When I was very young I remember my Aunty coming to stay with us.  This Aunty was a smoker of the "multiple packets a day" variety.  One day I stole one of my Aunty's cigarettes, well actually I stole a whole packet because I thought just one was too obvious - doh!  Like many kids of my day, I was curious to know what it would be like.  I remember going out to the back yard, hiding behind the fence, taking one small puff, and coughing my lungs out.  I headed inside to the bathroom, desperate to get the taste out of my mouth, and my little sister came strolling in singing, "Ummm, you smoked! I'm gonna tell mum and dad!"  I have never touched another cigerette in my life!

Some of you reading this will be like me, non-smokers who can't stand the thought of it; others may have kicked the habit and never want to go back; some may continue to struggle with it; while others may still be happy to light up.  Whatever your situation I want to make a small observation about what's happening with smoking here in NZ and how I think the church could respond.

In today's news there was an article about an incident between National MP Tau Henare and an anti-smoking advocate.  Tau is a long term smoker and took objection to something that was said about smoking.  He talked about smokers being the "new lepers" of society.  I think he's right!  Just think about it for a moment.  A generation ago smoking was a totally acceptable practice in normal society.  The only place you might have been asked not to smoke was at church, and even then churches often had semi-designated "smoking areas".  

Today it's like the tables have been turned on smokers.  Not only are they criticised for "killing themselves", but they are accused of "killing us through passive smoke".  Smokers are ostrocised and even rejected in many circles these days.  Whether it be a disgusted glare or a derogatory remark, the isolation and victimisation can be very real for a smoker these days.  

Yes, smoking is "bad for you"!  I'm not an advocate for smoking or the money hungry exploitation from tobacco companies!  But who will speak for the smoker?  These people who are trapped in a poitical game that is creating a "new leper" in "civilised society". Perhaps there will be a place for the church to have a voice here?  In the future, perhaps the safest place for a smoker to be could be in a loving Christian community? (now wouldn't that be a turn of events).  Who else will stand up for the under-dog?  Who else is going to advocate for the oppressed?  What do you think? :)

The Olympics are almost upon us and anticipation is in the air.  I just know that I will enjoy watching all manner of sports over the next few weeks that I wouldn't dream of watching at any other time.  A strange transformation is about to take place where-by all New Zealanders miraculously become fans of cycling, shot-put, rowing, and weighlifting. Fancy that!

So what is it about the Olympics that makes us like this?  Well, I think there's something about it that captures our collective imagination.  Somehow we know that we ought to be the best in the world, at least in some thing, and the Olympics gives us an opportunity to prove it.  Our notion of "Kiwi-ness" binds us together and somehow each of us identifies with those great athletes as "one of us".  The fact that its the athletes who have put in the hard work and will be the ones who win, place in the medals, come fourth (doh!), or get to participate doesn't seem to make any difference. This is us -  NZ against the world.

These big sports events tie us together in a sense of togetherness that is reminiscent of good community.  It was the same with the Rugby World Cup last year.  For a couple of months we were all (well most of us) part of this great big Rugby family, cheering on the AB's and full of pride at our victory.

There is something spiritual about all this too.  Really? I hear you say.  Well, yes, I think there is.

Striving for the best and achieving victory is all part of God's plan!  Doing it together, with a crowd to cheer us, helps us to get there. 

Hebrews 12:1 says:
"As for us, we have this large crowd of witnesses around us. So then, let us rid ourselves of everything that gets in the way, and of the sin which holds on to us so tightly, and let us run with determination the race that lies before us."

Enjoy the games!

Our very name "Baptist" gives away something of our identity.  Foundational to our existence as a movement has been this idea of "believer's baptism by full immersion".  Again, this is no longer a position that is unique to Baptist Churches, however it is still something that distinguishes us from many other Christian traditions, most notably those who practice infant baptism, sprinkling, no baptism at all, or various combinations.  It is not my intention in this small article to convince you that believer's baptism is the "correct" way, but rather to summarise what I believe about baptism (as a long term Baptist person) and to highlight the tensions that exist for us around baptism as a 21st century Baptist Church.

