Is Rebaptism Biblical?

As much as I enjoy exploring religious topics and learning about the history of the Christian church and its myriad sects, I am far from being a biblical scholar or theologian. Please keep this in mind as I explore the important and controversial subject of baptism and rebaptism.

The Followers teach that only a very special man can perform biblical baptism. The man must be “called” by God to be a preacher. The calling comes about in ways that are clear to both the newly called preacher and to other godly men who have confirmation visions, dreams, or other signs. A man cannot just say, “I’ve been called” and be accepted, it must be confirmed by others.



When I was young, I knew some older people in the church who had been baptized in other churches and then joined the Followers where they were told they needed a true baptism by a man called by God – Walter. Two of the folks who were baptized by Walter after having been baptized earlier in their lives were my uncle and my grandmother (on my dad’s side of the family). Both of them left the church after Walter died and before my birth. I'm told (and the baptism records confirm) that in the last few months of Walter’s baptism ministry, many outsiders came to be baptized, and very few of them stayed around long after his death.

So I have been wondering about this: is rebaptism biblical? Is it necessary? In my search, the first bible verse I found led me to believe that rebaptism is not biblical:

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Ephesians 4:5-6 (KJV)

But that didn’t address the claim that only certain baptisms count – the critical belief among the Followers that the person doing the baptism holds the key to salvation. Last December, Jerry Patton wrote a guest blog exploring the requirements for a person who performs baptisms. Who Can Baptize? 

I wasn’t satisfied with the very brief hint of “one baptism” in the Ephesians verse, so I read up a bit more and found other relevant verses. This verse, from the book of Acts, refers to some men who had been baptized by John the Baptist, and then were rebaptized by the apostle Paul, in the name of Jesus.

And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.  And he said unto them, unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Acts 19: 1-6

This verse brings up another question: most churches (including, I’m told, The Church of the Firstborn) baptize “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost” but here we are told to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 4:12

I grew up believing, as I was told, that baptism is what saves a person’s soul. But as an adult, the vast majority of Christians I met outside the FOC believed that making a commitment to follow Christ, along with a prayer (the sinner’s prayer) asking for forgiveness and inviting Jesus into one's heart was what saves. As a Follower, I understood Jesus’s statement to Nicodemus in John 3:5: “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit” to mean that you must be baptized with water to be saved. While the understanding of most Christians is that being “born of water” happens to us at birth, and being born of the Spirit happens when we accept the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ. And this makes sense; I accepted the new explanation with relief. But I have been digging deeper into scripture and I wonder about other verses such as this:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mark 16:16 (KJV)

I’m not sure what to make of it. In the first part of the sentence it is belief and baptism that saves; but the second half states that unbelief results in damnation. Is it possible that those who believe, but are not baptized will end up in neither heaven nor hell? And here is another verse that leads me to the conclusion that baptism is a requirement of salvation:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2:28 (KJV)

I had never realized that the New Testament refers to the baptism of Noah’s family. Here it is along with a clear indication that baptism leads to salvation:

to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

1 Peter 3:20-21 (NIV)

In doing the research for this blog entry, I spoke to a number of fundamentalists. Two of them said that rebaptism is a sin and is recrucifying Christ. I tried to find a biblical reference for this – but found that this idea may have originated with Martin Luther (the protestant reformer who brought to light the sins and heresies of the Catholic Church). The term Anabaptist means to re-baptize, and centuries ago, Anabaptists were executed for their beliefs.



I have a lot of questions. I find that the more I learn the less confidence I have in what I “know.”  A good sign of spiritual (and intellectual) growth, I think. What do you think? Is rebaptism a sin? Who has the authority to baptize people? And, if people back in Walter White’s days were rebaptized by him, then why is it such an unforgivable sin when one of the Followers gets baptized in another church? Is it better to remain unbaptized, considering all the evidence of our need for baptism? And if God does send you another leader, can’t those people just be rebaptized?

 

Old Haunts

Do you believe in ghosts? I have personally experienced and seen beings that were not flesh and blood human – though I’m not sure if they were ghosts, spirits, angels, or something else. I was not afraid of them, and I’m not afraid of going into places that are known (said?) to be haunted.

