Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), one of our Founding Fathers, who also served as our nation's third president, made this powerful statement that I have long admired, "I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led." The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates (born around 470 B.C.), acclaimed as the founding father of western philosophy, said much the same thing: "Let us follow the truth whither so ever it leads." Ultimate Truth is something we fallible humans pursue, yet it is something none of us ultimately possess in fullness of perfection. No matter how enlightened we may believe ourselves to be, there will always be truths we have yet to grasp, or which we hold to and practice imperfectly. Thus, we should adopt the following words of Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) as wise counsel, "I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors, and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views." We must each be teachable, and we must each be correctable. Personal or party pride and sectarian or factional arrogance have no place in our lifelong quest for greater understanding of Divine Truth. Indeed, such negative qualities will only serve to hide such Truth from us.

Those of you who know me, know that I am a strong believer in the wisdom of Proverbs 27:17 - "As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another." The people of God need to be helping one another grow in their understanding of Truth, and also loving one another enough to point out those areas in which some may be failing to fully perceive or apply Truth. AND, in turn, they should always be open to receiving that same loving and respectful help and correction from others when they too are in need of it (and all of us ARE at one time or another). Not a single one of us "has arrived" at perfect perception of all Truth; we each are still on that lifelong "journey of discovery" with our fellow believers, a fact that should make us rather humble! Like anyone else, I have strong convictions based on my study of the Scriptures, and I don't mind sharing those convictions with those around me. What I hope and pray I won't do, however, is try to impose those convictions on others and then condemn them if they dare to differ with me. Paul has some good advice for us here: "Pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another" (Romans 14:19), and "The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God" (vs. 22). Further, we should "always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15). It is in light of these considerations, and hopefully in this spirit, that this present issue of my Reflections is being written.

On August 16, I mailed out my previous Reflections article titled, "A Wondrous Waterless Washing: Pondering the Washing of 1 Corinthians 6:11 in Light of Context and Authorial Intent" (Reflections #887). In that study I tried to show that the term "washed," based upon the context and Paul's intent, probably was NOT a reference to the practice of baptism in water. This was in no way an attempt to diminish the importance of immersion in water, nor to deny that act its legitimate purpose and place in the life of a believer or in the teaching and practice of the church. My purpose was simply to show that we need to handle accurately the biblical text, and that not every occurrence of such terms as "wash, cleanse, purify, baptize" have water in view. Those terms can be, and frequently are, used to convey truths not immediately connected to the practice of immersion in water. As expected, this article generated a flood of emails from readers: some were very supportive of my study, agreeing with what I concluded about this passage; others were concerned that I was leaning toward a denial of baptism in water; while still others simply wrote to inform me that God would be sending me to hell to be tortured forever because I was an apostate and a heretic who no longer believed the Bible. The latter group I didn't even bother responding to, as nothing I could say would make any difference in their view of me. Those readers who wrote to ask for clarification, or who wrote to respectfully disagree with me, however, are deserving of an equally respectful response to their concerns. To these I wrote privately, and we have had (and are still having) a good dialogue. To one of those readers, though, I felt a more lengthy and public response was in order, and that response is what I will be providing in this current article.

On August 27, a reader who lives in Alabama, who is the same age as I am and who has also preached for several decades, wrote a two page letter to me in which he shared some positive views of my work, but also a concern that I had "over-rebounded" in my position on baptism. Due to the length of his letter, I won't share the entirety of it, but I do want to share a good portion of it so that you may see the nature of his concern, thereby providing context for my response. He began his letter with the following statement: "A little background: I have been a member of the church since my baptism in 1965. Within a year, I developed a desire to teach in order to try and correct the disagreements and erroneous ideas in the church. At first, I considered attending the school of preaching in Memphis, TN. After a preliminary inquiry, they started sending me 'The Spiritual Sword.' I immediately saw the legalism and exclusivism of their magazine. I didn't want their indoctrination. So, I am a self-made preacher (horrors!). I see the history of the Lord's church as being filled with instances of 'over-rebounding.' The Roman Catholic church drifted from the teaching of the Bible into man-made doctrine, and the reformers 'over-rebounded' into 'faith only' and predestination. The Restoration Movement (known as the Stone-Campbell Movement) eventually 'rebounded' too far back toward legalism. Thankfully, some, like you, are trying to get back to the sane, middle-of-the-road position. Your Reflections articles have been a big help to me in a number of instances. As for myself, I am trying to recover from excessive legalism without over-reacting all the way back to Protestantism. I have some of my friends studying your various Reflections articles on exclusivism, which seem to me to really hit the nail on the head!"

