All week long, I’ve been writing about baptism and why it
matters to the present-day church. Yesterday, I discussed infant baptism. The
real focus of that piece was grace—that infant baptism demonstrates that God’s
redeeming, saving love is not based on anything we do or say or believe but on
God’s love—pure and simple. But, in that post, I also discussed my view on
sacraments, and that drew some good, sharp, and on-target criticism. Do I
really believe that baptism isn’t unique? Do I really believe that baptism is
largely symbolic if not merely symbolic? What, then, is my understanding of the
role of baptism in the life of the church? Why do we still do it? Why not throw
it out? All of those are important questions, and they get to the heart of my tendency
to over-psychologize sacramental theology.
Today’s topic is an antidote to that—or at least I think it
is. Today, I want to discuss the necessity of baptism—why it’s essential to the
contemporary church, why there is no substitute for it, and, ultimately, why
Communion should be restricted only to those who have been baptized. (How’s
that for surprisingly orthodox?)
To make this point, I’m back to the reading for Sunday fromthe Acts of the Apostles (19:1-7) and the transformative story of Christian
baptism. Paul, upon arriving in Ephesus, meets some “disciples,” which is to
say “followers of” or “believers in Jesus.” When he asks them if they had
received the Holy Spirit when they became believers, they respond that they had
never heard of the Holy Spirit. Shocked, Paul asks what sort of baptism they
received, and they replied that they had only received John’s baptism.
Immediately, Paul baptizes them in the name of Jesus and lays hands on them,
and the Holy Spirit comes upon them in clearly visible and audible ways.
It’s a story with (at least) two important implications. First,
it lets us know that something happens at Christian baptism. These “disciples”
were already believers in Jesus. They had already heard and known and put their
faith in his story of death and resurrection. They are identified to us as
followers of Jesus’ way. Call them “believers” or “converts” or “Christians,” they
are in…except that they aren’t. Something tremendous and revolutionary and
life-changing happens to them when they receive the baptism of Jesus. The manifestation
of their faith—the way they show what it means to be a Christian—goes from
essentially nothing to essentially everything. Their whole selves are taken
over by the power of the God in whom they believe. That wasn’t present before.
Baptism and laying on of hands—two things that, in this story, combine for a
Trinitarian expression that is analogous to our modern-day baptism—make all the
difference.
Second, it confirms for us that believing alone isn’t a
complete expression of what it means to be a Christian. Since something was
missing—since something integral to the Christian faith only came upon the
disciples after they received Christian baptism—we can conclude that merely
giving one’s intellectual assent to the way of Jesus isn’t sufficient. (It
might be sufficient for salvation, but it isn’t complete Christianity.)
Baptism is that thing that we can’t do on our own (see
yesterday’s post on infant baptism). It is an experience of God’s love for us
that has nothing to do with who we are or what we do or what we believe. It is
God’s unmerited, indiscriminate, unmitigated love for us. It’s that thing the
dozen disciples in Ephesus get not from being disciples (i.e. from believing or
following) but from encountering the power of God’s love. And it is, therefore,
the thing that transforms them from disjointed, mind-only disciples to unified,
heart-and-mind-and-soul, Spirt-filled Christians.
And that means that Baptism is the difference between calling one’s self a believer and living the life of the Christian. Is there any factor more appropriate for discriminating between those who are invited to the transformative messianic banquet we call Communion?
I don’t want to start a whole new post about the nature of
the Eucharist (this one is already too long), but I do want to claim that Communion
is about transformation. It’s about repentance and forgiveness and rebirth. It’s
not about evangelism or hospitality. At the 2012 General Convention, I argued
against waiving the baptismal requirement for Communion because Communion is
not about welcoming people into the church. I don’t care how many people will
speak of being unbelievers who felt the call to follow Jesus when they
unwittingly (and contra-canonically) received Communion. That only speaks to a
failure on the part of the church to bring the good news to those who hadn’t heard
it yet—in other words bad evangelism combined with a poor baptismal theology.
The Lord’s Table is for those who seek new life—not for those who seek a tasty
snack or a socially convenient expression of belongingness. Communion is the
place where Christians live out the transformation that begins at baptism.
But here’s where yesterday’s post about baptism comes full
circle: I don’t ask for a baptismal ID card when people come to the altar rail
and put out their hands. In fact, I don’t even use the discriminatory phrase, “All
baptized Christians are invited to receive Communion.” Don’t call the Title IV
police yet. Keep reading. If I know that someone has not been baptized, I will
offer them a blessing instead of offering them the consecrated bread.
(Actually, I will have already called them privately and invited them to
consider baptism because THAT’S MY JOB AS A PRIEST.) In our bulletin, we print
that Communion is open to baptized Christians and that people interested in
receiving baptism should contact the rector, who would be happy and eager to
offer that sacrament.
But I don’t use the word “baptized” in my verbal invitation
to Communion. Instead, I say, “Communion is open to Christians of all
denominations. It doesn’t matter where you go to church or even if you don’t
have a church home. If you are a follower of Jesus, you are invited to his
table.” Why? Because I am not convinced that genuine, life-changed,
Spirit-filled, transformed-and-seeking-transformation believers are only those
who have been baptized. No, I don’t believe that there is way other than baptism
for the church to express that. Let me say that more clearly: I still believe
that, institutionally speaking, there is no such thing as an unbaptized
Christian. But I live in a community where adult baptism is the predominant
mode. And I know that there are intentional, Spirit-filled followers of Jesus
whose families left the churches that don’t baptize infants before they were
old enough to be baptized, and I accept that for some the stigma of having not
been baptized as a child or youth is a hard one to overcome. (Yes, I need to
work harder on undoing that stigma, and that is part of the focus of Sunday’s
sermon—read it here later.)
So, let’s bring all of this together. I believe that
Christianity necessitates baptism. I believe that baptism conveys power. I
believe that baptism is initiation into a life of discipleship that focuses on transformation.
And I believe that Communion is primarily an encounter of continued transformation.
And, because of that, I believe that unbaptized individuals should not be
allowed to receive Communion but should, instead, be eagerly and
enthusiastically ushered to the font. But I also believe that it is possible
for that transformative initiation to happen in a way other than baptism—even if
I don’t know what it is and wouldn’t dream of attempting to name a substitute for
baptism—because I trust that baptism is, at its core, God’s work and not ours.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.