A few weeks ago, while on a writing retreat on Star Island off the coast of New Hampshire, I attended a gathering of more than fifty writers in a small graveyard at just after 9pm for ghost stories. While we listened a few of the gathered stood and told of their own otherworldly encounters.

A fellow writer was feeling sick, but she left her Android loaded with a Ghost Radar app for us to run. I volunteered to hold the Android – curious what technology could possibly pick up of another dimension. What it picked up were several random words and three names: Mary, Edward, and Elizabeth. The next morning, I headed back to the graveyard to look for the names – there were less than thirty graves total, and guess what? There were gravestones bearing the names of Mary, Edward, and Elizabeth.

* * * * *

This past Thursday morning, I dressed in grey corduroy pants and a lightweight grey cotton t-shirt, socks – despite the July heat wave, and tennis shoes. Not my typical summer teaching apparel – which, lately has been maxi-skirts and dresses. It was the first time my students would see me dressed casually and I wondered how they’d react. I couldn’t wear a floor length skirt and high heels for the what I had planned immediately following my morning lecture. I needed to be able to move comfortably. But, considering the heat of the day, a skirt would’ve been nicer.

I left the campus with the last of my students and hurried out to my overheated car. Sweat pouffed my blow out and streaked my make-up. Oh, cursed summer, why do I even bother? My gut ached and my mind played out scenarios of being arrested for trespassing on private property. Would they impound my car too?

I hope nobody’s there. It’s Thursday, so hopefully they’re getting ready for church [at 1:15?]. Maybe there’s a funeral today.

As I got closer, I realized I wasn’t sure where the turnoff was. It had been at least 17 or 18 years since I’d been out there - maybe longer. I knew the main road and what side of the road and how to tell if I’d gone too far. I remembered the dip in the highway where cars exceed the posted 55/mph and where a church member had a fatal car crash on the way to my great-aunt’s funeral in 1992. I reached the road where my childhood home had been, too far. I turned around and found the right side road on the first try.

Despite the full power air conditioning that had been cooling me down, I felt sweat sliding down my sides. My heart beat sped up as I approached the site – and I was ready to turn around and leave when I saw the groundskeeper spraying around the gravestones. I parked in front of the “No Trespassing” sign.

I got out of the car and walked through the open gate. I didn’t recognize the groundskeeper, but he looked like he could be a Follower – short hair, clean cut. It wasn’t the same person who kept the grounds all my life – he was now buried in this cemetery.

I walked among the gravestones and saw many familiar names. My ex-boyfriend was there, and his baby son. His best friend was also there. Many girls and young women who were younger than me. Girls I’d known growing up, and guys. And then there were the babies and toddlers. I counted thirty nine little ones buried all together – those were the ones who had headstones, many had just plastic markers which were overgrown. There were at least another twenty buried among the adult graves – not counting those dating back before the 1930s when the church began using the cemetery. There are a number of gravestones from non-Followers from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 

It made me sad to see graves of babies from the year I was born – 1973 (it made me sad seeing all the babies' and childrens' graves). These might have been my friends had they survived. And something else struck me about that year – an irony, maybe some savvy readers will comment on it.

I spent about two hours walking among those graves. The cemetery is a sacred place in the Follower tradition. Here lies Walter White, our leader. When Christ returns, when the trumpet blows, the faithful Followers buried here will rise. I always believed that Jesus was coming back to Oregon City – either to the church building or to this cemetery to claim his faithful and judge those of us who didn’t cut it.

A few years ago my parents began talking about being cremated when they died. I was shocked to say the least. Why would you want to have your flesh incinerated when you had spent your entire lifetime in fear of an eternity of incineration? Never. Also, how could you be raised from the dead at the rapture if your body was ashes – and some people actually scatter the ashes of their loved ones. What happens then?

Of course, intellectually, I realize that a person’s burial site and the condition of their remains does not affect their final destination. But I still dislike the idea of cremation.

Un-Mormonizable

I went to school with Mormons. I didn't know it though and it wouldn't have mattered. Everyone who wasn't a Follower was a worldly person. They could worship whoever and however they chose, they were lost to eternity regardless.

