2022.01.09 | Baptism By Fire
“Baptism by Fire”
Rev. Dr. Arlene K. Nehring
Eden United Church of Christ
Hayward, California
January 9, 2022
Luke 3:15–17, 21–22 (NRSV)
Today, we join Roman Catholics and Western Protestants in reading and reflecting on the meaning of Christ’s baptism and the meaning of this sacrament in our traditions. When Christians speak of baptism, most think of water, and the main questions are: how much? a little, or a lot? And what, if any preparation, is required for baptism?
Concerns about the amount of water used and preparation required for baptism haven’t been completely settled in modern Christianity. But today most Christians agree to disagree, while quietly assuring themselves that they are right and the others are wrong.
The United Church of Christ, the denomination with which Eden Church is affiliated, is a living miracle. We are the only denomination that recognizes both practices: infant and believers’ baptism. Three of the four traditions that merged to form our union were sprinklers, and the others were dunkers. So there’s quite a range of practices even within our UCC tradition.
II
While much fuss has been made about baptism with water, the account of Jesus’ baptism in the gospel found in Luke reminds us that there was more than one kind of baptism, at least in the early church. There was baptism with water, and there was baptism by fire.
Baptism by fire has referred to everything from an anticipated experience of hell in the afterlife for the unrepentant to experiences of sanctification in this life and the life to come.
In the early church, baptism by fire often referred to the martyrdom of the saints—many of whom were tortured or even burned at the stake on account of their beliefs.
Many traditions have taught that there is hellfire and damnation awaiting the unrepentant in the afterlife. Eden Church is not one of them. Here, we tend to talk more about hell as a reality that we create for ourselves and others in this life, rather than a phenomenon that awaits in the afterlife.
Pentecostal traditions, by contrast, have yet another understanding of baptism by fire, which is sometimes described as “sanctification.” Baptism by fire, or sanctification, is a special blessing that only the more devout receive.
In order to be a pastor or deacon in Pentecostal traditions, one must be sanctified, and that sanctification must be affirmed by other church leaders. Some marks of sanctification in Pentecostal traditions include the ability to speak in tongues and the power to heal people of spiritual, psychological, and physical maladies.
III
In my experience, and in our time, the type of baptism by fire with which I am most familiar and find most meaningful has to do with Christians’ work for justice in this country and around the world, conducted by the likes of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose legacy we will celebrate next weekend.
This modern form of baptism by fire is most akin to the experiences of the biblical prophets and apostles and the early church martyrs, and is most similar to the type of baptism by fire that Luke was describing in today’s gospel reading.
Dr. King and other African American Civil Rights workers whom we honor next weekend and next month are persons who were baptized by water and fire. I say baptized by water and fire because Dr. King and many other Christian civil rights leaders suffered greatly on account of their witness. Consider the events of Bloody Sunday, March 7, 1965, as described by the National Park Service in Selma:
…some 600 civil rights marchers headed east out of Selma, Alabama on US Route 80. They got only as far as the Edmund Pettus Bridge six blocks away, where state and local lawmen attacked them with billy clubs and tear gas, and drove them back into Selma.
Two days later, on March 9, Martin Luther King, Jr., led a small symbolic march to the bridge. After that, civil rights leaders sought court protection for a third, full-scale march from Selma to the state capitol in Montgomery.
Federal District Court Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr. weighed the right of the public’s mobility against the right to march and ruled in favor of the demonstrators. “The law is clear that the right to petition one's government for the redress of grievances may be exercised in large groups…,” said Judge Johnson, “and these rights may be exercised by marching, even along public highways.”
On Sunday, March 21, about 3,200 marchers set out for Montgomery, walking 12 miles a day and sleeping in fields. By the time they reached the capitol on Thursday, March 25, they were 25,000 strong. Less than five months after the last of the three marches, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965—the best possible redress of grievances.
IV
The legacy of Dr. King has been carried on by other Christian leaders in this country, such as the Rev. William J. Barber II, a Disciples of Christ pastor and social activist, who is president of Repairers of the Breach and co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign. Barber also serves as a member of the national board of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and chair of its legislative political action committee.
Rev. Barber was born in Indianapolis, Indiana. At the age of 5, his parents moved the family to Washington County, North Carolina, where they participated in the integration of the public schools. His mother was an office worker and his father was a physics teacher. He went on to college at North Carolina Central University, and completed his bachelors and master’s degrees at Duke University, and Drew University.
Barber is an impressive orator. You may recall hearing him speak at the Democratic National Convention in 2016. He is also a phenomenal organizer. In 2007, he brought 93 North Carolina advocacy groups together under the banner of the Historic Thousands on Jones Street People's Assembly.
HT on Jones Street gathered at the birthplace of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), at Shaw University and coalesced around a 14-point agenda, seeking solutions to problems plaguing NC, from education and fair labor practices to protection of voter's rights. Each point was tied to specific pieces of legislation for which they advocated.
One political historian who I consulted noted that no other person in the US has been as successful as Barber in pulling together that diverse of a coalition since the turn of the 20th century.
V
Much progress has been made towards the achievement of civil rights for people of color, through leaders like Dr. King and Dr. Barber—and much more is needed.
One way we can continue the important work of Dr. King is to advocate for passage of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. According to Public Democracy in America, a political think tank in Arlington, VA, this act would make illegal voting rules that discriminate on the basis of race, language, or ethnicity and empower voters’ to challenge discriminatory laws.
The Senate version, known as the Freedom to Vote Act (S. 2747), would solidify comprehensive voter protections, including a minimum of 15 days for early voting, mail-in ballots, and making Election Day a national holiday.
It would set up national standards for voter identification, and also establish protections for election officials against intimidation and partisan interference. To further ensure election integrity, the Freedom to Vote Act would require states to use voting systems with a verifiable paper trail and establish national standards for voter identification.
These bills have broad support amongst voters and a majority of Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate. Yet, a minority of Republicans in the Senate have employed the filibuster to keep the bill from coming to a vote.
In order to pass this vital act, the Senate filibuster will have to be rolled back to a “talking filibuster” (as President Biden recommends), suspended as Adam Russell Taylor (president of Sojourners) proposes, or eliminated altogether as Senators Brown (OH), Klobuchar (MN), Sanders (VT), Warren (MA), and others have advocated.
Suspending or abandoning the Senate filibuster is one tool that could clear a way for the passage of the Freedom to Vote Act and a more representative democracy in the US. Ironically, studies have shown that the majority of Americans support the passage of these acts, and sadly, the headlines in the national papers seem to indicate that the filibuster will be retained. Why?
The simple answer is this: there are only about 39 senators who seem to be in favor of a change in the filibuster, and 60 votes (a super-majority) are needed to put it in mothballs. The more troubling answer is that the Senate seems to lack enough leaders with the moral courage necessary to vote for change.
Moreover, most are more worried about losing Democratic seats in the Senate and losing this tool to rein in Republicans in the next congressional session, than being bold enough to take a stand, make a difference, and ignite interest in the political scene from those who have heretofore been boxed out of our democracy.
There’s no doubt about it. Ending the filibuster would be a heavy lift for the Senate and for our nation, but we will never know how strong we are, unless we try. Let’s try! Amen.