First, let me express my thanks to this brother in Christ for his kind words, and also for sharing a bit of his personal journey of faith. The latter certainly helps provide a bit of context for his concerns, which will be helpful in the formulating of my response to him. I'm thankful that he has found my writings to be of help over the years in his ministry and personal growth, and that he is encouraging some of his friends to study them as well. I pray they will also find them challenging and encouraging, and that this will motivate them to even greater study of God's Word. Like this reader, I am also not a fan of legalism in the church. It has been a destructive force from the very beginning, and I have spent much of my own ministry exposing it and warning disciples of Jesus of its dangers. Quite a few years ago, my writings came to the attention of the director (now deceased) of the Memphis School of Preaching, who set out to "correct" me. While I was still preaching in Honolulu, Hawaii (1992-1998), I was informed by someone that they had read about me in a book Curtis Cates had recently published titled "A Comprehensive Study of Unity" [p. 64-65]. This was the first I had heard of this. I managed to secure a copy, and Cates had indeed devoted a couple of pages to informing his readers that Al Maxey was a dangerous threat to the church. He had me sandwiched right between Rubel Shelly and Max Lucado (Max and his family actually came and worshipped with us in Santa Fe, NM one Sunday during the eight years I served as the preacher there). I had never met Curtis Cates, had never had a conversation with him (verbal or written), and he had never bothered to contact me in any way prior to publishing his attack (and he refused to respond to any of my letters to him afterward). He had simply read an article or two that had been published in IMAGE magazine, for which I was one of the writers, and, based upon his reaction to what he read, he determined the Churches of Christ throughout the earth needed to be warned about me. Such a legalistic mindset is a cancer upon the body of Christ (the church). It is deadly, and I abhor it.

This reader makes an excellent point in his above comments, and that is: too often in religious history (and Christianity is no exception) we find adherents reacting to one another, and to one another's views, and in far too many of these cases we find an over-reaction, or what this reader characterizes as an "over-rebound." In other words, someone swings from one extreme to another, rather than simply responding by taking a more reasoned, rational, or moderate viewpoint or practice. Extremism with regard to any teaching or practice is rarely, if ever, advantageous. However, when one disagrees with an extremist, then the reaction of the extremist toward the person who differs with them will almost always be very harsh and condemning. To differ with an extremist is to be regarded as an enemy of Truth, and such persons are regarded as apostates, heretics, and godless wretches bound for hell. It is virtually impossible to reason with, or even to have a rational conversation with, a religious extremist. I gave up trying years ago. I do not believe this reader from Alabama regards me in that light, nor do I regard him as an extremist, although with regard to my views expressed in my most recent article he did use language that could be interpreted by some to imply that my understanding of baptism was just as extreme, in its own way, as that of the legalists. In other words, in rejecting the view of the legalists, I myself "over-rebounded" or "over-reacted" to the extent that my view now also becomes extreme, and thus a departure from Truth. He wrote, "In my view, you have 'over-rebounded' against the legalistic view of baptism," and he believes that I did this by "separating it" (i.e., literal baptism in water) "from the spiritual washing Paul mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:11."