In college, my United States history teacher introduced the Mormons in a way that left no doubt in my mind what she thought of the religion. The essence of her explanation was that there was a man named Joseph Smith who claimed angels talked to him and revealed new Holy Scriptures to him. He founded a new religion – Mormonism – and conveniently instituted the practice of polygamy in his religion which caused persecution and thus westward migration and the founding of the state of Utah. My professor clearly did not think highly of this religion.

Not long after that, I ran into an old high school classmate, who revealed that she had grown up Mormon, and went on to list off the names of our Mormon classmates – some very popular kids. I had no idea.

Two years later I became friends with a coworker who referred to herself as a “Jack Mormon” – a term she explained meant that she was raised in the Mormon religion but was not practicing the religion. She was a “Jack Mormon” rather than an ex-Mormon because if and when she ever returned to a faith, it would be Mormonism. My friend, we’ll call her Wendy (but that’s not her name) and I shared many coffee dates – we also shared many adult beverages, and she taught me to smoke cigarettes.

Three years into our friendship, Wendy moved to a town near Reno, Nevada. I agreed to drive down with her and fly home so she wouldn’t be alone. On the drive down, Wendy smoked her pot pipe regularly until I reached my threshold and asked for the keys. Modern day Suzi would’ve demanded the keys immediately, but my personality hadn’t developed quite so much back then.

I stayed with Wendy for a few days – we visited Lake Tahoe and had some home cooked meals. Then I took a plane back home to Portland. It was the end of our close friendship, but we have continued to correspond and have visited each other a handful of times in the years since.

A few months after her move, Wendy went through a major crisis – the nature of which is now unimportant. But her personality changed dramatically during this period. I called her one evening and noticed that there was a complete serenity about the way she spoke of the terrible things she was going through.

“How can you be so peaceful?” I said.

“When I am scared or lonely or frustrated, I just get down on my knees and talk to Jesus.” She said.

What had happened to my free-spirited, pot-smoking friend? I was intrigued.

A few weeks later, I flew down to Reno for a visit. She was living with a woman who owned a horse ranch and, in exchange for room and board, Wendy was training horses and giving individual horse riding lessons. The home and surroundings were beautiful.

The day after I arrived, Wendy and I took to the mountain and had a blast skiing. That evening – it was a Saturday night in a small town, Wendy’s host invited us out to hear some live music at a tavern. Wendy and I were both in our mid-twenties, but neither of us were drinkers at that point (alcohol never agreed much with me and Wendy had quit drinking). We sat at the bar sipping our caffeine-free sodas while the typical tavern patrons stared at us in disbelief.

Finally, a man approached and asked if he could buy us drinks. We politely declined – we still had full sodas. Then he asked if we were there with a parent. I guess there had been a big debate as to our ages and how we were in a tavern. That was a nice compliment. Wendy was a tiny girl – tall but very thin – with beautiful long blond hair. It was easy to see how people would think she was ten years younger, and I liked being lumped into the same youthful category.

We danced with some of the locals - including some Marines from a local base - to the fun country-western band and that was the night Wendy met her future husband (a Marine), though she didn't expect that outcome at the time.

The next morning, Wendy brought me to her church. Yes, she was back in the full swing of her Mormon religion. I was curious to see what it was all about.

We were greeted by two “elders” who were nineteen or twenty years old. We went into the sanctuary and sat for the sermon. I didn’t hear most of the sermon because the church members each had four or five or a million young children climbing over and under the benches and being squirrelly. The Followers had their children in church too, but parents with small children sat in the back rows and the moms took their children to one of the baby rooms if they made a peep. By the time we were three we knew how to sit still and quiet during church.

After the service, we went to a bible study group – women only. The leader walked us through a lesson that had to do with the Book of Revelation and its related explanatory scriptures in one of the Mormon books. Interesting.

I never went back to a Mormon church – it’s never held any appeal or modicum of validity to me. But I have made many more Mormon friends and acquaintances – some good and some not so much. Many Mormon friends, coworkers, and missionaries (elders) have tried to convince and convict me of the truth of this religion, but alas, I am un-Mormonizable. If Mormonism is true, I will be stuck in a lower heaven for all of eternity - unless some future generation gets baptized in my stead after I die. Either way, I'm okay with the risk.

