Rub-a-dub-dub, born in a tub

Please pardon the irreverent title to this post. I'm just trying to get your attention, not to offend. What I am alluding to in this case is baptismal regeneration, or being born again by being baptized.

Catholics and many Protestants believe that the various references to being baptized by water and the Spirit (as in John 3:5) mean the rite of baptism; i.e., that a person is born again, born from above, or spiritually regenerated by being baptized, presumably by some suitably credentialed church official. A defense of this interpretation can be found at http://www.catholic.com/tracts/are-catholics-born-again.

I won't go into a lengthy critique of the Roman Catholic position, because I don't want to get into a nit-picking quarrel with Catholic readers. I'll simply revert to my 'theology from the ground up' approach and note the difficulties I have with it:

1. Many of the passages cited refer to both believing and being baptized. Other scriptures dealing with spiritual regeneration speak only of believing. I'm not sure how a newborn is supposed to exercise any genuine belief in something as profound as God's saving grace.
2. Water is used in so many metaphorical ways in both testaments of the Bible. It has long been a symbol of purification. But rites themselves (animal sacrifices, ablutions, etc.) are always dismissed in the Scriptures if there is not genuine belief present.
3. Many people have looked to God for forgiveness very much at the last minute; e.g., on their deathbed, in an accident where they subsequently succumb to their injuries, in situations where baptism might be impossible. Would God withhold his forgiveness and acceptance because there was no handy priest lurking nearby and suitably equipped? If not, then why is water baptism actually needed?
4. Some of the world's most infamous people were baptized as infants; e.g., Hitler, Stalin, Castro. While the individuals cited as examples eventually renounced their beliefs, others whose lives were very much at variance with their professed faith continued with the religious rites throughout their lives; e.g., Robert Mugabe, many prominent mafiosi, Joseph Kennedy. 

I'm not the first person to raise objections along these lines and I won't be the last. I'm sure that thoughtful Catholics have gone through them and found satisfying responses. My biggest problem is that God would insist on something as cumbersome and arbitrary as a religious rite in order to confer his love, forgiveness, and acceptance. Consider this from the Orthodox Church:

The Orthodox Church makes no judgment concerning the efficacy or validity of baptisms performed by other denominations, as regards people who are members of those respective denominations. The precise status and significance of such baptisms has not been revealed by God to the Orthodox Church; however, as a practical matter, they are treated as non-efficacious unless and until the person joins the Orthodox Church (see http://orthodoxwiki.org/Baptism).

Relying on a rite, done the proper way by the right church official, stacks the deck against too many people, just as does the evangelical insistence on specific knowledge of the salvation message. It still means that most of the world's inhabitants won't make it into the Kingdom for reasons completely beyond their control.

Born again means---ahh--hmmm.

I grew up with a pretty strong belief in what it means to be born again. While a bit of a caricature, a Catholic web page I consulted recently summarizes it reasonably well:

For an Evangelical, becoming "born again" often happens like this: He goes to a crusade or a revival where a minister delivers a sermon telling him of his need to be "born again." 

 

"If you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and believe he died for your sins, you’ll be born again!" says the preacher. So the gentleman makes "a decision for Christ" and at the altar call goes forward to be led in "the sinner’s prayer" by the minister. Then the minister tells all who prayed the sinner’s prayer that they have been saved—"born again."

That same source (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/are-catholics-born-again) then gives a very different explanation from the Roman Catholic point of view:

When a Catholic says that he has been "born again," he refers to the transformation that God’s grace accomplished in him during baptism. 

Why am I concerned about this? Jesus told Nicodemus that he had to be born again. Nic was understandably disconcerted. As a leading member of the Pharisaic brotherhood, and a pious Jew, he doubtless assumed that his good standing before God was rooted in his heritage in the 'seed of Abraham'. Getting back into his mother's womb and starting over again seemed a bit over the top. 

He may have been amused at the suggestion, angry at having his time wasted by this strange preacher, or just plain bewildered at what Jesus could possibly mean. Jesus didn't elaborate on the subject but merely reiterated its importance (see the New Testament gospel of John 3:3-7).

So let's delve into this further. Its meaning is pretty important apparently. We can't see the kingdom of God without going through the process, as I noted in my previous post.

As is often the case, my first recourse is to that excellent resource Wikipedia. A quite comprehensive study of the term 'born again' can be found under 'Born again (Christianity)'. Of course, it does nothing to establish the exact meaning of the term, because there is a wide understanding of what being born again implies. But it is noted here (and elsewhere) that the original Greek word 'again' is better translated as 'from above'.

Jesus Christ used the "birth" analogy in tracing spiritual newness of life to a divine beginning. Contemporary Christian theologians have provided explanations for "born from above" being a more accurate translation of the original Greek word transliterated anōthen. Theologian Frank Stagg cites two reasons why the newer translation is significant:

1. The emphasis "from above" (implying "from Heaven") calls attention to the source of the "newness of life." Stagg writes that the word "again" does not include the source of the new kind of beginning
2. More than personal improvement is needed. "...a new destiny requires a new origin, and the new origin must be from God."

This is a good beginning. Whatever else it means, this experience originates with God alone and has to do with something new that is different from our physical start in life. And it certainly accords with related passages such as:

John 1:12-13 - Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. 

1 John 4:7 - Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 

1 Peter 1:22-23 - Now that you’ve cleaned up your lives by following the truth, love one another as if your lives depended on it. Your new life is not like your old life. Your old birth came from mortal sperm; your new birth comes from God’s living Word. Just think: a life conceived by God himself!

Not just a fresh start, then. Not even an overhaul. It's what St. Paul called a new creation (Galatians 6:15). It doesn't come from being born into the right crowd, as Nicodemus believed. In fact, it has nothing to do with human birth at all, other than that we have to exist in order to be eligible. It can't be earned (Ephesians 2:8-9) or purchased (Acts 8:20), as the Bible makes clear again and again. It's a free gift from God. 

What else is it? 

Us born againers

I had recently moved to Illinois to attend Trinity Divinity School near Chicago. Having reached a fairly hirsute state about the ears, I repaired to a hairdressing establishment in the small town in which we were now residing. My barber, having determined my reason for moving to the area, immediately placed me in a pigeon hole of his choosing. He began to speak of 'us born againers'.

While I would not have employed the term in quite that way (particularly with the connotations it carries in the U.S. of the religious right), I did not object in principle to the notion that he and I shared a certain religious experience. I had long ago memorized scriptural passages emphasizing the need for some kind of birth from above in order to enter the kingdom of God. The best known involves a conversation between Jesus and a man named Nicodemus.

John 3:3-7 

³ Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” 

⁴ “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

⁵ Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. ⁶ Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. ⁷ You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’

On the face of it, this passage seems to be saying that entry into the kingdom of heaven (or kingdom of God) requires a spiritual renewal, literally a birth from above. As it is explained to Nicodemus, this appears to be a conscious choice rather than an automatic process. 

How do I reconcile the old evangelical emphasis on the necessity of consciously choosing to pursue spiritual renewal, and thus gain admission to God's kingdom, with my new conviction that kingdom membership is the default option for humankind unless an individual opts out?

I've lost contact with that barber--in fact, I barely need one now--so I'll have to go it alone. This may take a while, so please take that comfort break and recharge your glass while I work this out.