First of all, I need to point out, in response to this reader's statement, that it was not I who separated the "washing" of this passage from the act of being immersed in water. Paul himself makes absolutely NO mention of either baptism or water in the passage. The context is entirely devoid of any such connection. The legalists, in interpreting this passage, have traditionally read into the word "washing" the act of baptism in water, and have then employed this text as a proof-text for their sacramentalist view of the act of baptism in water. It is they who made the connection between what they teach and what Paul wrote. To point out that Paul's intent in that context does not have such a connection in mind is not an "over-reaction" or a case of "over-rebounding," but is instead simply an honest exegesis of the passage, rather than a forced eisegesis to try and bolster a cherished dogma. Yet, this reader wrote, "So, it seems to me that you are over-reacting all the way back to John Calvin, just because some in the Stone-Campbell Movement have over-reacted from Calvinism into legalism." In other words, he believes that in my attempt to distance myself from legalism, I returned to the teaching of Calvin. If that were true, then that would indeed be an extreme act on my part, and would indeed be an over-reaction. I do not embrace the teachings of John Calvin, however, and have even written extensively against many of those teachings. Frankly, my goal in my last article was not to "take on" legalism, but rather to simply illustrate the fact that in the NT writings not every occurrence of such words as "wash, cleanse, purify, baptize" is a reference to the act of baptism in water. There are times when the author of the text has something else in mind, and we do a disservice to that message when we try to impose a particular dogma upon a biblical text. If seeking to "handle accurately" a passage of Scripture constitutes an over-reaction and makes me an extremist, then I guess I must plead guilty as charged.

The reader from Alabama wrote, "Just think about it. To separate the spiritual washing (1 Corinthians 6:11) from the physical washing in baptism reverts back to the non-essential view of baptism espoused by those who are 'saved,' and who are then baptized in water weeks or months later, thus making water baptism little more than a testimony." Again, I would point out that it was Paul himself who sought to make a point about the nature of this washing being separate from the spiritual significance found in immersion in water. Paul was in no way negating or disparaging the latter by pointing out the reality of these individuals having been cleansed by the Spirit from the impurities of their fleshly living in a wicked and corrupt city. The purification took place in their hearts, and it was the cleansing act of the Holy Spirit operating under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. Immersion in water was nowhere even hinted at in the context; that was not Paul's authorial intent here. Pointing that out does not make me a Calvinist or an extremist; it does not mean I have rejected baptism in water as a valid practice of the church. Yes, I do indeed believe baptism in water is a testimony: it testifies to our faith in the One who has saved us, and it is a powerful reenactment of our Lord's death, burial and resurrection whereby He assured us the victory over sin and death. Our observance of the Lord's Supper, by the way, is much the same. It too is a testimony; it too is commanded. But neither baptism in water nor the partaking of the Lord's Supper are sacraments! They are symbols! They are reflective, not redemptive. They are powerful physical testimonies of redeemed men and women to the reality of their redemption and of the One who redeemed them! I would never declare baptism in water to be non-essential. It is commanded; it is essential. But, essential to what?! That is the question. The act of being immersed in water is no more salvific than the act of partaking of the elements of the Lord's Supper. Both are commanded; both are thereby essential. But neither SAVES us, for they are symbols, NOT sacraments. Both are testimonies of the saved, declarations of the faith and devotion of the redeemed; the church would be spiritually impoverished if they were cast off as "non-essential" ... just as Truth would be diminished if either or both were proclaimed to be the very act that saves us.

