Baptism saves you

In 1 Peter 3:18-22, we read that there is an anti type that saves us, that is, baptism.  This verse generates a great deal of verbal, linguistic and grammatical gymnastics.  People do not want this verse to mean what it says because it seems to speak contrary to the Lutheran/Calvinistic mantra of salvation by faith alone, sola fide.
Possibly the greatest stumbling point in this regard is the meaning that is often affixed to baptism.  The evangelical world wants to disembowel the word and reduce it to a public profession of faith.  But obviously this is clearly contrary to 1 Peter 3:21.
As you can probably guess, I am going to argue for the historic meaning of the text.  Baptism is a sacrament that actually does something.  As a sacrament, baptism identifies us as part of the body of Christ.  Similar to the Old Covenant mark of circumcision, baptism is the New Covenant "mark" as belonging to the people of God. It is very helpful to consider circumcision when seeking to understand baptism.  In the Old Covenant, if someone wanted to be part of the people of God, they needed to accept the covenant sign.  Did the covenant sign save them? In a sense, yes, but only if they were faithful.  Consider the Day of Atonement.  The high priest would enter the holy of holies once a year and offer up sacrifices for all the people.  If he emerged from the tabernacle alive, then it meant that God accepted his sacrifice.  This means the sins of all the people were covered. All of them for all of them.  But we know full well that not all of the Israelites entered the Promised Land.  Many of them died in the wilderness.  In other words, some went to heaven and some didn't.
This same pattern holds true for the New Covenant believer. If someone wants to be part of the body of Christ, he must be baptized into the church, the body of Christ.  Does this save him? In a sense, yes, as long as he is faithful and perseveres to the end.  Having a right understanding of the nature of baptism will truly help one rightly understand this passage.
Baptism saves us as it is "the" means of entering into right relation with the body of Christ.  It is into Christ that we are being baptized and life is only in him.  But we only attain eternal life in and with Christ when we are faithful and persevere in the faith to the end.

Self identification

Is this legitimate? Can someone independently self identify themselves as a Christian? Or does that need to occur within a community and by a community?
Part of the problem comes from self defining what it means to be a Christian.  When we make this up for ourselves, there are no boundaries and any personal interpretation or twisting of the text happens. Obviously, the Orthodox church has a very definite answer for this question.  Another piece of this consideration is that of the place and meaning of baptism (see 1 Peter 3:18-22). As i have said in my previous post on baptism, we are baptized into the body of Christ, not as a mere personal statement about our faith but as a sacrament actually making us part of the body of Christ.
This reality about baptism then precludes a self identification as a Christian.  We are Christians because we have been baptized into the body of Christ, not because we simply claim to be.  Surely, our profession or taking on of the name of Christ is vital to our lives in Christ, but only secondary to baptism.
The other thought that occurred to me in this regard is that no other situation allows for self identification as a means of defining who we are.  A man can start painting pictures and call himself an artist, but this is merely something one "does", not "is".  When we get married, the church or the state says it is so, for example.  I cannot think of any area where self identification is legitimate.  I would love to hear some feedback on this question.

Music and modesty

I had an interesting thought today that seems to tie together two seemingly disconnected things.  As i am as big fan of music, the philosophical grounds for music and the worldviews behind them are of interest to me.  I believe i have observed in the Protestant world the pattern of being about five years behind the creative curve.  For the most part (a very large part), most Christian artists are not original or creative, they simply imitate, usually poorly, what is happening in the world, but they are about five years behind.
The second point that occurred to me is that in the world of clothing and modesty the same type of mentality is occurring.  The Protestant world, American evangelicalism, has no standard for modesty, it merely follows the lead of the world, but only about five to ten years behind. If one was to survey a large number of Protestant pastors, i fear that about 90% of them have not given modesty more than a cursory consideration, if at all.  The remaining ten percent may have a definite position, but that position is probably not based on an objective standard but a personal, subjective one.  Maybe I'm wrong, hopefully i am, but looking at the way the modern American teenager and young adult dress agrees with my conclusions.
My final question is, is this a pattern that we will see elsewhere, if we take the time to look?  I believe these observations for perfectly with the modern evangelical worldview, that of making oneself the final authority, interpreting Scripture for oneself.

