aren't supposed to receive the covenant sign. Quite the contrary. To put it succinctly, God doesn't have to repeat Himself. And if he wants us to stop doing something, he always makes it clear. He nowhere says, "the covenant sign is only for those who are old enough to clearly and verbally articulate faith in me, and consent verbally to the covenant sign." That wasn't required in the OT, and so unless He tells us otherwise, we can safely assume that it isn't required in the NT.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Saw "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" this evening. Enjoyed it. A couple of thoughts below (and some spoilers).


1.) Some have said it's better than the first one. I can't say I agree with that. But it was a good film.

2.) The most negative thing I have to say about it is that there was some measure of innuendo - some playing around with the notion of an unhealthy emotional relationship between Holmes and Watson, and other innuendo besides. Most of it came near the beginning of the film, but there were other moments throughout. It was a bit much, and enough to distract me from much of the rest of the good in the film. Many who watch this film probably won't be as attuned to such things; I'm not sure that's necessarily good. It's been a bigger trend with Hollywood of late, and one I wish they would lay off of.

3.) Good action scenes.

4.) The acting was great, as one would expect.

5.) The portrayal of Moriarty was fantastic. A wonderful and convincing bad guy, a perfect mixture of the psychotic and the genius.

6.) It's PG13, but there are things I wouldn't want my 13 year old to see if I had kids. Older teens, maybe, but not younger teens. For details, parents can always consult the parental advisory section on IMDB.com.

Our Native Narcissism

When a person has any sort of ongoing illness or disease, they think everyone else should be as conscious of it as they are. Everyone in the world should be in their awareness walk fundraiser. When we have a close relative or friend dealing with a particular culture issue that affects them personally, why everyone else doesn't see it to be as important as we do is baffling to us. Those obsessed with Christian counseling see everything in terms of Christian counseling, and those who believe being "missional" is central to the church don't understand how we can't see what a radically important thing it is. Hands don't think feet are really needed, and feet don't get eyes. Our thing is always the only indispensable one. And in all of this, it never occurs to us that we aren't God.

The Waters of Baptism as Journeying Through the Wilderness

"He rebuked the Red Sea also, and it was dried up: so he led them through the depths, as through the wilderness" (Psalm 106:9, KJV). Israel's baptism in the Red Sea prefigured the baptism in the wilderness that they were about to undergo. Likewise, Jesus' baptism was immediately followed by his testing in the wilderness. "Jesus said to them, 'You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?' And they said to him, 'We are able.' And Jesus said to them, 'The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared'" (Mark 10:38-40, ESV) Jesus' baptism symbolized the suffering he was to endure; in the same way, the Christian's baptism not only points back to Jesus' baptism, being in union with him and his salvation, but it also symbolizes the sanctifying suffering each Christian experiences in this life, the wilderness journey prior to entering the promised country.