This reader, in his letter to me, tried to remove this "separation" between this "washing" mentioned by Paul and the act of immersion in water, by referring me to a few passages in Paul's first epistle to this body of believers in Corinth. He stated, "The Corinthians had been baptized - 1 Corinthians 1:13," and furthermore, "Paul had baptized some - 1 Corinthians 1:14-16." This is absolutely correct. And I believe that in this context the apostle Paul IS referring to immersion in water. It should also not be overlooked that in this context the apostle Paul also immediately states, "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (vs. 17). Hmmm. Paul did make a "separation" here, didn't he? He separated baptism in water from preaching the gospel, and even went so far as to say he was NOT sent by Jesus to baptize, but rather to share Good News! If baptism in water IS the precise moment of salvation, then this statement by Paul is problematic. If, however, baptism in water is our response to the Gospel message that we are "saved by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves; it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8), constituting our living testimony of our trust in HIM who saved us by HIS act, then this passage makes perfect sense! However, if it is the act itself that saves, then one must try to insert it into every text that even remotely speaks of washing, cleansing, purifying, etc. And this is what the reader did in his letter to me. After mentioning verses 13-16 above, he then wrote, "Thus they had been 'washed' in water and by the Spirit - 1 Corinthians 6:11" (the italics in this sentence were his). What this reader just did was impose his view on the text; that is eisegesis, and that constitutes a form of extremism! That is not being exegetically honest with the text; it is not handling accurately the Scriptures.

This brother further wrote, "Why try to separate water baptism from the Spirit when Jesus put them together in John 3:5?" Here again, this reader has made some assumptions that go to the very point I tried to make in my previous article: i.e., that not every use of a particular word or phrase in the NT writings will have the same exact meaning or application. In John 3:5, where Jesus is speaking with Nicodemus, the word "water" and the word "spirit" are used. Many assume that "water" is speaking of baptism into Christ (although, keep in mind, that Jesus had not yet been crucified and Pentecost had not yet happened). What exactly did Jesus have in mind in this context? What was His intent? What message was He seeking to convey to this Jewish leader? I would urge this reader to consider my treatment of this passage in one of my early issues of Reflections titled "Born of Water and Spirit: Reflecting on the Statement by Jesus to Nicodemus in John 3:5" (Reflections #212). I believe the reader will find the interpretation of this passage is not as "black and white" as he might think. This brother also wrote, "In 1 Corinthians 12:13, they were baptized by the Spirit when they were baptized into the church (Acts 2:47). No, I don't think you can separate the two." Thus, presumably, any reference to the Spirit and the use of the word "baptizo" must of necessity suggest immersion IN WATER. That simply will not hold up under hermeneutically honest examination of such texts. I provided that exegesis in my following article, and I would plead with this reader to consider that study very carefully: "Immersed by One Spirit: Reflecting on 1 Corinthians 12:13" (Reflections #353). May I also urge a reading of my article titled, "Drawing the Line at the Water: Is Water Baptism God's Salvation Line?" (Reflections #865). This reader also mentioned, in his statement above, that people were being "baptized into the church (Acts 2:47)." That is not a true statement, by the way, and I dealt with that error in translation in one of my very first Reflections articles over two decades ago: "Added to the Lord" (Reflections #9).

This reader brought in a couple of other passages from Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians to try and make his point. First, he stated, "In 1 Corinthians 10:2, Paul draws an analogy to their baptism and the Red Sea crossing." Yes, Paul does make mention of this, but, again, what was the context of that statement and what was Paul's authorial intent here? What was he trying to convey to those particular believers at that particular time in that particular place? I did an in-depth study of that very passage, and would urge this reader to consider that exegetical evidence in my article titled "Baptized Into Moses: Cloud/Sea Immersion Symbol" (Reflections #768). Second, he wrote, "They were being 'baptized for the dead' (1 Corinthians 15:29), making baptism a part of their conversion." I'm not entirely sure what this reader meant by that last part of his statement, but that passage most definitely should be examined in the context of what was happening in Corinth that Paul felt needed to be corrected. I have dealt with that in quite some depth in my article titled "Being Baptized for the Dead: An Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:29" (Reflections #154). This brother in Alabama then ends his lengthy letter with this cautionary note to me: "Just try not to over-react, please!" I hope that I have shown in this present response to this man's letter that my intent was never to "over-rebound" to an extremist position on baptism, but rather to simply seek, through honest evaluation and exegesis of the biblical texts, to arrive at the basic message the inspired writers sought to convey. To the degree that these understandings differ from the dogmas of my faith-heritage (Churches of Christ), I suppose they might be regarded by such sectarians as "extreme." It is my hope, however, that in the eyes of the Lord, my understandings and convictions are no more or less than the result of an honest attempt to grasp His message and apply it to my life as best as I can. May God help us all to do the same, and may we be gracious with one another when we differ.