The church experiences I've described today and last week – my earliest ones after leaving the Followers of Christ in Oregon City – were the most difficult and confusing, as I judged them through the lens of my FOC experiences. But as I got into a habit of reading scripture for myself (rather than relying on my memories of what other people told me), and began to ask important questions and actually listen with an open mind, the more I began to see that there were true believers everywhere I went - but I was not yet one of them.

Thy Barns Shall Be Filled With Plenty

Honour the Lord with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase:

So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.

Proverbs 3:9-10

Follower men pay a church fee of around a thousand dollars (the amount periodically increases, so I’m not sure what the current fee is) before they get married which – for most men – is in their late teens. After his marriage, a man pays a monthly due of fifty dollars (this too has increased over the years).

It’s not a bad deal. This lump sum payment and monthly dues covers all the health care the family will, in theory, need – corporate prayer of God’s chosen people. There is a church member who can set broken bones. Lay midwives provide free services for pregnant and birthing mothers. Volunteers will care for the sick and elderly. The church has a storeroom with hospital beds, wheelchairs, crutches, etc. The dues also cover the costs of the man’s wedding and funerals for himself, his wife, and his children. Not bad, but also not optional.

I didn’t know about tithing, though. The idea was new to me. For any reader who is, like I was, in the dark about this issue, let me explain. Tithing means giving ten percent of your income – before tax – to your local church each month. Here is the doctrine to support this practice: tithing scriptures. This is encouraged as an act of submission to God’s word – but not mandated. If you do not pay ten percent – or anything for that matter – nobody will call you and ask where your payment is (unless you’re Mormon – more about that in another post).

Parishioners are also encouraged to bring offerings to church services. In every church I have visited – and there have been a lot – with the exception of two, a collection plate, dish, fabric bag, or plastic bucket is passed around sometime during the worship (singing) portion of the service – either before or after the sermon. An offering is an amount of money that you give voluntarily that is above and beyond the ten percent tithe that you give out of obedience.

In my early days of seeking, I went to a fairly large church in Portland. I think I remember the name of the church, but I don’t want to represent a church by one experience, so the name will remain a mystery. Also, I have experienced other churches of this same denomination which were much different. Maybe you can identify it by your own experience.

The church service was televised live to a local audience – I’m not sure that’s important to this story, but I think so because the church had money. And the sermon was on the subject of wealth – the wealth of this world that God has in store for us, His faithful people.

The sanctuary was set up in a semi-circle around the stage. There was also a balcony – which is where I sat, owing to my late arrival. A row of padded chairs was set up on the pulpit and on these six chairs sat three couples, all very well dressed. As I think back on this experience – which happened more than fifteen years ago – I consider what a strange position members of the clergy find themselves in when selecting a wardrobe: on one hand they must dress well as a model to their parishioners, but on the other hand they are asking for financial sacrifices from people who may resent seeing their leaders wearing Valentino suits and their wives carrying Gucci bags while the members of the congregation give a chunk of their hard earned wages to support the ministry.

The three very well-dressed couples were – I thought – the senior pastor and his wife, and his sons and daughters-in-law. Now that I know a bit more about churches, I believe the three men may have all been pastors. It felt strange to have six people sitting on the stage - part of that being that I was accustomed to seeing nobody on the pulpit at church.

The sermon was about God’s plan for our financial prosperity. I am not joking about this. God wants us to enjoy all the earthly riches possible – that was the message I remember. Like I said this was fifteen plus years ago, but I still remember being horrified by this sermon. The pastor did use scripture to prove his points. Also, there are some things to say for all the good that can be done for those in need when we are financially prosperous – and he made these points as well.

But, I didn’t buy it.

Charismatic Culture Shock

I am a persistent person and I’ve always been fascinated with God and religion. Even growing up in the FOC where answers were not forthcoming about these things, I pestered and persisted in asking how things were, why things were, what things were like back when…. Bad experiences couldn’t keep me from trying again. I wandered into yet another church. It was an Assemblies of God church. I didn’t know what I was getting myself into.

This church was large. The pastor found his way to me immediately, introduced himself, and made small talk. The church service was nice, the message was fascinating (and convicting), the songs were the same hymns I’d sang all those years in the FOC – only with emotion behind them, harmonizing, instruments, etc.

