Yes, Sarah Palin should walk her Baptism statement back

My support for Sarah Palin is out in the open and goes back to August of 2008 when John McCain named her to his ticket.  When she first came on the political scene, I thought her a breath of fresh air and I admired her spunk.  When she was villified continuously by the left and particularly when haters were coming out of the woodwork to attack her and her family, I admired her tenacity.

But this... well... this is over the top:

Sarah Palin has rallied and riled lots of voters in her political career, but she might have hit a new high for controversy over the weekend by saying “waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists” during a speech at the National Rifle Association's annual meeting in Indianapolis.

The one-liner went over great with the crowd. It summarized well a main point of her address, which held that liberals are hypocrites who are too weak to protect America.

Not that Ms. Palin just called them “liberals.” In the speech, they were “clownish little 'Kumbaya'-humming fairy-tale-inhaling liberals.” They’re the sort of folks who believe that a thin tin “No Gun Zone” sign will protect kids in schools, according to the former VP candidate.

“That is stupid on steroids,” Palin said.

Well Sarah... your words are pretty stupid as well and let me touch briefly on why, for Catholics (and Anglicans*) in particular, you should walk those words back.

I'll do so by quoting from the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of The Second Vatican Council:

Christ is always present to his Church, especially in the actions of the liturgy. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, in the person of the minister (it is the same Christ who formerly offered himself on the cross that now offers by the ministry of priests) and most of all under the Eucharistic species. He is present in the sacraments by his power, in such a way that when someone baptizes, Christ himself baptizes. He is present in his word, for it is he himself who speaks when the holy Scriptures are read in the Church. Finally, he is present when the Church prays and sings, for he himself promised: Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there in their midst.

Indeed, in this great work which gives perfect glory to God and brings holiness to men. Christ is always joining in partnership with himself his beloved Bride, the Church, which calls upon its Lord and through him gives worship to the eternal Father.

It is therefore right to see the liturgy as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ, in which through signs addressed to the senses man’s sanctification is signified and, in a way proper to each of these signs, made effective, and in which public worship is celebrated in its fullness by the mystical body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the head and b y his members.

Accordingly, every liturgical celebration, as an activity of Christ the priest and of his body, which is the Church, is a sacred action of a preeminent kind. No other action of the Church equals its title to power or its degree of effectiveness.

The bottom line is that Catholics, certainly faithful Catholics, believe that Christ is present in the Sacraments, and this, obviously, includes Baptism.  

Think a moment on the thought of Christ baptizing His enemies by waterboarding them.  

It's just stupid.  It's stupid on steroids.

Walk it back Sarah.  Walk it back and regain some respect.

Comments

[Tim Chesterton]

It was an outstanding example of what happens when Christianity gets separated from the things that Jesus actually said and did. I thought she probably felt it was a smart remark that would get lots of support from the crowd, but I found it hard to believe that she had so little respect for the Christian sacraments that she would use that sort of language to describe torture.

All of which is a long way of saying, "I agree with you, Rick"! (and I'd agree with you even more if you'd add the words 'and Anglicans' to the line 'Catholics in particular' :) )

[Rick aka Mr. Brutally Honest]

Then agree with me more Tim!!

:)

[Tim Chesterton]

Thanks, Rick!

[Tim Chesterton]

Andrew Sullivan weighs in.

[Leslie]

At the risk of looking like I'm leaping to her defense (uff da, all that was too bad there at the NRA) am I right in remembering that Palin is a believer's-baptism evangelical?

Evangelicals don't consider baptism a sacrament and certainly don't see Christ as doing the baptism...it is viewed as a human-act; a public proclamation that you have chosen to live according to the values of the Christian group (or in the case of this one-liner, the nation) in allegiance to its leader.

We liturgists drive across country to attend our niece's baptism, we receive certificates of baptism that become genealogical records and it's all a very big act-of-God deal. Whereas for the most part, evangelicals head on down to the river (may or may not be pre-planned), wander out with only the memory as proof that, "I testified!". A pastor isn't even necessarily present at the time.

As a politician she should have thought of the liturgical covenant-baptizers but to personally hold her to linking Jesus to waterboarding forces her to subscribe to a baptism that's not hers. (Does she still hold a public office? She hasn't been on Canadian news for a while.)

And, true to God's redemptive grace, maybe he is using this as an opportunity to lay out the beauty of new covenant baptism. Oh to find a way to keep from getting angry while it's happening.(Romans 8:1)

Still, sometimes a person comes out of a proverbial gun owner's convention with nothing to say but, uff da.

There you go, I have a rare day off work today...cheers, fellas.

[Tim Chesterton]

Ain't no theological conversation that can't be improved by the odd 'uff da', Leslie!

I need to have a think about what you say about believer's baptism - I suspect my Mennonite friends will be just as irate at her words as Rick is.

[Leslie]

And of course the pacifist angle may factor into the Menno's feelings about the waterboarding comment a smidge!
:-D

Living in a community with many, many Mennonites of various sects, it is my life mission to teach them "uff da" in a low-German accent...

I'm not at all trying to suggest evangelicals should or would be comfortable with the connection she made. But the believer's baptism vs covenant/sacramental baptism difference is one that sits fairly prominent in my past experiences and it...is definitely two very different ways of looking at things.

Rick, your Vatican 2 quote rings the most true with my view of baptism -- For I have been crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me. And this life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for me. Gal 2:20

I'm thinking Assemblies of God (I googled her church) would view water baptism as a good thing to do, but a pale shadow of Baptism of the Holy Spirit? If so, said terrorist might find himself in the midst of a deliverance ministry...then let the controversies begin! ;-)

Imagine if the Israelites had 24 hour news channels while they were wandering 40 years in the desert!

[Rick aka Mr. Brutally Honest]

Elizabeth Scalia has weighed in on this and I consider it a must read... I consider her book Strange Gods, Unmasking the Idols of Everyday Life to be the same, the latter I think explaining why the former is such a problem.

Read them both.

[Tim Chesterton]

Wow, that's a scorcher from Elizabeth Scalia. And I have to say I agree with every word of it. Thanks for linking to it, Rick.