Good Shepherd United Church of Christ

Irregular Baptisms                                                          Luke 3:15-22
January 10, 2010                                                            Acts 8:14-17
Metairie

I say "irregular" for multiple reasons and I want to use the opportunity of today's texts to address the topic: controversies over baptism.

Luke's version of the baptism of Jesus is a variant of the story, as we hear it in Mark.  Luke's version, if you pay attention, omits the classic rendition of featuring John the Baptist as the paired figure with Jesus, cousin baptizing cousin.  Indeed, although John has his proclamation recorded, he is not pictured as the baptizer of Jesus.  We don't think this was just an accidental slip of the pen.  One supposition for the removal of John's role is that perhaps his followers became a rival group to the Jesus followers and so the text de-emphasizes the role of John.  Another theory is that later generations wanted to down play John since his prediction of Jesus as a firebrand did not actually turn out that way- indeed; Jesus was more of a pacifist than John seemed to predict.

Those controversies were hot in that day but almost invisible to us today.  Controversies come and go.

In the Acts text we learn that there seems to have been a distinction between being baptized by water and being baptized by the Holy Spirit.  Today we would not make separate those acts and perhaps we are getting a peek at the development of tradition.  At least it does seem that some baptisms were regarded as substandard, not quite up to code.  So, for instance in the later Catholic Church, if an "irregular" priest (say a Protestant woman) baptized you, it would not "count".

Through the centuries there were other baptism controversies, occasions when one group would devalue the ritual expression of another group of practitioners.  Roman Catholic churches did not recognize "irregular baptisms" if not done according to their code.  Later there were controversies over baptism by immersion versus baptism by sprinkling.  Some would say that sprinkling does not cut it, so you better go get dunked to get "really" baptized.

Baptism of children versus adult (or 'believer") baptism provides another example.  There are arguments and Biblical references on each side, but you might remember that people were exiled out of Massachusetts  to Rhode Island over this disagreement and were expelled from places in  Europe under penalty of death, so strong was the controversy, shockingly.

Controversies in the biblical era, in the Protestant Reformation and Counter Reformation, and down to our times may seem remote, even absurd, and certainly not worth either exile or execution.

My point is that controversy has always been a companion to Christianity and so why should we be dismayed by controversies of our day?  I would say that the enemy of a strong church is more likely to be complacency, rather than controversy.

Counter to some messages I have I received, I do expect to bring controversies to the pulpit at Good Shepherd.  Why?  Because to avoid controversy is to avoid struggling with the important issues of our day- it is a flabby, lazy church, content with "happy blather" Tough up, Good Shepherd!  We are not so weak, so vulnerable, and so pathetic that we need absent ourselves from controversy.

Think of it- if early Christians had avoided controversy, we would not have 4 gospels, with their inherent deviations which complicate the encounter with Jesus.

Think of it- if there had been no controversies over faith statements we would not have the Apostle's Creed to fix the boundaries of the belief systems.

Think of it- if controversy had not been engaged there would be no Protestant expression of the church.

I could go on...More recently Christendom has engaged in great and productive controversies- can women be called to ordained ministry?  Can the traditional expression, "I baptize you in the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit be effective when the words are switched to "I baptize you in the name of Jesus"?  Well, if that alternative can be used how about a Trinitarian formulation that portrays God as activity rather than by name? - "God, the Creator, God the Redeemer and God, the Sanctifier.  Why not?

Let the argumentation begin, I say.  Or else distance ourselves from the great issues of our day.  Did Jesus avoid controversies?  Certainly not.  Did the Apostle Paul?  Did the early churches?  Do any of the Gospel writers?

We have benefited from controversies of the past.  We read the Bible in our native language, not Latin.  This congregation (for better or worse) has had me as interim minister because some of our forefathers courageously fought for women's ordination.

As some of you know, I lived in London for awhile and the church there is pretty well dead.  It is a national church, the Episcopal Church, and there are few denominational controversies.  As an Anglican priest you are paid by the state to provide for your parish, which is a geographical area just like in Louisiana .  Not many people come to worship, but a priest of a handsome building is incredibly busy supplying parish citizens with baptisms and weddings (which you are required to perform as a state functionary).