Objective standards

It seems standard fare in Protestant America for the average citizen to choose the standard by which they form their thoughts and actions.  One example of this is the manner in which people raise their children.  Mr and Mrs X, self identified Christians, raise their children according to a set of standards that they believe are in accordance with the Christian faith.  But Mr and Mrs Y, also self professed Christians, observe particular thinking and practices in Mr and Mrs X's children that they believe to be sinful.  Who is right? Or is there even a set criteria by which these different standards can be judged?
And even consider the position into which this puts the child.  If this is a particularly introspective child, he may wonder which path to follow.  From a Protestant perspective, I honestly cannot identify an answer.  But from the historic Orthodox perspective, there is an answer.  Because the Protestant world has no final authority to which to appeal, they must appeal to private interpretation.  But the Orthodox world can and does appeal to the historic faith. As Orthodox, we say that the faith and practice of the church as it has been held and practiced for the last two thousand years is our final appeal.  That which the apostles practiced and taught, that which the church has always practiced and believes, based on the faith of the apostles, is that standard we hold.
We must learn to submit to the authority of the apostolic faith, regardless of how it makes us feel.

Life as a ritual

The thought just occurred to me that what if our lives were constructed in the same way as the church calendar?  The Orthodox church follows a rhythmic pattern, throughout each day, each week and all year, in our worship.  What if we formed our lives on the same pattern?  What if we created a pattern to our daily lives, a ritual to be followed?
This sounds really good to me, but that might just be my preferences talking. I really like pattern and ritual.

People are evil, people are foolish

In the news today, I read of an Atlanta, Georgia man who "accidentally" left his 22 month old son strapped in his car seat in his Suburban while he worked in his office.  He said that at the end of the day, he returned to his vehicle to find the boy dead.  Later evidence showed that he had been in his vehicle during lunch.  The man is being charged for murder with a possible death penalty. 
I next read an article about a 25 year old woman who beat her 4 year old son to death because he "walked and talked gay".  She and her boyfriend beat him so badly that his intestines burst.  The boy died two days later from septic poisoning.
I cannot even begin to articulate how angry this makes me.  These situations and so many others are wrong in so many ways.  These people who are supposed to love and care for these little children are doing the opposite.  The only people these children have and depend on are failing them. The evil being perpetrated in these situations is beyond my comprehension. 
In addition to this familial failure is the failure of the church.  If everyone in the church would be reaching out and involving themselves in the lives of those around them, situations like this could be greatly minimized or eradicated.
But we are too distracted.  We are too busy with entertainment and pleasures. We get angry when we have to wait in line at the grocery store.  We get angry when our favorite sports team loses a game.  We get angry when our internet connection isn't fast enough.  But we don't get angry at sin and suffering.  We sit on our leather couches playing video games on large screen tv's.  We eat $100 dinners and drink $50 bottles of wine.  We complain if the pastor isn't funny or talks too long.
America has become the land of the easy and complacent.  American evangelicalism is the self created self sustaining fabrication of the self willed man.  We want to be rich and comfortable and not be bothered by anything.
Our foolishness is made painfully evident in the suffering of those around us, while we ignore them.

Nice or godly?

There is a difference between these two characteristics but it seems that many people confuse the two or make them synonymous. Almost as a side note, the etymology behind "nice" is interesting.  The word previously was an insult, a way of calling someone a simpleton.  But as time has progressed, it has become a way of identifying someone as pleasant and kind.  Obviously there is nothing wrong with these characteristics, but they simply are not synonymous with godliness. 
Comparing "nice" with "godly" reveals that one doesn't necessarily follow from the other, in either direction.  In my experience, it seems that many people see a "nice young man" or a "lovely young lady" and automatically assume that they are Christians.  We tend to look upon the children of others, we see their good manners and courteous behavior and wish our own children would emulate such characteristics.  There is nothing wrong with these characteristics but they do not equate with godliness.  Everyone has sins with which they struggle, including the well behaved child.  Just because child "A" is nice and child "B" is somewhat surly, does not necessarily mean that child "A" is better off. It very well could be that the first child is self centered and vain, while the second has an extremely good work ethic and is self sacrificial.
The point in all of this is simple.  We need to set our standard at a level described by the Church, not by modern American culture.  It is very easy to be nice, it takes a lifetime of hard work, struggle, fasting, prayer and asceticism to be godly.  Striving for nice is far too low of a goal.  We can and should encourage our children and ourselves for the higher goal of godliness.