Contemplate or Meditate?

My article from this week's newspapers answers a question about Meditation:

Q:  Is Meditation something that is compatible with the spiritual life of a Christian, or is it a practice that could pose potential spiritual harm?

The word meditation can be found in many English translations of the Bible, the majority of which are in the Psalms, particularly Psalm 119.  Even though the word is used, its context in the Psalms reflects that this is something dramatically different from what we typically mean when we think of meditation today. 

The practice that the word meditation typically refers to is a spiritual exercise which has its source in Eastern religions, particularly Hinduism and Buddhism.  These religions have a fundamentally different understanding of the way that the spiritual world functions than Christians do, and this is reflected in their practice of meditation. 

Meditation as performed and taught in these Eastern religions has diverse outward appearances, and may follow a variety of methods, but their goal and the mechanism by which they purport to function reflects an opposite understanding of the direction in which spiritual ills are cured. 

In Biblical thought, the spiritual problem lies within humans, manifested in such things as selfishness, violence, lust, hatred, and other forms of evil; and the solution to spiritual ills is found outside of us in the cross and resurrection of Jesus, the benefits of which are delivered through God’s Word and the Sacraments. 

In Hindu and Buddhist thought, it is proposed that humans are really one with the divine and the realization of this is found by looking inward through such things as meditation.  So, if the Christian realizes that inside of ourselves we find nothing but sin, filth, and evil, it would be counter-productive to try to seek solutions by looking within oneself. 

The meditation described in the psalms also differs dramatically from Eastern forms of meditation in that it is a thought-filled meditation where one consciously contemplates the content of Scripture to better understand it and discern its message, while Eastern forms of meditation encourage the practitioner to empty oneself of thought to achieve the goal of reaching a supposed higher form of consciousness or awareness which is not accessible through ordinary means.  In fact, contemplation would probably be a more accurate translation of the word the Psalms use, rather than meditation. 

This is also understood by Eastern practitioners to occur because this empty-minded state is said to open one up to the spiritual world around them, which openness then provides a form of enlightenment through interaction with the divine.  However, such a proposition assumes that everything spiritual is good.  In contrast, a Biblical understanding of the spiritual world sees that there are harmful elements in the spiritual world which would deceive and lead us away from what is true, and Scripture repeatedly admonishes people to be watchful and on guard against such things—a state which would not be compatible with the state of spiritual vulnerability created by Eastern meditation. 

While Christian might desire some of the auxiliary benefits often attributed to Eastern meditation, such as relaxation, mental focus, or stress relief, the use of a spiritual exercise from a foreign spirituality which contradicts Christianity would not be and advisable avenue by which to achieve them.  Instead, Spiritual practices like prayer and Scriptural contemplation, along with non-spiritual relaxation and stress-relief techniques from the medical sciences are a more appropriate way to achieve these goals without violating their Biblically-informed conscience or compromising spiritual truth. 

To Re-Baptize or not to Re-Baptize:

My article for this week's newspapers answers a question about re-baptizing:

Q:  I recently began attending church for the first time in my adult life.  If my parents had me baptized as a baby in a different kind of church, should I be baptized again in my new church?

In most situations, the answer would be a clear “no,” regardless of whether the original Baptism occurred as an adult, a child, or an infant. 

A small number of situations could exist where a Baptism would need to be performed, but the only cause for this would be if the first Baptism was invalid for one of two reasons:  The first cause that would render the original Baptism invalid would be if it was performed in the context of a non-Trinitarian religion, such as Mormonism, a Oneness church, or Jehovah’s Witnesses. 

The Second circumstance that would cause a Baptism to be invalid is if it were performed using a different formula than the Trinitarian form given in Scripture:  “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”  If it was performed under any other formula, such as “in the name of Jesus,” or used alternate titles for God, such as “parent, child, and comforter,” or “Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier,” then it would be cause to question its validity and responsible spiritual care would dictate that the person be Baptized. 

In cases where the original baptismal ceremony was determined to be invalid, the church administering Baptism to the individual would not consider it a re-Baptism, but rather as the first Baptism, because an invalid Baptism would be understood as being no Baptism at all. 

Often people ask if they need to be re-baptized when joining a new denomination of Christianity, and this is typically not necessary.  All of the Trinitarian denominations which baptize babies recognize each other’s Baptisms as valid Baptisms, and would not see a need to repeat the ceremony, even for adult converts who were Baptized elsewhere as infants. 

The only case in which church leaders might require a Baptism be performed would be if the newly-adopted church practices adult-only Baptism.  This requirement would be made because such churches understand Baptism to be a work that people do in order to show their devotion to God, which requires conscious knowledge and articulation of belief.  As merely an outward acknowledgement of faith by the believer, they do not understand it to deliver grace, forgiveness, or faith from God to the person being baptized. 

On the other hand, a church that sees Baptism as a gift that God gives to a person in order to deliver forgiveness, grace, and salvation, would see it unnecessary to repeat or replace the original Baptism.  This is because the Baptism is understood to be God’s gift to deliver faith in Jesus and the benefits of His sacrifice on the cross to individuals, and therefore not dependent on the ability of the person being Baptized. 

Instead, even if the person doing the Baptism or the church in which it was performed were not in full agreement, or even did not properly understand Baptism, God’s work is not hindered.  Since it relies on God’s faithfulness and not on man’s performance, and God’s work is always complete and effective, and they would acknowledge all Baptisms performed by the correct formula in connection with a Trinitarian church.  They would then instruct the new member in the teachings of their church as drawn from Scripture, and welcome them into membership through Confirmation or another similar ceremony.