A couple of sentences caught my attention in ‘The Anatomy of the Healthy Church” this week. John James writes: “Baptism is considered by some to be an option. Not so. It is a divine imperative and a means of grace.” I agree strongly with the first part. I believe that the Bible teaches baptism by immersion of a believing, responsible subject. And I believe that the Bible instructs us to undergo this. I believe that each of us should submit to this and that if we do not we are either sincerely mistaken in our doctrine or willfully disobedient. Fortunately, God is gracious. That’s something which is often forgotten – God is rich in mercy and abounding in love. But the “divine imperative” of believers’ baptism is a powerful stimulus to faithful discipleship. Spurgeon began his ministry just across London Bridge in 1855 and his sermons began to be published weekly shortly after. A publishing phenomenon. It’s noticeable that in the early numbers of the New Park Street Pulpit, practically every sermon ends with the blunt words of Jesus in Mark 16, “Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved”. And God blessed that appeal by bringing thousands to a robust personal faith and to the commitment of baptism. “Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved” says Jesus. Will you be saved? In an echo of last week’s sermon, I don’t ask you to consider baptism but to be baptised.

            The next part of John James’ statement needs to be unpacked though. The term “means of grace” is not readily understood today. My mind goes back to an evening of question and answer I shared with a Roman Catholic priest in Toulouse several years ago. It was a mixed marriage support group. The evening had much subtle debate. Particularly on two points. The priest was a believer in what theologians call ‘the larger hope’. This is coded language for the position that everybody will be saved. The position known as universalism. I said, rightly, that I have a larger hope. I believe that when the roll is called up yonder we are not going to be moved to wonder love and praise because God’s grace was narrower than we thought – Fantastic! It was only Baptists in heaven after all! I believe we are going to be astonished by the breadth of his grace. And yet, I don’t believe everyone is going to be saved. So we talked at cross purposes about ‘the larger hope’.

            Next we came on to the notion of the sacraments. As we know, there is a very tense relationship between Protestants and Roman Catholics about the sacraments. We recognise only two – baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Roman Catholics recognise seven - baptism, confirmation, the Lord’s supper, marriage, holy orders, reconciliation (confession) and the last rites. Some of these terms are popular ones and they also have items which are known as sacramentals – the sign of the cross, the rosary etc.

And we know that there are great problems between us even on the two sacraments we share. There is an instance of this in the case of Tony and Cherie Blair. We are told that on their visit to the Pope in 2003, Tony, a Protestant, shared in the Eucharist. At that time, you could be granted a special dispensation on an occasion of great joy or of great sorrow to participate. We are told this is probably what happened, Tony asked and the request was granted. But the Pope shouldn’t really have granted his request because already on the table was the total prohibition of Protestants from taking part in the Eucharist. Roman Catholics who practice eucharistic hospitality in an easygoing way are not Roman Catholics the way I understand it.

            Frankly, the problem doesn’t arise in the same way from our side. In a church like ours with what we call an open table, we can make an invitation “to all who love the Lord to participate.” People take part basically on their own responsibility except in cases where the Church would need to step in really to maintain its own credibility. So, there’s no problem for a sincere Roman Catholic to take part here. The question of consistency of belief and of practice does arise. But not that of sincerity. 

            The problem in my evening with the priest came when I told the group what I thought about what happens during baptism and the Lord’s Supper. I explained my notion of the two sacraments of baptism and Lord’s Supper that they are a “means of grace.” And the priest seized on this to claim that we are in agreement. And, incidentally, this is a clear case of what we often reproach of the Roman Catholics – a great openness to Church unity . . . on their terms. Récupération in French.

Now, what the Roman Catholic church understands by the term “means of grace” in connection with the Lord’s Supper is this. It’s a little bit clearer of this sacrament than it is of baptism so I’ll stay with it for a few moments. There is a transformation of the bread and wine on the altar into the body and blood of Christ.

It so happens that having done a lot of work on this, I understand there must be some nuances. There is a new emphasis within Roman Catholicism on the presence of the risen Christ with his people at the Mass. I heard that emphasis during the funeral Mass for John Paul II the other day. The commentator said that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of the risen Christ. Whatever that means. But in spite of these nuances, the meaning of the Mass continues to be a renewal of the sacrifice of Christ. We can’t accept that – that’s why we have a communion table rather than an altar. This is not a place of sacrifice. Calvary was that. This is a place of remembrance and of fellowship with the risen Christ. By faith.

Now, here is the “means of grace” part. When the priest – and only the priest can do this – when the priest pronounces the eucharistic prayer, God responds to that prayer by operating a miraculous transformation. Something happens when the priest says certain words. Now, we can leave the Roman Catholics right there. The words of transformation begin in the Latin we heard the other day, “Hoc est corpus – this is the body.” I am perfectly happy to endorse the understanding our forefathers had of those words – Hocus Pocus. And that, historically is why the deacons and not the pastor pray at the table. We can’t agree that the Mass is a “means of grace” in that sense.

            And yet, the Lord’s Supper is a means of grace. Baptism is a means of grace. Our forefathers spoke quite happily of God’s means of grace. What did they mean?

Well fortunately, it’s very simple so I can be brief. God is happy when we take his word seriously. He knows that there are things we don’t understand. He realises that there are some things we find hard to see how to apply. There’s a positive way of looking at that – “the Lord has yet more light and truth to break forth from his word.” “We know in part,” says – not some ignorant fellow but the apostle Paul. And yet, our basic disposition when coming to the Bible should be an openhearted desire to obey it. So, in connection with the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper:

            1 I think no one can doubt that everyone who professes to believe in Christ should be baptised. There is legitimate debate on what we call the mode and subjects of baptism. You know what I think the Bible teaches clearly on these but I can accept that others might think sincerely otherwise. And I think that God is happy when we take his word seriously. And that when we come to baptism he will bless us. Baptism is a “means of grace” in the sense that it is not anything we do which confers the blessing but that in fulfilling God’s command, he decides to bless us.