For me baptism is an act of discipleship.  Unlike some traditions that see baptism as an entry point into the Kingdom of God (and thus it can happen to a child), I would assert that entry or belonging to the Kingdom of God is more a dynamic of faith than a physical act.  There is, of course, a physical act involved in baptism, and for that reason some Baptist Churches (not Hawera) still link it to "Membership", however in my thinking that act is more correctly understood as one of discipleship rather than belonging.  It's an individual decision, rather than a parental or community decision.  This decision is made as a response to the reality of faith in Jesus that has already occurred for that person, which of course usually happens within the context of a family and/or community. 

I would consider baptism to be a step of obedience.  Jesus said, "believe and be baptised" and so we follow the model that was established by Jesus and was the practice of the early church.  Related to this idea is that in some way we are "following" Jesus when we respond in obedience, from our own conscience, rather than the decision of others. 

It's also a public statement of belief - and quite an extreme statement at that.  When you think about it, it's rather "different" for a teenager or adult to step into a body of water, fully clothed, and have someone guide them to full immersion and out again.  However it is this very act and the symbolism attached to it (eg. dying to self, rising to new life, submission, cleansing etc.), that makes the statement so strong and clearly shows ones intention to follow Jesus for the rest of your life.

So that's what I believe, and with some small variations, what most Baptists have believed in the past.  However we are living in a mixed up world!  No longer are Baptist Churches full of Baptist people, rather we're a collection of Christian people from various backgrounds and different traditions.  For this reason alone I would be hesitant to say that "believer's baptism is the only form of baptism".  However, it is important that we don't simply give up on believer's baptism by immersion because some might think differently. As a Baptist Church we need to continue to promote "believer's baptism" and challenge people to this high calling of discipleship, obedience and public witness.  We should see more of it, not less of it, even while accepting that some among us will have had quite a different experience and find God's hand and significance in that. What do you think?

Last week we looked at the unique way in which Baptist churches approach decision making and I suggested that perhaps we need to value the principle of "everyone has the opportunity to contribute in decision making" more highly than our practice of "membership voting". This week I'd like to look at the concept of "The Priesthood of all believers" which is not a Baptist idea alone, but is held, with some variation, by many Protestant Churches.

When I was Youth Pastor at Henderson Baptist in Auckland we always had the name of the Pastors on the front of our newsletters.  This is not surprising, however we also had the following statement, "Ministers: The whole congregation". Such statements come from this idea of a "Priesthood of all believers" which basically says: no longer must I receive ministry only from the ordained Priest/Pastor; no more do I have to sit back and leave it to the professionals.  When I see a person in need I am able to minister to that person; when I myself am in need I can call upon my fellow Christians and not just the Priest/Pastor to minister to me.

This is an amazing concept that has the potential of breaking down barriers and giving freedom and hope to our congregations.  It legitimises the gifts that God has given to each of us and in Baptist Churches, historically at least, this idea has been practiced well. However, "the Priesthood of all believers" is under threat in our day and age.  If not in theory, certainly in practice, this idea has largely been abandoned by many Christians today.

I have seen this happen in a number of Baptist churches.  A church starts to rely heavily on a gifted Pastor and/or one or two other key leaders.  These leaders "minister" well, and with great ability run almost every activity of the Church (either directly or in close proximity). Sadly however, this approach breeds a culture of dependance upon those leaders and can dis-empower much of the congregation.  If/when these leaders can no longer lead (for a variety of reasons), the Church is thrown into a crisis of leadership and no one is left to minister.

It's not just the "leaders" though.  Unfortunately, many Christians have abdicated their role as ministers in deference to a form of "clerical professionalism".  Now don't get me wrong, Pastors certainly should be well trained; have strong accountability; and a strong sense of call, however this should be something that adds to the expression of Christian community and faith in our churches, not something that defines it.  Fear; a sense of inadequacy; and this growing "professionalism" has stopped many everyday Christians from seeing themselves as ministers.

I don't think that we should ascribe "fault" as such, either to Pastors or congregations where this is the case.  However I do think that we can make changes to ensure that it doesn't continue this way.  In fact, if we want to see vibrant and growing churches then we need to reclaim this idea of the "Priesthood of all believers" and empower our people to be ministers.

What do you think?  Does this ring true to you, or do you have a different understanding or approach to this?  Let me know.

Arohanui, Pastor David Auty