Christ Church Cathedral
Epiphany 1 - January 11, 2009
Baptism of the Lord
It is generally agreed that the so-called Shape of our (sic) Liturgy to use the happy phrase of Dom Gregory Dix[1] grew out of the Sabbath worship that was practiced throughout the Jewish community of the 1st century. The readings from the Bible (OT) followed a time honored pattern which was related to the various festivals that were tied to the rhythm of seed time and harvest with time outs to remember crucial historical events in the life of the community such as Passover. The structure of our Mattins is one which reflects this tradition and the portion of the Eucharist traditionally called in the Anglican tradition Ante-Communion still has some of this pattern. As the size of the Christian community increased and it moved more into gentile communities, the Sabbath aspects were less obvious and the day of worship tended toward the Sunday we take for granted. The Liturgical Year which gives shape to our weekly celebrations of the Eucharist was a latecomer to practice with the exception of the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost which were seen as the formative and determining acts of community identity. As the Christian Church grew in size and age local communities began to celebrate the lives of key members of their group with special emphasis upon those who were martyred or otherwise provided crucial leadership or acts of piety which we know as Saint's Days.
In the second century, the festival of Epiphany emerged as the first of what would become the important days in the liturgical calendar. Its source was the gnostic community in Egypt and the occasion was not the coming of the Magi but rather the Baptism of Jesus and the beginning of his ministry. This is because January 6 had been the birthday of Osiris, the chief Egyptian divinity, the day seemed appropriate to be replaced with an event celebrating the beginning of Jesus' ministry, particularly since the Gnostics rejected his human birth and regarded his Baptism as the moment at which his divine nature was established. In the orthodox churches in the East until the fourth century Epiphany was commemorated as the Nativity of Christ as well as His Baptism. When the Western church adopted the January 6 date as kind of an exchange with the East whereby December 25th became their Nativity festival, the coming of the Magi was used as the reading with the resulting emphasis on the manifestation to the Gentiles. In the East (Orthodoxy), this left the Baptism more open to a theological interpretation of its significance while in the West, its historical character seemed to have dominated.[2]
Most of this quite wide range of practice and interpretation can be understood as an to answer question Who was Jesus? All four Gospels give considerable time to the circumstances of His Baptism and the role played by John the Baptizer and the community of his followers which suggests that for the early church this event was of major significance. At the same time, it is absolutely crucial to recognize the descriptions and context of this event as with almost all of the doctrinal disputes and conclusions which have occupied the attention over the years of the Christian community have their root in the fact that the Gospel accounts have at their heart an ambiguity. This allows them to be a source but not conclusive evidence for whatever interpretation is made from their account. It is also necessary to remember that the role played by Baptism in the Church following Jesus' Death and Resurrection must be clearly distinguished from Jesus' own Baptism. The Pauline portrayal of Baptism as an incorporation into the Death and new Life in Jesus the Christ as well as its connection with Christian orthodoxy by Ignatius of Antioch in the 2nd century is a testimony of the crucial role of the Bishops in exerting control over this Gospel driven ambiguity.[3] Their stance was taken in opposition to Gnostic claims that Baptism in itself did not constitute participation in the new life in Christ. Since such disagreements (and there were several others in the first four centuries) could not be settled by this Biblical ambiguity- in fact were driven by it - the great ecumenical Councils were called upon to provide a solution that was acceptable to both ecclesiastical and civil authority
We are all aware that the solutions provided by these gatherings have determined the shape of both Christianity and western political structures to this day. For example, the role of Baptism in establishing the identity of the saved has provided the basis for a mythology of western dominance that has justified ignoring the history and culture of the rest of the world and created an understanding of barbarism upon which the colonial\missionary enterprise could be motivated, beginning with the First Crusade in 1095.
The successful relegation of Jesus' Baptism to a single Sunday in the Epiphany season could be interpreted to mean that its meaning can be safely subsumed in the general rubric of mission to the Gentiles.. I think the stories of his Baptism deserve another look in terms of what they say and don't say. To begin, they don't really answer the question as to why Jesus was baptized either directly by John or in the common manner of the day in which the person immersed himself in the water as he was supported by two friends. The Gospels are also divided on the role of John and particularly that of his friends in terms of the relationship they had with Jesus and his supporters, both before and after his resurrection. Did Jesus' presence mean that he supported the message which John proclaimed - that society had reached a point of moral degeneration whereby a radical solution was required? Is it possible to understand that there were both personal and social implications of repentance that indicated the content of the change that was required? I think a case can be made that Jesus saw John as challenging the level of personal degregation that was effecting Jewish society under Roman occupation but like many preachers he was content to see the issue in individual terms. Thus, his religious vision lacked precisely the corporate structure that emerged in Jesus' proclamation of the coming Kingdom. There was not so much a direct break as a drifting apart as Jesus began to think in terms of a transformed society. In this case Jew and Roman were equally guilty and also very threatened by his transforming vision. The Baptism of Jesus marked the beginning of a ministry that even he could not fully anticipate its implication. The need to define His nature in the terms of Greek philosophy of the time may have solved one problem for a community that could not distinguish between political and religious unity, but it also meant turning its back on the ministry which the two natures doctrine thought could be solved by reference to a specific point of Greek philosophy. In the long run we can see that what Jesus the Messiah was all about was an offering of new life to this world. The cost of this vision was repentance - which shows both a curious lack of interest in original sin and an awesome awareness of the depths of human depravity . His Baptism was an act whereby we are invited to share this humbling understanding and an invitation to rise out of this abyss. Right now we need some voices that affirm a firm commitment to preserving life in this world. That may be a trifle harder to achieve than an escape to death and calling it heaven.
[1] Dom Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, London, 1945
[2] Massey H Shepherd, Jr., The Oxford American Prayer Book Commentary, New York, 1950, pp. 107f.
[3] It is not legitimate either to baptize or to hold an agape (cult meal) without the bishop...To join with the bishop is to join the church; to separate oneself from the bishop is to separate oneself not only from the church but from God himself. As quoted by E. Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, New York, 1979 p105