So everything was fine and good until that final prayer. Trouble. The pastor started calling people out – like he was reading their minds! I’d heard many stories of Walter White rebuking people from the pulpit and now I was experiencing something similar. He called people out and they came forward to have their sins cast out. Nobody refused to go; nobody seemed shocked that this man knew what they’d been up to.

I was, thankfully, in the back row. As this calling forward of the sinners continued, I slumped lower in my seat. What if he read my mind? What dark thoughts or deeds would be found? I moved on.

Did I mention that my dad grew up Pentecostal? Let me just stop and say that I have nothing against this form or Christianity; I have actually known some really wonderful Pentecostals. But you have to understand that my only knowledge of church was one where everyone, absolutely everyone – especially women and children – tried their very hardest to do nothing noticeable in church. And Pentecostals are not exactly known for quiet reverence in church.

I discovered a new church in another town. I don’t remember the name of it. I figured it was just a community church because it was operating out of an old school house. Nothing fancy.

I went in and sat down in the middle of the congregation. A few people came up and introduced themselves. Friendly, but not pushy. And then the service began.

Whoa. These people went wild. They danced and whooped – like everyone in the building. It felt like a trippy dream or a movie. It couldn’t really be happening, could it? These were the “holy rollers” I’d heard about growing up. Some were on the floor. Most danced around and hollered words and phrases that made no sense. Scary.

What could I do? I was surrounded by these people on all sides. I was not getting up. I was not going to dance around – it would’ve been fake if I had. I wanted to be anywhere but there, but I was too scared to stand and walk out the door – what if someone grabbed me and made me dance?

I have no idea what the sermon was about. None. I was traumatized.

A few months later, I was invited to community potluck. Cool. I like potlucks. I brought some cookies and my appetite. Sometime in the middle of that meal I realized what was going on. These people all belonged to that church. I was being recruited.

An older man cornered me and began to explain how I couldn’t be saved unless I had the gift of speaking in tongues. I politely disagreed – several times because he was adamant about convincing me – and escaped to my car.

Lesson learned: never go to a potluck unless you know what the agenda is.

My First Time

This would be my first time. My mom had given me some advice on what to do, and since she had years of experience doing it – before she joined the FOC – I actually listened to her.

Me - 1990s

Every one of them would be wrong. That was a given. The goal was to find one that was more right and less wrong than the others. Mom said that if I was going to go to a worldly church, Baptist was the way to go. Dad thought Pentecostal was better, more about that on Wednesday.

I decided to go to First Baptist Church in Gladstone. I didn’t want to go to a church in Oregon City in case any of my high school classmates recognized me at their church. I know, weird right?

I dressed for church the way I would dress going to the FOC. Women wore dresses or skirts, no exceptions. The skirt or dress had to hit below the knee.  We could wear straight skirts, but not too tight. There could be no cleavage showing, none. We dressed well, but always kept ourselves modestly covered. I arrived at FBC in my church attire, parked my car, and started to the front door. Things were not right.

Women were walking into the building wearing blue jeans. I’m not kidding about this. Shocked, stunned, horrified at the heresy before me, I turned and headed right back to my car.

A year or so later, I tried another church. This one was in Oregon City, where I was living again, attending the FOC sporadically and continuing to endure the corporate shunning. I was used to it. I went to a neighborhood church, nondenominational.

The women wore dresses, thank goodness. I was enthusiastically greeted by just about everyone in the tiny little church. No flying under the radar there – and certainly no shunning going on. The church service was interesting. It was the first time I had heard a sermon since Glenford Lee died back in 1986, but it was really difficult to focus on what the pastor was saying because he kept looking right at me and hinting about if I wanted to come forward. Uh, no. I did not want to come forward. I wanted to sit right where I was and be invisible. Check things out from a safe distance. At the end of the sermon there was prayer, then singing, then more prayer – and in this last prayer the pastor prayed for me – me, I tell you! – to come forward and confess. Everyone, everyone, turned to stare at me, willing me to stand and walk down the isle. 

OK, that was so not happening. Confess? To a church full of overeager strangers? No. 

I did not go back.

More adventures in church shopping to come ....