A SPECIAL NEW BOOK: One of the longtime readers of these Reflections, with whom I have corresponded for a number of years, has just released a book that I was privileged to read and discuss with him as he was writing it. I was honored that he would seek my input. This is a fabulous book, and I highly recommend it to you. The title is: "Why Aren't Christians More Like Jesus?" The author is Michael J. Clemens, and it may be purchased on Amazon (and also in the Kindle format). Dr. Ron Highfield, a professor at Pepperdine University, wrote, "A very practical book, Why Aren’t Christians More Like Jesus? overflows with sage advice, acute observations, and spiritual insights born of many years of Bible study, wide reading, and experience in church life and leadership. The author offers some serious criticisms of the 'institutional' church, but these criticisms are accompanied by a spirit of grace and hope. He calls us to transition from 'churchianity' to real Christianity, that is, to faith and discipleship to Jesus, to loving God and loving others in the name of Jesus. I especially recommend Why Aren’t Christians More Like Jesus? to any believer who loves Jesus and His people, but who is a bit frustrated with the institutional church. Clemens refrains from offering grandiose but unworkable programs for institutional reform. He simply reminds us that church reform begins with 'me,' with my continual transformation into someone 'more like Jesus.' Amen!" May I add my own "Amen" to that of Dr. Highfield. I hope all of you will go to Amazon and acquire a copy of this book. You will be blessed by reading it! -- Al Maxey

From a Reader in Texas:

Dear Al, My wife and I read your book "Down, But Not Out: A Study of Divorce and Remarriage in Light of God's Healing Grace" a few years ago and we learned a lot from it. We presently have it on Kindle. Recently, we had a family at church approach our young minister insisting that he demand that I divorce my wife (married for 38 years) and go back to my previous spouse. This family also insisted that the preacher make the same demand of another married couple here. True to character, this young preacher refused to do so, as it is unbiblical. Al, we have a wonderful preacher here who is only 25 years old. I would love to get one of your signed second editions of this book to give to him to read (my check is enclosed). We're planning on meeting with him once he has finished it to discuss it. Thank you.

From a Reader in Florida:

Al, I just ordered your book "Immersed by One Spirit: Rethinking the Purpose and Place of Baptism in NT Theology and Practice." I sent you the money through your PayPal account. Thank you.

From a New Reader in Switzerland:

Al, I would love to subscribe to your Reflections via email, if that is possible, although I do enjoy following you (and reading your work) on Facebook. I'm currently reading two of your books ("Immersed by One Spirit" and "From Ruin to Resurrection") and they are both great. Thank you for all your work for the Lord, and lots of greetings to you from here in Switzerland.

From a Reader in Texas:

Dear Al, I read your article "A Wondrous Waterless Washing: Pondering the 'Washing' of 1 Corinthians 6:11 in Light of Context and Authorial Intent" (Reflections #887). Once again, you have nailed the meaning of "washed" as it is used by Paul in this verse. If only our legalistic spiritual siblings would let go and listen, the church of our family history would be flourishing instead of dying on the vine. I am always amazed by and thankful for your words: they are always intelligent and wise! Blessings to you once again!

From a Reader in Georgia:

Al, "A Wondrous Waterless Washing" is spot on!! Well written and very informative. It entered my mind, as I was reading Paul's words about the Lord not sending him to baptize, that if one believes baptism in water is what actually saves a person, then Paul's statement would be strange! The Lord didn't send me to save you, but just to preach to you. I think water salvation is equal to "Jesus plus one." Nah, doesn't work for me! Love ya, brother.

