Baptism, Redemption, and Salvation

Does the Episcopal Church believe Baptism is required for redemption?

An explanation of Holy Baptism can be found in our Catechism on pages 858-859 of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. I don't intend to plagiarize, but this response restates some of the Catechism.

Several years ago, I wrote a pamphlet About Baptism, which you can access here.

Holy Baptism is a sacrament, meaning it is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. Holy Baptism is the sacrament by which God adopts us as his children and makes us members of Christ's Body, the Church, and inheritors of the Kingdom of God. Through Baptism, we share citizenship in the Covenant, membership in Christ, and redemption by God.

For the believer, Baptism is the initiatory rite or way into the community of faith. It's our way of acknowledging what we believe through ritual action as we repent of our sins, renounce evil, and accept Jesus as our Savior. In Baptism, we receive God's spiritual graces (favor), are in union with Christ in his death and resurrection, are forgiven of our sins, and receive new life in the Holy Spirit. 

The Episcopal Church follows the ancient tradition of baptizing infants so they, too, can share citizenship in the Covenant, membership in Christ, and redemption by God. In the case of infant Baptism, parents and sponsors make the vows on behalf of the infant and take on the responsibility of raising the child in a life of faith.

Jesus did the redeeming work (Ephesians 1:7, Titus 2:14, etc). Redemption is ours for the asking (Romans 10:13, Acts 2:21). If we genuinely believe, turn to God, and repent of our sins, then we are redeemed and restored to God through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Baptism is the logical next step (Acts 2:38-41), which joins us with the body of believers that can help us grow in faith and live out the Covenant. So, one should not need Baptism to be redeemed, but one should be baptized as a sign of redemption, and claim their rightful place among the baptized believers who have received redemption through Jesus.

There's another way to think about Baptism and redemption. Suppose we take the account from scripture of the thief on the cross who repented and asked Jesus to remember him when he came into his kingdom. Jesus assured him he would be with him in paradise (Luke 23:42-43). Hanging on a cross next to Jesus, the thief didn't benefit from being part of a covenantal faith community, nor was he baptized, but he received complete redemption.

Do you have to be baptized to go to heaven?

I discuss Baptism in the above question. As stated above, Baptism is the response to faith. As Christians, faith in Jesus as Lord is what our eternal salvation is based on. God's grace through our faith is what redeems us (Ephesians 2:8-9). There is no hard and fast rule that one must be baptized to spend eternity with our Creator.

Evil & God's Intervention

There is so much evil, hatred, disregard of the laws/Constitution now in this country – why does God not intervene?

I want to break this down so I can consider what you’re asking. Sometimes, it’s better for me to define things as I go, to let you know how I’m thinking about them.

Evil can be defined as those things that draw us from God’s love or seek to destroy God’s creatures. Evil has always been and is in society. It strives for power and drives us apart by highlighting our differences and instilling fear between us. Sometimes humans do evil things, but I refuse to believe that humans are inherently evil. Evil can cause hatred brought on by fear. We are often afraid of and condemn what we don't understand or what we can't control. The early church tried to help by identifying the “seven deadly sins” to help us recognize the presence of evil. They are: gluttony, lust, greed, envy, wrath, sloth, and pride. These things are diametrically opposed to the love and grace we have received from God in Jesus Christ.

As far as the disregard for laws and the Constitution in this country, there is another layer. The principles of the Constitution include checks and balances, individual rights, liberty, limited government, natural rights theory, republican government, and popular sovereignty. While the framers included the basics in September 1787, those ideas were debated until it was ratified in June 1788. This included the first 10 articles we know as the “Bill of Rights.” Over the years, the Constitution has been amended to reflect a greater embrace of the people it governs, starting with an understanding of the need for certain freedoms, such as religion, speech, and assembly. These amendments began in 1791 and continue today. I would almost say that the amendments adding the abolition of slavery in 1865, women’s right to vote in 1920, and equal rights (proposed in 1971 – not yet ratified) express a broader embrace of our freedoms and rights under the Constitution. Laws are ways of enforcing the Constitution and should help us live peacefully in a well-governed and well-maintained civil society. The Constitution is only as good a document as those willing to live by it and defend it. I’m not sure why there is such disregard for the established and proven norms that govern our society.

