Gospel Gags Again

There is at least one gag in today's gospel. But first, isn't John the Baptist essentially a comic character? He retires to the desert to eat bugs and wild honey; and doing this makes him a celebrity. This is funny, just as the stories of Diogenes are always funny. The point is to get away from the world—so the world comes to him. “Jerusalem, all Judea, and the whole region around the Jordan” were going out to listen and be baptised by him.

Nice deadpan schtick. The original "little tramp."

And then, here's the punch line. Among all the crowds lining up to pretend they are poor and be baptised in the river water, when some Pharisees and Sadducees show up, John asks, in effect, “Who told you? How did you know about this?”

How could they not know about this, when everyone else did?

As always, the reversal of expectations is an invitation to think more carefully about what is going on. Baptism is, according to the gospel, a sign of repentance. The average person came, the gospel says, “to acknowledge their sins.” It was not just a Sunday outing to see the geek. Coming to John, if one was sincere, therefore implied that one was summoned, driven, by one's conscience. Submitting humbly to this wild man's ministrations was an outward proof of proper humility.

John's question assumes that no Pharisee or Sadducee is likely to be so summoned by their conscience. The assumption is presumably that what makes someone a Sadducee or a Pharisee is a commitment to public reputation. That is the spiritual opposite of the humility and repentance John is calling for. Hence there is a legitimate question to be asked: Who or what made you come here? It cannot have been true humility, or the voice of your conscience (or more properly, the presumption is against this). And John suggests the likely answer: Was it fear of the wrath to come?

Good Christians are not deterred from sin by fear of punishment—not by fear of hellfire any more than by fear of prison or social disapproval in this world. There is no morality in that; it is what any brute animal would do. Christians are deterred from sin by their awareness of the absolute reality of right and wrong, by their consciences, and by their love of God. Justice requires that there will be full and fit punishment for those who do wrong, and fit reward for those who do right. But this is not what should guide our actions. To be moral beings, and worthy of heaven, we must be prepared to do right when it is against our interests, and avoid wrong when it is in our interests.

This behaviour, in the real world, John is implying, will not put you in a position of moral leadership. To rise to the top, like a Pharisee or a Sadduccee, you must do right only when it is in your interests, and wrong when that is in your interests. And such temptations will always face us; if they did not, we would never have the opportunity to be moral in the first place.

One will perhaps ask, if religious leadership is incompatible with morality, then what of Catholic priests?

But there is, in fact ,a solution to this apparent double bind: John the Baptist models it himself. If moral leadership comes with significant personal sacrifice, it has shown a certain bona fides. Accordingly, rather than promising a good life in this world, as enjoyed by Pharisees, the priesthood is associated with sacrifices, and significant ones: most notably, celibacy.

It is also a vital point of Catholic doctrine that a priest does not presume to moral leadership. The role is sacramental, and the validity of the sacraments is not dependent on the moral conduct of the priest.

Another slightly off note in the gospel is John's warning to the Pharisees and Sadducees not to presume to say “We have Abraham as our Father.” This is odd, because presumably just about everyone else coming to him to be baptised could say the same thing. There may have been a few non-Jews present, but water for repentance was an established Jewish custom in his day. So why single out the Sadducees and Pharisees for this warning?

The point, I figure, is that the Phariasaic or Sadduccee mind set is inclined to see justification in belonging to a particular social group. That is why one would belong to such a group as the Pharisees or Sadducees. This is another way of dodging the bullet of morality. People often want to think that, because they are a professing Catholic (or Presbyterian, or Baptist, or Jew) that this ensures they are one of the good guys. The great advantage of this is that one need no longer fret about one's own actions. Canadians tend to think Canadians are just nicer folks than everybody else; Americans think that about being American. Those who graduate from Harvard think it of those who have been to Harvard. Feminists think this about having been born a woman. The working class thinks it about being working class, and the gentry thinks if of being a gentleman. The concept has been used historically, again and again, to justify the worst crimes. The Sadducees think it of being a Sadducee, and the Pharisees think it of being a Pharisee.

But John and the Bible say “sons of Abraham,” and not “Pharisees,” for exactly the reason that has brought it to our attention. He says it because it is a lesson not just for the Pharisees then, but for all of us reading his words today. Any Christian is also a “son of Abraham,” along with any Muslim or Jew. No credit to us. It is only by our fruits that we show our true nature.

It is also striking, and a bit of a surprise, that John refuses Baptism to some. I think we would be inclined to expect him to offer it to all comers, leaving it to them to wrestle with their own consciences over it.

The obvious implication of John's hesitance is that Baptism must be understood as not merely symbolic, but truly sacramental. It really does something to us, changes us. Its action is divine, from God. Otherwise there would be no harm in administering it to those who were unworthy.

And if its action is automatic in this way, this justifies infant baptism, though some object that the child has not actively willed it for him or herself. That apparently does not matter to the efficacy of the sacrament. Nor should it, logically, if original sin itself was not a matter of individual volition.

Gospel

John the Baptist appeared, preaching in the desert of Judea
and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!”
It was of him that the prophet Isaiah had spoken when he said:A voice of one crying out in the desert,
Prepare the way of the Lord,
make straight his paths.
John wore clothing made of camel’s hair
and had a leather belt around his waist.
His food was locusts and wild honey.
At that time Jerusalem, all Judea,
and the whole region around the Jordan
were going out to him
and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River
as they acknowledged their sins.

When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees
coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers!
Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance.
And do not presume to say to yourselves,
‘We have Abraham as our father.’
For I tell you,
God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones.
Even now the ax lies at the root of the trees.
Therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit
will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
I am baptizing you with water, for repentance,
but the one who is coming after me is mightier than I.
I am not worthy to carry his sandals.
He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
His winnowing fan is in his hand.
He will clear his threshing floor
and gather his wheat into his barn,
but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”