Everyone...

 

Everyone

 

Acts 10:34-43
10:34 Then Peter began to speak to them: "I truly understand that God shows no partiality,

10:35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

10:36 You know the message he sent to the people of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ--he is Lord of all.

10:37 That message spread throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John announced:

10:38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.

10:39 We are witnesses to all that he did both in Judea and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree;

10:40 but God raised him on the third day and allowed him to appear,

10:41 not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, and who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

10:42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one ordained by God as judge of the living and the dead.

10:43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

 

 

This Sunday is Baptism of the Lord Sunday on the liturgical calendar. Did you ever wonder why Jesus was baptized? Scholars tell us that John the Baptist was preaching a message of repentance, and baptizing those who sought to repent of their sins. If this is correct, aren’t you really surprised John didn’t put up more of a fuss about baptizing Jesus than the “I’m not worthy” argument? If John truly believed his announcement, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world,” then what would his baptism of repentance “do” for Jesus? If Jesus was the Son of God, who came into the world to “save his people from their sins,” as the angel told Mary, why would he need to repent of anything, himself? It is a Christian believe that Jesus was “without sin,” so John’s baptism would have little value for him. 

 

Of course, there are those who only ascribe to what they call “believer’s baptism,” which is only offered to people old enough to know they need to have their sins forgiven, and who turn to Jesus for this ministry. Baptism, in this model, is an “outward sign of in inward work,” meaning it is a sign of their forgiveness or in evangelical shorthand, their “salvation.” One of the epistles credited to the Apostle Paul says that baptism—especially the immersion method—is like being “buried with Christ” when you are dunked under, and then “raised with Christ,” or “resurrected” with him, when they yank you back up. They often point to Jesus’ baptism as an example of this method, but it is more probable that John baptized according to an earlier Jewish ritual, wherein water was poured over the baptize-ee with cupped hands, or a shell, or something. Again, what would the Son of God and the Savior of the world need with a “believer’s baptism”? Theologically, none. Was he just trying to make his cousin feel better, or included in the prophetic lineage of his ministry?

 

We Protestants generally baptize infants, a practice begun very early on in the life of the church. The child’s parents take vows of their own faith, and of their pledge to raise the child in the Christian faith and in the life of a church. While most Protestant denominations will baptize adults, too, we don’t believe in “rebaptizing,” so we don’t offer “believer’s baptism” to adults who have already been baptized as infants. United Methodists (and probably others) offer to baptize in any of the three ways for adults, popularly called “sprinkling,” “pouring,” or by immersion. In 36 years of ministry, I baptized a fair number of adults who had never been baptized, and all of them chose to have the simple “sprinkling” performed, which is technically called “aspersion.” “Pouring,” incidentally, is actually called “affusion,” just in case you were wondering. 

 

Protestant baptism is generally a celebration of the baptized inclusion into the Christian church, in general, and into the life of a given congregation, specifically. For the infant, John Wesley used the phrase “prevenient grace” to describe how God would bestow favor, guidance, and love upon the child throughout its life, until the time it could be confirmed into the faith and make its own profession of belief. While the Roman Catholic Church has more specifically targeted the “washing away of original sin” as one of the goals of baptism, many of our Protestant liturgies include at least part of this phrase in their rubric, including we United Methodists, who have Anglican roots. In most Protestant churches, baptism is a public event, occurring as part of a worship service, and is rarely performed privately, except in extenuating circumstances. Many pastors and priests have been called upon to baptize a newborn in the hospital whose life is in jeopardy, due to some medical condition. While most Christian sects do not believe baptism is “necessary” in this situation (the child is BORN as a Child of God), the practice is carried out more as an act of pastoral compassion and caring. 

 

Regardless of which view of baptism one holds, I think it is quite safe to say that it imparts the grace of God upon the person being baptized, and introduces them to the congregation as one who will need their love, prayers, and witness as they live out their growth in faith in their midst. And this is probably the best reason I can come up with as to why JESUS was baptized! God blesses God’s son, pronounces a public affirmation upon him (“This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased”), and introduces him to the “congregation” of humanity among whom he will live and minister, and later suffer and die, with great purpose. John the Baptist both imparts the poured blessing of the actual baptism upon Jesus, and then serves as a kind of first-century Ed McMahon to Jesus’ Johnny Carson, announcing him to the gathered crowd as the “Lamb of God.”

 

Unfortunately, our divergent views of baptism and the “where’s and when’s” of it, obscure an even larger theological question about “salvation.” Who needs it, and why? And how does one receive it? In the Acts narrative this weekend, we are purportedly reading the text of a “short-but-sweet” sermon of the Apostle Peter. In this sermon, Peter begins by saying that God “shows no partiality,” and that anyone who “does what is right” is accepted by God. That sounds pretty simple, but look what we’ve done to it. Go ahead, just ask a bunch of professing Christians what they think Peter meant by the phrase, “no partiality”? Most of them will say that it means that salvation and God’s acceptance is open to anybody.However, many of our Christian sects have adopted at least some measure of exclusiveness, be it their own doctrines and dogmas that have at least some degree of being “essential” to “right belief,” and several others prescribe how one must be baptized to seal the deal. Isn’t this “showing partiality”? And don’t get me started on how the church “screens” which people THEY accept, and whom they will not. Speaking of acceptance, ask your same Christian poll about what it means to “fear God and do what is right,” which is Peter’s requirement for being “acceptable” to God. Here again, we have a great discrepancy over what is “right.” And then there is the whole question of whether Peter, in his desire to “keep it simple,” is suggesting a kind of “works righteousness” by saying that all it takes is to respect God and “do the right thing”? This may be a question for another day.

