Baptizmo – not a name for a Super Hero

Listen to Sermons

January 13, 2019

May I speak to you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Today we will witness infant baptism. Today, we also hear of baptism in our gospel reading – the narrative of the baptism of Christ.

Jesus, an image of the invisible God, come to us – Incarnation – taking off some of God’s self and putting on some of humanities self – fully human, fully God; has become one of us.

Jesus saves us and shows us the way – how to live.

Here. Now. In our narrative this morning Jesus is showing us the need for baptism.

Scripturally Jesus models two things for us that are what we call “sacraments” – though there may be a wider lens of considering sacrament. In the New Testament, it is Holy Communion and Baptism.

In Greek, the word for baptism has a more descriptive meaning than English conveys that helps us understand the significance of what is taking place. The verb “bapto” means to “dip in or under, to dye” – like dying a garment…when you dip in the cloth the garment changes completely into something different: it’s evident; it shows. The word “baptizmo” appears in different constructions throughout the New Testament: it may vary a bit but includes meaning “immerse, sink, drown, go under, sink into…” (Bromiley, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, p. 410).

We hear both the power and force of baptism. And perhaps the danger.

In the back of our Book of Common Prayer – which you have in your pews – there is a wonderful section called “An Outline of the Faith: commonly called the Catechism.” The word Catechism tells us the format of this outline – it is a summary in question and answer structure. How great is that?

On page 857 we have the questions: what are the sacraments? And what is baptism?

A sacrament is defined as an “outward visible sign of inward and spiritual grace.” We spoke recently of grace – grace is unmerited favor. Something we neither deserve nor earn…it just is…God’s extravagant posture toward us: full of grace.

A sacrament is something outward that is a means of grace. A vehicle of grace…of God’s extravagance…a special way God provides connection to God…revelation of God.

Communion. Baptism.

Bread. Wine. Water.

Normal and familiar things with cultural associations that God uses to show us God, to connect us to God.

God is so good to us to continue to reveal the truth to us in the midst of who we are – quite small humans with great limitation.

Jesus today model’s baptism. The narrative sounds a bit tidy, but what we see is that Jesus is with others, quite simply in line to be baptized in a river. Outside. Crowded. He models what we need to do and does it as we do. Jesus is - in blunt terms – getting into dirty water with dirty sinners. He’s not aloof, not separated, but connecting himself to us as we are.

But why a sacrament of involving water? What is the outward visible sign and the inward spiritual grace given?

The outward sign is water. Familiar.

When we think of water, what do we think of?

Well, washing and cleansing. Recreation – it’s delightful. Satisfying – we thirst. Terrifying – we cannot breathe underwater.

Life and death.

Kenneth Leech, in his book, True Prayer: An Invitation to Christian Spirituality, beautifully asserts: “The Baptismal liturgy embodies the spiritual life in miniature”

The inward grace of baptism is union with God.

The means comes through the experience of blessed water.

Baptism in the early church showed this a bit more dramatically: candidates for baptism would be stripped of their clothes – symbolic of stripping off the old nature. Then, baptism – going through the waters. Signaling the washing away of sin. And further, the waters of baptism signify death – a dying. Finally, a coming up out of the waters – rising to new life.

A passing through the waters…we hear the gravity of it in our Isaiah reading this morning: “Do not fear…when you pass through the waters, I will be with you [says the Lord], and the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you…”

Baptism – the means of grace that unites us to Christ in his life, death, and resurrection. Buried with Christ. Raised with Christ. A sacrament. A miracle.

The primary actor in baptism is God. A gift of God.

Today we respond – we have the privilege of witnessing this sacrament…this miracle with infants: James, Hamilton, and Madeline.

And we have the fortunate experience to remember our baptismal commitment. We may become aware that in our journey in the faith there is daily drowning – as symbolized in the baptismal waters…and daily renewal or resurrection in coming through the waters. We could say that metaphorically, we experience daily a renewal at the baptismal font: we die with Christ, we rise with Christ.

You may wonder why we would baptize a baby – certainly they are not making this commitment themselves? Our Book of Common prayer states simply and importantly: “Infants are baptized so that they can share citizenship in the Covenant, membership in Christ, and redemption by God.”

“Promises are made for them by their parents and sponsors, who guarantee that the infants will be brought up within the Church, to know Christ and be able to follow him.”

There is power in household commitments, family connection, and name. We hear in the book of Acts of entire households being baptized.