To your overall question, I think that’s where evil comes in. Evil wants division and hatred. Evil thrives in chaos and dysfunction. Evil destroys the people of God, having them turn on each other. Sometimes this evil is caused by whoever is in power. Sometimes it's perpetuated by others. I personally feel that, whatever it is, we, as a people, have the power to stop it.

The litmus test I use when trying to view any situation through a Christian lens is “if it’s not of love, it’s not of God.” I ask myself, “Where do I see unity, equity, respect, dignity, and restoration?” Where is God in the context of all the chaos? The presence of God may come to us through a situation or a person. Mr. Rogers, of “Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood,” told the children, “In the middle of all the bad stuff happening around you, look for the helpers.”

I think that brings us to the final part of your question: Why doesn’t God intervene? God’s ways are not our ways. We shouldn’t think of God as a genie that grants us wishes, and we shouldn’t think of God as a puppet master manipulating situations on earth. We should remember that as Christians, we are referred to as the “body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 12).

It was St. Teresa of Ávila (1515-1582) who is credited with this excellent thought: 

Christ has no body but yours,

No hands, no feet on earth but yours,

Yours are the eyes with which he looks

Compassion on this world,

Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good,

Yours are the hands, with which he blesses all the world.

Yours are the hands, yours are the feet,

Yours are the eyes, you are his body.

Christ has no body now but yours,

No hands, no feet on earth but yours,

Yours are the eyes with which he looks

Compassion on this world.

Christ has no body now on earth but yours.

We are Christ’s body. We are how God intervenes. We are the helpers. We are the ones who can advocate for love and good. We are the followers of Christ who serve each other and care for one another. Optimistically, as the body of Christ, we can be the beacon of hope in a broken world where evil and hatred exist.

Politics and the Church

Why does church have to be political?

Our lives begin to end 
the day we become silent
about things that matter.
- The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

There is a definition: “The Church is not a building; it is the people.” You can’t have a church, a gathering of the ἐκκλησία (Ekklesia) or what the New Testament calls "Church," without a gathering of believers. Over time, the building became synonymous with the gathering of the people that met there.

Therefore, by nature, the people gathered as the Church have concerns about their daily life and work and how their faith may inform such work. As students of Jesus, what we learn in Church about how Jesus taught us to be, do, and act helps us establish our social ethics. Our social ethic bleeds over all aspects of our lives as followers and informs all our decisions and behavior. Our behavior as disciples and followers of Jesus shows the world what we believe. 

The image of Jesus we have become comfortable with over the years is apart from the concerns of government or apolitical. Therefore, folks have said that the Church should not be political. However, Jesus was deeply concerned with the agenda of politics and issues related to power, status, and right relationships, so much so that it is the primary reason he was put to death by the state. 

Jesus challenged King Herod’s authority and Pilate and the Roman government’s authority. He also challenged religious authority but always advocated for the outcasts of society. Jesus led by serving and called us into the right relationship by serving one another.

As followers of Jesus, we are to be concerned for those on the margins of society, those that society has shunned or forgotten, whom Jesus calls “the least of these” (Matthew 25). Our values propagate through the society in which we function. If our society or government is causing harm to other human beings, regardless of who they are, then it is antithetical to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In our baptismal covenant (BCP 304), we make promises to seek and serve Christ in ALL persons and love our neighbor as ourselves. ALL means EVERYONE! Jesus gives us many examples in scripture about how we are to care for everyone, including the stranger. The parable of the Good Samaritan is probably the most challenging (Luke 10). We also promise to strive for justice and peace among all people and respect the dignity of every human being. As Christians, we are not vigilantes but strive for justice for others through the social systems in place. Being political (or functioning within the polis) is how we can act. Sometimes, this action is with our vote, and sometimes, it is by peaceful protest of oppressive decisions made by the government.

The politics of Jesus are messy and sometimes unpopular and uncomfortable, especially if the politics of Jesus don’t align with how we decided to vote. Jesus is very political. In turn, the Church is political. However, Jesus was never partisan. Likewise, the Church should never be partisan. The Church, advocating for justice and peace, sometimes seems partisan when we view the issues through a gospel lens, and they align with a particular party’s platform. That doesn’t make the Church apolitical or apathetic to the decisions made in society by governments.