So every Sunday you are baptizing babies whose parents do not come to church.  And every Saturday you are performing weddings for people who have no interest in a Christian marriage.  But no controversies, mind you!  Give me a good controversy any old day!  The alternative is like marshmallow fluff religion:  sweet to be sure, but hardly nutritious.

Recently our Council gave me permission (one time permission) to officiate at an "irregular wedding".  More about that next week when we consider the story of the wedding at Cana .  Today we hear about irregular baptisms from Luke and Acts.  What I'd like you to take away from today's sermon this morning-

1.  Controversy is a natural by product of a vital tradition
2.  Engaging controversy is enlivening, not to be avoided
3.  If you avoid controversy you are likely in the early stages of death; a hospice church where you might as well hang up a sign that says:  "Do not Disturb."

I will let you in on a ministerial secret- one of the gripes that consistently arise when pastors gather informally.  I have heard the same gripes in New England, in the Rocky Mountains, in the mid west, and even sometimes here in Louisiana .

In secret we gripe about performing baptisms for babies we never see again.  We feel like actors in a fraudulent transaction when we handle the child, pour the water, say the Trinitarian formulation, all the while suspecting that the promises made will not be kept.

Baptism in England has become a pretty, sweet ritual, a naming event with family party to follow.  None of these are bad things- they just are not baptism.  And we ministers too often collude, to avoid controversy.

An author advises:  we must establish a clear relationship between baptism and Christian living.  Otherwise baptism becomes a fetish (or a magic trick) in the church.  A precious occasion, perhaps, because it is traditional, but a baptism without expectation of Christian living is merely a ritual born of thin sentimentality where we rejoice with "oohs" and "ahs" with a family when the new arrival is "properly done" There is no need to despise this ritual, but it is not baptism.  (The Sacraments in Religious Education and Liturgy by Robert Browning and Ray A. Reed.)

A colleague of mine said, ranting on about our tepid approach to baptism:  If we were serious about our promises at the occasion of baptism, we'd be going around town, banging on doors, demanding, "Where's my child?"  "Where is MY baby? the baby that I personally promised to nurture in the body of Christ!  I want to see my baby!"

Can you imagine that?  Our church council members or the search committee members, as part of their work, banging on doors?  Quite a picture.

Christianity is unique in its initiation ritual when by act the child is taken from the parents, signifying that the biological family is not the primary family because now the child is part of the Christian family, regardless of the activity of the biological family.  The primary family is not Mom, Pop and kids; it is the body of Christ.  And that might just be a controversial topic for another day- the fetish of Focus on the Family which idealizes the nuclear biological family, a decidedly Pagan idea.

Through the controversies of the centuries, God's word does not fail.  We need not fear controversies because these verbal contests are guided by the Holy Spirit.  Be not afraid.

Rather than cower before controversy, we need engage it...thoughtfully, respectfully, imaginatively.  Controversy is our friend, not our enemy, when engaged with love.

Today we consider the controversies of baptism.  But here is one incontrovertible thought with which I conclude the sermon.  We at Good Shepherd are blessed abundantly with children who have been baptized at our font.  We have so many children that we are starting another Sunday School class and really we could add another to that if we had sufficient volunteers.

Listen to the promises we made at each child's baptism and I quote.  "Do you promise your love, support and care to the one about to be baptized as he/she grows in Christ?"

And you say, "We promise our love, support and care."  That’s what you say.

We don't say:  "if she is my own biological grandchild...." or "if it's convenient or easy for me"...or "if I find the child attractive and pleasant to be around"...

There are no "IF" clauses in the baptismal promises, are there?  So I commend you for being promise keepers.  Good Shepherd has a wonderful history of providing for children and youth.  Nothing pleases us more than an overflowing Vacation Bible School and everyone understands its "all hands on deck"...

In our Council room, I have changed out the historical bulletin board and put up some empty newsprint paper for us to imagine our future.  Sociologists and psychologists will tell you that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.  So we can expect our children's and youth programs to grow (and your minister will not have much to gripe about!).  In the end a better measure of baptism rituals is not dunking or sprinkling, not infant or believer baptism, not at all.  The true measure is- do we keep those promises we made when we welcomed new Christians into our Christian family?

And let the people say, "AMEN".