Seeking Wisdom with Prayer and Plato

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

- James 1:5 (KJV)

If I had to choose a moment in my life when my thinking began to change and I realized that there was a possibility that my early religious instruction (such that it was) may have been less than perfectly accurate, it was when I first read Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. This text, which was written more than 300 years b.c., looks at reality, perceived reality, and distorted reality. If you have not done so already (or if it’s been years since you last read it), please read this translation and leave comments below – let’s have a discussion.

                                                    *           *           *            *          *


[Socrates] And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground cave, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the cave; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.


[Glaucon] I see.


[Socrates] And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.


[Glaucon] You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.


[Socrates] Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?


[Glaucon] True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?


[Socrates] And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?


[Glaucon] Yes, he said.


[Socrates] And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?


[Glaucon] Very true.


[Socrates] And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?
[Glaucon] No question, he replied.


[Socrates] To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.


[Glaucon] That is certain.

[Socrates] And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive someone saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?


[Glaucon] Far truer.


[Socrates] And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?


[Glaucon] True, he now.


[Socrates] And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he’s forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.


[Glaucon] Not all in a moment, he said.


[Socrates] He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?


[Glaucon] Certainly.


[Socrates] Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.


[Glaucon] Certainly.


[Socrates] He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?


[Glaucon] Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.


[Socrates] And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the cave and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?


[Glaucon] Certainly, he would.


[Socrates] And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,

Better to be the poor servant of a poor master,

and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?

[Glaucon] Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.


[Socrates] Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?


[Glaucon] To be sure, he said.


[Socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.


[Glaucon] No question, he said.


[Socrates] This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.


[Glaucon] I agree, he said, as far as I am able to understand you.


[Socrates] Moreover, I said, you must not wonder that those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our allegory may be trusted.


[Glaucon] Yes, very natural.


[Socrates] And is there anything surprising in one who passes from divine contemplations to the evil state of man, misbehaving himself in a ridiculous manner; if, while his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomed to the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in courts of law, or in other places, about the images or the shadows of images of justice, and is endeavoring to meet the conceptions of those who have never yet seen absolute justice?


[Glaucon] Anything but surprising, he replied.


[Socrates] Anyone who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye; and he who remembers this when he sees any one whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter light, and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he will count the one happy in his condition and state of being, and he will pity the other; or, if he have a mind to laugh at the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be more reason in this than in the laugh which greets him who returns from above out of the light into the cave.


[Glaucon] That, he said, is a very just distinction.


[Socrates] But then, if I am right, certain professors of education must be wrong when they say that they can put a knowledge into the soul which was not there before, like sight into blind eyes.


[Glaucon] They undoubtedly say this, he replied.


[Socrates] Whereas, our argument shows that the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being, and of the brightest and best of being, or in other words, of the good.


[Glaucon] Very true.


[Socrates] And must there not be some art which will effect conversion in the easiest and quickest manner; not implanting the faculty of sight, for that exists already, but has been turned in the wrong direction, and is looking away from the truth?


[Glaucon] Yes, he said, such an art may be presumed.


[Socrates] And whereas the other so-called virtues of the soul seem to be akin to bodily qualities, for even when they are not originally innate they can be implanted later by habit and exercise, the of wisdom more than anything else contains a divine element which always remains, and by this conversion is rendered useful and profitable; or, on the other hand, hurtful and useless. Did you never observe the narrow intelligence flashing from the keen eye of a clever rogue --how eager he is, how clearly his paltry soul sees the way to his end; he is the reverse of blind, but his keen eyesight is forced into the service of evil, and he is mischievous in proportion to his cleverness.


[Glaucon] Very true, he said.


[Socrates] But what if there had been a circumcision of such natures in the days of their youth; and they had been severed from those sensual pleasures, such as eating and drinking, which, like leaden weights, were attached to them at their birth, and which drag them down and turn the vision of their souls upon the things that are below --if, I say, they had been released from these impediments and turned in the opposite direction, the very same faculty in them would have seen the truth as keenly as they see what their eyes are turned to now.


[Glaucon] Very likely.