The Christian Church should teach and live Jesus. The Church should never address a party or platform but should address the issues and fears of the people to help them view the world we live in through a gospel lens. This is how the Church is political. It may be uncomfortable, but it’s well within the scope of acting out our faith in the public square.

References: 

NRSV Translation of the Bible.

Book of Common Prayer 1979.

Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus, 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994.

The Episcopal Church (part of the Anglican Communion, the world’s 3rd largest body of Christians) is publicly active through the Episcopal Public Policy Network (EPPN). They present the Church’s view on issues worldwide and give you a chance to lend your voice by contacting your elected representatives. You can sign up to get alerts in your email. Their website is here: https://www.episcopalchurch.org/ministries/office-government-relations/eppn-sign-up/  

Importance of Holy Eucharist

How important is the Eucharist to the Episcopal faith in general? To your faith specifically?

The Episcopal Church holds that a celebration of the Holy Eucharist is the principal act of Christian worship. This means that all the rites and rituals of the Church should be conducted with the reception of the sacraments of bread and wine at the center. This is the way Jesus is present with us in our worship. This is how we are nourished by his presence in this life and in the life to come. On Sundays and feast days, we celebrate the Eucharist. I always encourage the celebration at Burials and Weddings, though it’s not always done.

For me, specifically, receiving the Eucharist is of utmost importance to my faith. I feel that it is how we are “in communion with” God and each other. It’s how we connect with each other by sharing in the broken bread and cup, which is Christ.

Communion and "Real Presence"

Please discuss how the following terms either comply or oppose official Episcopal teachings on the eucharist: transubstantiation, consubstantiation, real presence, and receptionism. 

I know many folks that are still trying to figure this out. I think that throughout the Episcopal Church you will find people all over the map with regard to what they believe about the Eucharist. As far as official? I think that “Real Presence” describes it best. See https://www.episcopalchurch.org/glossary  

Transubstantiation - The belief that the substance (essence) of Christ's body and blood replaces the substance of the eucharistic bread and wine, although the appearances (known as “accidents” or “species”) of the bread and wine continue outwardly unchanged. This eucharistic theology is based on the philosophical categories of Aristotle, elaborated at length by medieval Latin theologians, and regarded as definitive in the Roman Catholic tradition. The term is derived from the Latin trans “across” or “over,” and substantia, “substance.” The classical explanation of transubstantiation was presented by Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. Transubstantiation was also defended by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Trent (1545-1563). Article XXVIII of the Articles of Religion rejects transubstantiation as “repugnant” and unscriptural, asserting instead that Christ is present in the eucharist in a “heavenly and spiritual manner” (BCP, p. 873). The English Test Act of 1673 required a Declaration Against Transubstantiation by all persons holding civil or military office. Some nineteenth-century Tractarians, such as John Henry Newman, found transubstantiation compatible with their understanding of the Eucharist. But the concept of transubstantiation has generally been avoided and excluded from Anglican theologies of the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the eucharist.

Consubstantiation - Doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist associated with the theology of Martin Luther. It teaches that after the consecration, the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ and the substance of the bread and wine coexist in union with each other. The doctrine was formulated in opposition to the doctrine of transubstantiation, which held that the substance of the consecrated bread and wine no longer existed, but their accidents (external form) were sacramentally united to the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ. This doctrine was condemned by Luther in The Babylonian Captivity. Transubstantiation was believed by the Reformers generally to overthrow the nature of a sacrament by denying the reality of the external sign. 

Real Presence – Discussed Above.