In our Christian culture, the reason for baptizing infants may be put simply and directly: it is a concern for the soul.

Infant baptism is not something to be trivialized.

What fuels this concern for the soul?

Augustine (or August-ine depending on your geographical rooting for pronunciation) helped tease out the term “original sin” - meaning it’s something we have, not something we do. We all have it. It’s something we suffer and endure. Something hardwired into us…even as babies. We all need Jesus all the time.

Sin separates us from God, baptism effectively unites us to God. And we work out this union with God over the entire course of our lives.

A one-time miracle. But a lifetime commitment. As we baptize infants, we make commitments on their behalf – a scaffolding if you will, until that commitment may be fully made for themselves.

New life. Freedom. United with Christ and with one another.

As we renew our baptismal vows this morning and witness these baptisms let us be mindful of God’s extravagance toward us…a miracle has happened to us who have been baptized, we will witness a miracle this morning…and as we consider the miracle remember – it’s all initiated by God…we do not rate a miracle by what it does or does not look like…by what it does or does not feel like…it simply is…we welcome it, we receive it by faith: we pass through the waters and are effectively united with God through Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.

Amen.

King David’s appetite got the better of him. What he wanted was good, but not for him.

In the Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas affirms that love was God’s reason for the making of the world and that his goodness permeates creation—but in pieces, disassembled like a jigsaw puzzle. He writes: “The perfect goodness that exists one and unbroken in God can exist in creatures only in a multitude of fragmented ways.”  

So David was drawn to a fragmentary good. His desire was one that we instinctively appreciate, because without it none of us would be here, but the wrongness of his acting on it was severe. Our appetites cause trouble when we are heedless of the good of others, and the puzzle as a whole.

What is love? “Willing the good” of another person, according to Aquinas. David’s motive wouldn’t count as love. He wanted Bathsheba for himself. Perhaps her feelings were reciprocal, but David left her husband’s good, his kingdom’s good, and other puzzle pieces, neglected on the floor. Inconveniently, a pregnancy occurred. Plan A was to give Uriah, the husband, grounds to believe he was the father. When that plan failed the king successfully arranged to have him killed in battle.

Evil, according to Aquinas, is a corruption of the good. “Power tends to corrupt,” as Lord Acton warned, and in this story we see why. Only a king could be tempted to sin like David did, because it would take a king to pull it off. David’s failure is common to men in high places, shadowing the lives and times of several of our recent presidents and even Martin Luther King. Like kings and presidents, prophets are susceptible.

When I started SUMMA, the high school theological debate camp, I named it partly for the Summa Theologiae––“the Summa,” for short. SUMMA, the camp, highlights faith’s intellectual dimension. According to the Summa, the book, our intellect is like an appetite. As David’s eye was attracted to the beauty of Bathsheba, our mind’s eye is drawn to truth. We call this attraction “reason.” Aquinas writes; “As the good denotes that towards which the appetite tends, so the true denotes that towards which the intellect tends.”

If truth is the sun, sometimes our sight of it is fogged by other appetites. David had broken three of the ten commandments (the sixth, seventh, and tenth, if you are keeping score) but he was oblivious. Nathan the prophet found a way to lift the fog. Lawyer-like, he caught the king’s attention with the case of a poor, honest sharecropper and his beloved lamb. David’s first job had been tending sheep, so he could relate. A selfish plantation owner took the poor man’s lamb to feed his party guests. The king was livid. “Is this for real?” “For real.” David’s appetite for justice burned. “That Simon Legree will pay!” he swore. Coming from a king that was a verdict, not an empty threat. Nathan had him. He drew out his mirror and held it to the king’s face. Look close, he said. You are that man. “The moment of truth.”

“We must no longer be children,” Paul writes to the Ephesians. “We must grow up,” he says, by “speaking the truth in love.” At SUMMA, the camp, the highest honor, “the SUMMA Prize,” is awarded to the camper who best shows us how that’s done. The prize is one thousand dollars. That is one way to make our point that truth and love are intertwined.

Often, finding truth takes expertise: science, logic, math. Aquinas’s expertise was logic and it took him years to learn. Not everyone would have the skill even if they afford the time. By God’s design, love requires no expertise. Everyone can understand and anyone can do it if they will. “It is evident,” Aquinas writes, “that not all are able to labor at learning and for that reason Christ has given a short law. Everyone can know this law and no one may be excused from observing it based on ignorance. This is the law of divine love.”