[Socrates] Yes, I said; and there is another thing which is likely. or rather a necessary inference from what has preceded, that neither the uneducated and uninformed of the truth, nor yet those who never make an end of their education, will be able ministers of State; not the former, because they have no single aim of duty which is the rule of all their actions, private as well as public; nor the latter, because they will not act at all except upon compulsion, fancying that they are already dwelling apart in the islands of the blest.


[Glaucon] Very true, he replied.


[Socrates] Then, I said, the business of us who are the founders of the State will be to compel the best minds to attain that knowledge which we have already shown to be the greatest of all-they must continue to ascend until they arrive at the good; but when they have ascended and seen enough we must not allow them to do as they do now.


[Glaucon] What do you mean?


[Socrates] I mean that they remain in the upper world: but this must not be allowed; they must be made to descend again among the prisoners in the cave, and partake of their labors and honors, whether they are worth having or not.


[Glaucon] But is not this unjust? he said; ought we to give them a worse life, when they might have a better?


[Socrates] You have again forgotten, my friend, I said, the intention of the legislator, who did not aim at making any one class in the State happy above the rest; the happiness was to be in the whole State, and he held the citizens together by persuasion and necessity, making them benefactors of the State, and therefore benefactors of one another; to this end he created them, not to please themselves, but to be his instruments in binding up the State.


[Glaucon] True, he said, I had forgotten.


[Socrates] Observe, Glaucon, that there will be no injustice in compelling our philosophers to have a care and providence of others; we shall explain to them that in other States, men of their class are not obliged to share in the toils of politics: and this is reasonable, for they grow up at their own sweet will, and the government would rather not have them. Being self-taught, they cannot be expected to show any gratitude for a culture which they have never received. But we have brought you into the world to be rulers of the hive, kings of yourselves and of the other citizens, and have educated you far better and more perfectly than they have been educated, and you are better able to share in the double duty. Wherefore each of you, when his turn comes, must go down to the general underground abode, and get the habit of seeing in the dark. When you have acquired the habit, you will see ten thousand times better than the inhabitants of the cave, and you will know what the several images are, and what they represent, because you have seen the beautiful and just and good in their truth. And thus our State which is also yours will be a reality, and not a dream only, and will be administered in a spirit unlike that of other States, in which men fight with one another about shadows only and are distracted in the struggle for power, which in their eyes is a great good. Whereas the truth is that the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are most eager, the worst.


[Glaucon] Quite true, he replied.


[Socrates] And will our pupils, when they hear this, refuse to take their turn at the toils of State, when they are allowed to spend the greater part of their time with one another in the heavenly light?


[Glaucon] Impossible, he answered; for they are just men, and the commands which we impose upon them are just; there can be no doubt that every one of them will take office as a stern necessity, and not after the fashion of our present rulers of State.


[Socrates] Yes, my friend, I said; and there lies the point. You must contrive for your future rulers another and a better life than that of a ruler, and then you may have a well-ordered State; for only in the State which offers this, will they rule who are truly rich, not in silver and gold, but in virtue and wisdom, which are the true blessings of life. Whereas if they go to the administration of public affairs, poor and hungering after the' own private advantage, thinking that hence they are to snatch the chief good, order there can never be; for they will be fighting about office, and the civil and domestic broils which thus arise will be the ruin of the rulers themselves and of the whole State.


[Glaucon] Most true, he replied.


[Socrates] And the only life which looks down upon the life of political ambition is that of true philosophy. Do you know of any other?


[Glaucon] Indeed, I do not, he said.


[Socrates] And those who govern ought not to be lovers of the task? For, if they are, there will be rival lovers, and they will fight.


[Glaucon] No question.


[Socrates] Who then are those whom we shall compel to be guardians? Surely they will be the men who are wisest about affairs of State, and by whom the State is best administered, and who at the same time have other honors and another and a better life than that of politics?


[Glaucon] They are the men, and I will choose them, he replied.


[Socrates] And now shall we consider in what way such guardians will be produced, and how they are to be brought from darkness to light, -- as some are said to have ascended from the world below to the gods?


[Glaucon] By all means, he replied.


[Socrates] The process, I said, is not the turning over of an oyster-shell, but the turning round of a soul passing from a day which is little better than night to the true day of being, that is, the ascent from below, which we affirm to be true philosophy?

[Glaucon] Quite so