Receptionism - The belief that the eucharistic elements of bread and wine are unchanged during the prayer of consecration but that the faithful believer receives the body and blood of Christ in receiving communion. This was the prevailing eucharistic theology in the Reformation era of Anglicanism. The Articles of Religion state that the bread and wine of the eucharist are the body and blood of Christ “to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same. . . .” Article XXVIII, Of the Lord's Supper (BCP, p. 873). Thomas Cranmer held a receptionist understanding of the eucharist, which informed his work on the 1549 and 1552 Prayer Books. This historic receptionistic language is still retained in Eucharistic Prayer I of Rite 1. However, Anglican eucharistic theology has tended to hold in balance both an objective change of some kind in the eucharistic elements to become the body and blood of Christ and the subjective faith of the believer who receives the sacrament. The words of administration of the 1559 Prayer Book joined language from the 1549 BCP that identified the sacrament as the body and blood of Christ with more receptionistic language from the 1552 BCP that urged the communicant to receive the sacrament “in remembrance” of Christ's sacrifice. This combination was continued in the 1662 BCP, and in subsequent American Prayer Books (see BCP, p. 338). The balance of objective and subjective theologies of the eucharist is also presented by the Catechism, which states that “The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ given to his people, and received by faith” (BCP, p. 859). The receptionistic language of Eucharistic Prayer I in Rite 1 is not found in the other eucharistic prayers of the BCP.

Differing Beliefs

Do the beliefs of the laity differ from official Episcopal teaching?
If so, what is the significance of this issue?

I’m not sure I understand the questions. I’m sure that different folks have different ways of believing (lay and ordained). Do I think everyone in the laity is in line with the “official teaching” of the church? I would have to say no. But I would also say that also goes for the rest of Christianity. Faith and belief differ. There may be things outside the “official teaching” that people don’t agree with. There are many wrinkles in religion. Being Christian means that we follow Jesus who is the Christ. To me, that means that Jesus is Lord, and he is the incarnation of God. Faith in Christ is the thing we strive for. 

I feel that the Episcopal Church offers a broad umbrella under which to exercise that faith. Other than the Holy Scripture and the Book of Common Prayer, we rely on apostolic tradition and reason through the Holy Spirit to lead us into faith and into right relationship with each other and with God. 

If you need something other than this, please e-mail me again. Maybe rephrase or restate the question. I may be misunderstanding you here.

Episcopal Church and the Eucharist

What is the official Episcopal teaching on the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?

Taken directly from our catechism, which can be found in the Book of Common Prayer, 1979, The Holy Eucharist is the sacrament commanded by Christ for the continual remembrance of his life, death, and resurrection until his coming again. It’s called a sacrifice because the Eucharist, the Church’s sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself. We believe a sacrament is an outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual grace. The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, given and received according to Christ’s command. The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ given to his people and received by faith. The benefits we receive are the forgiveness of our sins, the strengthening of our union with Christ and one another, and the foretaste of the heavenly banquet, which is our (viaticum – food for the journey) nourishment in eternal life.

What we mean when we say that Jesus is “present” in the Eucharist is because when he gave us the mandate to continue breaking the bread and sharing the cup until his coming again, he said that he would be present with us always, even to the end of the ages. The 1991 statement of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission notes, “The elements are not mere signs; Christ’s body and blood become really present and are really given. But they are “really present” and given so that, receiving them, believers may be united in communion with Christ the Lord.” A classic Anglican statement attributed to John Donne (or to Queen Elizabeth I) and included in The Hymnal 1982 (Hymn 322) is “He was the Word that spake it, he took the bread and brake it, and what that Word did make it, I do believe and take it.” In Eucharistic Prayer A of Rite 2, the celebrant prays that God the Father will sanctify the gifts of bread and wine “by your Holy Spirit to be for your people the Body and Blood of your Son, the holy food and drink of new and unending life in him” (Book of Common Prayer, p. 363). The Catechism notes that the inward and spiritual grace in the eucharist is “the Body and Blood of Christ given to his people and received by faith” (Book of Common Prayer, p. 859). Belief in the “real presence” does not imply a claim to know how Christ is present in the eucharistic elements. Belief in the real presence does not imply a belief that the consecrated eucharistic elements cease to be bread and wine. 

Like I've said before, “physical things, like bread, wine, water, oil, etc… become the vehicles God uses to share the power and presence of Jesus Christ, through the workings of the Holy Spirit. The presence of the risen Christ in the Eucharist is ultimately an inexhaustible mystery that the Church can never fully explain in words or philosophical ideologies."