For a counterpoint, Franklin Roosevelt once compared our nation’s moral progress to our scientific progress unfavorably, which might suggest that finding truth is easier than loving. According to Jon Meacham, Roosevelt had drafted a speech to give on Thomas Jefferson’s birthday, April 13. This was 1945. The speech was discovered on Roosevelt’s desk in Warm Springs, Georgia, April 12, the day he died. This is FDR:

Today, science has brought all the different quarters of the globe so close together that it is impossible to isolate them one from another . . . Today we are faced with the preeminent fact that, if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships—the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together and work together in the same world, at peace. . . . Let us move forward with strong and active faith.

That’s from Meacham’s book The Soul of America: The Battle for our Better Angels. From 1776 to now, the book tracks our national ups and downs in answering to what what Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.” Meacham wrote the book because he thinks we need to listen much more closely to those better angels now. Who could disagree?

Aquinas and Roosevelt were both right. Aquinas, because only an Isaac Newton could discover calculus; and Roosevelt because, once discovered, truth is ours to keep. Libraries are full of it. Love is more like breakfast—we have to make it every morning. Aquinas called theology the “Queen of Sciences” because it's the science that has to reckon with both the library and the kitchen.

SUMMA, the camp, is a crash course in truth detection. I tell the students: “I didn’t bring you here to tell you what to think, but to show you how.” They learn the three parts of an argument: claim, evidence, and warrant. Claim: ‘What are you trying to get me to believe?’ Evidence: ‘What are you giving me to go on?’ Warrant: ‘How does the evidence support the claim?’

For example, claim: I say “Tomorrow it will rain.” Evidence: You ask “Why should I believe that?” I answer: “Open the window and take a whiff.” You open the window. “Oh,” you say, “the paper mill.”  Warrant: By what logic does this smell support my claim? It’s called an “inference from sign.” Does the Pine Bluff Paper Mill cause rain? No, but it lets us know the wind is from the south, and southern winds bring moisture from the Gulf of Mexico. Summer heat means afternoon convection: hot air rising from the earth. Add moisture and boom! Summer thunderstorms.

In one sentence in our gospel reading, Jesus makes two claims: (1) God sent me.  (2) Faith in me is a sign of God’s activity in the heart and mind of the believer. “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent,” he says. Again: “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” Smartly, people ask Jesus for evidence to support these claims. Moses gave us evidence, they remind him, out there in the wilderness. Our ancestors were hungry and thirsty. Miraculously, he gave them manna for bread and water from a boulder. So show us. “What sign are you going to give us that we may see it and believe in you?”

For John, the gospel writer, this question is like a student’s who had dozed off in class. It is summer school, the air conditioning is out and the windows are open. The air is hot, moist, and heavy with that familiar smell. The boy wakes up and asks the teacher to answer something she had just explained in detail: “So why should we believe that it will rain tomorrow?”

Jesus’ questioners had been dozing. In John’s gospel, signs followed everywhere he went. In Cana, he turned water into wine. In Capernaum, he healed a dying child; in Jerusalem, it was a sick old man too weak to walk. The latest sign had been the most spectacular so far, and these people who were asking for a sign had either seen or heard about it. From five loaves and two fish, five thousand hungry appetites were satisfied. In a fog, these interrogators fail to draw the inference from sign.

Jesus backs up and tries another tack. With Moses still in mind, he offers an analogy. Analogies are warrants that work by comparison. “This is like that.” You know what its like to hungry and be given bread? They nod, still digesting loaves that he had given. I am like that he says. “Those who come to me will never hunger and those who believe in me will never thirst,” he promises. He isn’t talking now about digestion, but about that activity of God in human hearts and minds––also called the Holy Spirit.

By this, he puts us on watch for good that answers to a longing deeper than hunger even, and more thrilling even than that dizzy dancing feeling that draws us to each other sometimes. Powerful and necessary though they are, these appetites, they point to only fragments of the good we need as human beings. We are made for more.

We don’t need faith to know this. Aristotle knew it. Reason, he taught, is like an appetite for good things greater than our emotional enjoyment and even our physical survival.

We do not live by bread alone. Reason shows us that much. Faith, hope, love—the activity of God in the minds and hearts of all believers––now show us more: eternal truth, everlasting goodness, and transcendent beauty. They are like coffee, eggs, and bacon cooking in the kitchen early in the morning, smells wafting up the stairs into the bedroom as we’re dressing, getting ready for the day.





secret