From a Reader in Oklahoma:

Al, I have always thought there had to be a different meaning to the word "washing" in 1 Corinthians 6:11 than water baptism. There are many parts of the world where water is too scarce and hard to obtain. God would not deny those folks salvation just because they didn't have enough water to be immersed in. It is Jesus who saves, not water! Please continue your great work, brother!

From a Minister & Ed.D. in Florida:

Al, I haven't rattled your cage in a while, but wanted to let you know that this Reflections article ("A Wondrous Waterless Washing") is outstanding!! I have wondered about that text for years.

From a Reader in Texas:

Greetings, Al, from ridiculously hot Houston. I hope all is well with you and the family. Thank you for another wonderful article ("A Wondrous Waterless Washing"), and I concur with your understanding of the text, although, like you, I have always been of the view that baptism in water is far from being a sacrament. Certainly, this act has its place, but it is far from being salvific. Your thinking is always most welcome, and I hope you keep up the good work you're doing.

From a Minister in New Zealand:

Al, Thanks for your latest article on Paul's use of the word "washed." Yes, it is amazing how many people think that every time they see "washing" or "water" that it HAS to be a reference to water baptism. Yet, we have passages like Ephesians 5:26 that talk about washing with the water of the Word. Thanks again!

• That is a good passage, and there are others as well. It's amazing to me how blinded some can be to the diversity of usage in the Bible when it comes to certain terms. I did a study a few years ago that I probably should have mentioned in my article. That study is: "Holy Spirit Home Remodeling: The Washing of Renovation and Renewal by the Holy Spirit - A Study of Titus 3:5" (Reflections #609). -- Al Maxey

From a Retired Army Chaplain:

Shalom, Al. I finished reading your article "Pondering Doorpost Theology: A Christian Goy's View of the Mezuzah" (Reflections #886) to my wife, and we were both greatly encouraged! At our age, we often joke about our memory losses or "glitches," but when it comes to the things of God, it is no laughing matter. For the past seven years, I have been embracing Jewish biblical practices to enhance my relationship to Jesus. And taking to heart the reminder from Paul that we "Goyim" believers have been "grafted in," we have even been observing the biblical festivals you mentioned in your article. Although I do not wear tzi-tzi ("fringes") or a phylactery, we do have a kosher mezuzah upon our front doorpost. Even as "Goyim" believers, we are free to embrace these spiritual practices and be blessed by them. Thank you, my friend, for your well-informed and blessed article. Since the dividing wall has been broken down, we should not only draw nearer to our God, but also nearer to the direct descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of whom many still also believe in the Creator of all, the Elohim (Almighty God). After all, Yehovah, our Great Father, made an eternal promise that those who bless Israel will themselves be blessed! Love you, Al.

From a Reader in Virginia:

Al, I've been reading some of your older Reflections and "Readers' Responses," more specifically the ones in regard to a minister by the name of Daniel Denham. I used to visit that congregation in Newport News, Virginia when he was there. I wonder if he, and the other preachers who have vilified you over the years so harshly, have ever apologized. I see this type of behavior among brethren when someone goes against their party lines, and it is so sad! But, I keep praying for those types of people to open their eyes and come out of their bondage.

• Nope! Not a single one has ever apologized. Indeed, I'm sure that they genuinely believed they were being good servants of God by persecuting those who differed with them, just as Saul of Tarsus believed he HAD to do those things to believers in Jesus in order to be pleasing to God (as he indicated in Acts 26:9). Doctrinal and sectarian delusions and dogmas can be powerful forces, and are often a motivation for the infliction of great harm upon others "in the name of God." -- Al Maxey

********************
If you would like to be added to or removed from this
mailing list, Contact Me and I'll immediately comply.
If you are challenged by these Reflections, feel free to
send them on to others and encourage them to write for
a free subscription. These studies are also offered on a
special thumb drive. Check the link below for the
details, and for all past issues of these Reflections:
https://www.zianet.com/maxey/Reflect2.htm