 

The two truths that grabbed me out of this text are the promise that “everyone” is a candidate for “salvation,” with no exceptions, and that simply believing in Jesus results in forgiveness of sins—no special prayers, no public “testimonies,” not even a baptism requirement. Just believe. And what must these “everyone’s” believe? A whole laundry list of doctrines? A specific confession or church catechism? According to Peter, no, just believe. Let me tell you what I think this means. For some people, they tend to fixate on the shortcomings in their lives, and “fear God” that God will judge them for these “sins.” The church has done a great job of labeling and calling out MANY sins beyond those in the Ten Commandments, incidentally, which has helped rain guilt down on these types. Thankfully, Jesus offers a full pardon for these shortcomings, and I tend to believe that for those deeply convicted of their sins, God has already offered the balm—Jesus Christ. No magic formula is needed. To some great extent, simply acknowledging that in Christ, God desires to cleanse us all of our sins, and that we want a piece of that, comprises an acceptable level of belief. 

 

What about those who don’t acknowledge any belief in a higher power (some call themselves atheists or agnostics; others don’t even espouse such a “creed,” but have not engaged theology at all)? And what if some of these people live out some version of Peter’s earliest “condition,” namely that they “do what is right” in the eyes of God? Sadly, many believers “do what is right,” but out of either an actual fear of God and God’s judgment, or mostly out of a sense of duty to the precepts of one’s faith. While they are still “doing what is right,” the motives are much closer to the doer’s interests. Would a God who seeks to redeem humanity through the passion of his Son, a God who, in the Resurrection, restructures the “rules” of sin and death, condemn someone who “does the right thing” for humanitarian reasons, apart from fear or duty? This is an important question, and goes, at least in part, to Peter’s declaration that God “shows no partiality.” If the Ronald Reagan, Juniors of this world (he’s the atheist who has been doing the TV ads about not being afraid of burning in Hell) live lives of compassion and service to the human community, and participate in God’s work of “fixing the world” (tikkun olam), would God condemn them for simply not acknowledging God’s act that pardons humanity? 

 

Those of you who tend toward biblical literacy will point out that both “means” of gaining God’s acceptance have a faith element involved (“fearing God” in the first, and “believing in [Christ]” in the latter). But if you follow my logic, it would seem that God would “accept” a person who “does the right thing,” even if they haven’t yet acknowledged the Divine. Their humanitarian acts ARE a response to grace, but for them, it is part of the freight for the gift of human life and planet earth. 

 

While I acknowledge faith as an important thing, given that I am a pastor and a person of faith, I question—as I believe Peter does in this sermon—the essential label we put on it within the Christian faith. This I do know—we are told not to set ourselves up to be the judges of this. In some of my justice work, I have labored beside compassionate humanitarians who either claim no faith tradition, or who come from one quite different than my own, such as Buddhist or Moslem. Our coalitions of justice and collaborating to “do the right thing” that benefits the community-at-large is fulfilling and has enhanced my personal spiritual journey. I find it harder and harder to accept the theological position that God would condemn such righteous people just because of their doctrine, or lack of it. God’s act of forgiveness and acceptance in Jesus Christ may indeed be available to EVERYONE who lives out the values of God, as taught by Jesus of Nazareth. God is the one who does the accepting, not us. And I have found that, working alongside people whose faith journey is different than mine gives me more reason to “do the right thing” in my own faith, which I believe is the best witness. Do I get asked by some of these missional partners why I do what I do? Of course, and it has provided an opportunity to witness that as I have been profoundly loved in Jesus Christ, so I am called to build bridges of this same profound love. Believe me, it is a much stronger witness than saying, “I do this because I’m afraid of God,” or “…because I am duty-bound to do so.” “I’m just following orders” has not been a positive response for most of human history. 

 

Two simple lessons we can get from this text: 

 

1)    It makes clear that in Christ, God desires to forgive and heal human society, AND that as one who has accepted this “salvation,” I am now compelled to “do the right thing” out of the same love that offered it to me.

 

2)    I should not judge others, but seek to work alongside those who have the same passion for “fixing the world” as I do, or in many cases, who have even MORE passion for it, and especially those NOT motivated by faith, as I can learn from them.

 

And one final note…I am not espousing any form of “universalism” that asserts that God just willy-nilly drags all into the Kingdom. As Mr. Wesley pointed out, a response seems to be required. What is different about what I see here is the nature of that response. Only God can finally judge that. 

 

Meanwhile, Beloved, we have been given the Word about how we can respond: believe in Jesus, receive our redemption, and then live rightly, according to the teachings of Jesus. This “trinity” of responses we can surely do! And so can EVERYONE. Amen.