Religion and Politics

My Sunday morning work was finally finished, and as I headed to my car I mentally went back over my message. Seldom was I pleased with it and usually always wished I had stressed a different point or eliminated something entirely or said it in a different way. My self-analysis continued until I started the engine and turned on the radio. Then I heard the familiar voice of Clayton Bell, pastor of one of the great Presbyterian churches in Dallas.

His messages were recorded and aired the following Sunday and listening to his sermon helped me to unwind from my hectic morning by taking my mind off my self-criticism. His sermons were good, sometimes brilliant, and always thought provoking. I caught him just as he announced his topic on why Presbyterians practice infant baptism.

Now I know you’re probably thinking, in jest, of course, “Wow, I bet that topic attracts a crowd!” Obviously these days doctrinal sermons seem totally out-of-touch with the day-to-day concerns of most people. But, if you think that, you would be underestimating the rhetorical skills of Clayton Bell, as he had a way of transforming what we might think of as irrelevant into an issue we’d be talking about for weeks with our friends.

For a pastor, however, from a completely different baptismal tradition, those were fighting words. He was going to speak in support of a subject that my faith culture totally rejected, and I felt that finally the eloquent and erudite Dr. Bell had bitten off more than he could chew. I almost shouted into the radio, “Now I’ve got you, Clayton Bell. You may be a terrific preacher, but today I’ve got your number. No way will you convince me that babies should be baptized.” I sat smugly in my seat, waiting to pounce on what I thought would be his superficial arguments.

Some of you, perhaps, are from church backgrounds where it is customary to baptize infants, but in my denomination that is anathema. Our faith tradition only baptizes those old enough to have some comprehension of what they are doing. (Okay, I confess, no one really comprehends the significance of baptism.) 

In order to attack Dr. Bell’s sermon with more punch, I pulled my car into a McDonald’s parking lot so I could listen more intently and jot down my rebuttals. I didn’t want to miss a word and took copious notes. He sprinkled his sermon with biblical texts and supported his argument with illustrations from both Old and New Testaments. 

Slowly, even after all my years of theological training, I had to reluctantly admit that Dr. Bell was making a persuasive case. He equated infant baptism to Jewish circumcision, where eight days after birth the male child underwent what is called brit milah, a ceremony meant to identify him with the covenant God made with Abraham. Later, when the boy reaches approximately 12 or 13 years of age, he will have the choice to confirm his Jewish faith through bar mitzvah, where, on his own accord, he submits to the obligations and responsibilities of God’s covenant. Girls also go through a similar coming of age ritual called bat mitzvah. 

Bell emphasized that in the Presbyterian tradition a similar course of spiritual growth takes place. When the baptized infant reaches an age of accountability, usually the early teen years, he or she decides whether to be confirmed into the family of faith. After a series of lessons in the Christian faith, the candidate for confirmation makes a personal decision to enter into the Christian faith.

When Clayton Bell finished, I remained silent for a moment and then whispered, “Amen.” I had not become a Presbyterian, but I understood for the first time why Presbyterians, along with other denominations, baptize infants. His points were biblical, solid and well grounded. 

I’ve often thought, What if when Dr. Bell announced his topic, I would have simply ridiculed him and changed stations or turned off the radio? I could have defended my action by arguing that my theology was based on Scripture, while Dr. Bell’s understanding was based solely on church tradition. I could have pulled from my library shelf any number of books justifying my belief. I would have written Dr. Bell off as hopelessly stuck in church tribalism and driven home with a smirk on my face as large as Texas. 

But had I done that I would have forfeited an opportunity to grow in appreciation for the different ways in which Scripture can be faithfully interpreted. My faith tradition doesn’t have all the answers, and the Scriptures do not belong to any one faith experience. Even after Dr. Bell’s provocative sermon I didn’t change my mind in what I believed, but now I had a new understanding for his perspective and realized there is more than one way to look at a controversial subject.  

Maybe what is true in religion can also be true in politics. Maybe if we took the time to argue less with those on the other side of the aisle and stopped to listen to what they have to say, I mean really listen, we might be surprised to discover some underlying points of agreement, or at least respect for their different viewpoint. One thing I do know--if we simply turn off those whom we disagree with, we will be the ones hopelessly stuck in political tribalism.

I am haunted by the words of Jesus when he said that those who think they see are really blind. Humility and openness to listen to others are virtues in the Kingdom of God.