You may be aware that I work on my sermons at least a week in advance, and sometimes a month in advance. Occasionally a big event comes along on a Friday and that well-planned sermon has to be set aside, or greatly modified. I "had" planned, to take you carefully through the Biblical basis for the covenants: the Abrahamic covenant, the Sinai covenant, and the new covenant of Jesus, in order to lay the foundation for talking about the baptismal covenant which is our focus this Lent. But on Thursday and Friday, the baptismal covenant suddenly became the news of the day. It was not in the secular press; it was in the communication channels of the Episcopal Church, that the baptismal covenant was at the center.

So I am going to start there, and work my way back to the meaning of the baptismal covenant for us today, as individuals and as the parish of St. Thomas. I think you all know that the Primates of the Anglican Communion--that is, the 38 bishops who lead each of the national churches--met from Feb 14th to 19th in Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania. Three important things happened at that meeting. First, our new Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Schori, took her place among the Primates and was well received by a significant majority of the bishops. Many of the bishops who said they would not sit at the same table with her, did sit with her. Then the Primates of the Western hemisphere elected her to the Standing Committee, which will work with the Archbishop of Canterbury to plan the next Lambeth Conference.

The second important thing that happened, was a request, sounding like a demand, issued at the end of the meeting in a Communique, that our House of Bishops “make an unequivocal common consent” not to authorize any further same-sex blessings in the Episcopal Church, and they gave a deadline of September 30th. The reason was to prevent a split in the Anglican communion over this issue, and to provide time for further dialogue. There have been strong reactions to this request, as you can imagine. The first reaction arises from the events of the 16th century, when English Christians decided to reject the authority of foreign bishops, most especially the Bishop of Rome. The Church of England, and her daughter churches, have flourished on the basis that “every particular or national church, hath authority to ordain, change and abolish Ceremonies and Rites of the church ordained by man’s authority”. (This is one of the Articles of Religion, found at the back of your prayerbooks.) That principle was reaffirmed at the Second Lambeth Conference in 1878, along with the principle that each church “should be respected by all the other churches”.

A second reaction, expressed by the Bishop of Washington John Chane, is distress that “the Primates spent so much time discussing the internal life of the Episcopal Church and devoted so little attention to the woeful state of our global community”. Many hoped the Primates would lift up the Millenium Development Goals to the attention of all Christians. Then a third strong reaction comes from many people--laity, clergy and bishops--who are frustrated that the Primates cannot understand the structure of authority in our church. Neither our Presiding Bishop, nor the House of Bishops, may make binding commitments for the Episcopal Church.

Only the General Convention, in which there is equal representation of laity, clergy and bishops, may speak for the Episcopal Church. The President of the House of Bishops wrote on Friday, “it is my duty to ensure that the voice of the laity, and the voice of the clergy of our church will be heard . . . and not pre-empted by the House of Bishops, or any other group”.

The big issue, which has caused this uproar, is the place of gay and lesbian Christians within the church. I wonder if you are aware that the Episcopal Church has declared repeatedly, since 1976, that our understanding of the baptismal covenant, requires that we treat all persons equally regardless of their race, marital status, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, color, ethnic origin or national origin. These resolutions affirmed by General Convention were certainly influenced by the new wording given to the baptismal covenant in our 1979 Prayerbook.

Revision of our 1928 Prayerbook began in the 1960’s, with a series of Prayerbook Studies. Between 1969 and 1974, the baptismal covenant was gradually expanded. The first questions added were: “will you obey and follow Christ as your Lord and Savior?” and “will you seek and serve Christ in all men?” Then a 3rd question was added: “will you strive for justice, peace and human dignity among men and nations?” And a 4th question, about continuing in the apostles’ teaching was added as well. The wording of the questions was gradually revised, and in 1972 the questions about proclaiming the good news, and resisting evil, were added, with final revisions in 1974. The first approval of the new prayerbook was in 1976, so many of us have been answering these questions for more than 30 years, and they have shaped our understanding of what it means to lead a Christian life. They have also influenced the Prayerbook revisions in the Anglican Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of New Zealand, and more recently, the Lutheran Church.

These baptismal questions have also shaped the thinking of many people about issues of sexual orientation, and about same sex blessings. Bishop Paul Marshall of the Diocese of Bethlehem, PA, says, “no member of this diocese is expendable. We will not even entertain the idea of a fast from observing the baptismal covenant’s promises about respecting the worth of every all persons. We will not fast from actively seeking peace and justice for all. The promise about recognizing worth includes especially the person with whom you or I most disagree at present . . . we will not entertain the idea of excluding or avoiding any one of the baptized who kneels before Christ present in the Holy Eucharist”. Bishop Mark Sisk of the Diocese of New York, writes, “I am not in the least prepared to make any concession that strikes at the heart of my conviction that gay and lesbian people are God’s beloved children. We are one body in Christ. We have all been called to offer ourselves . . . and be changed into Christ’s likeness.” Bishop Jelinek of Minnesota adds, “I will not turn my back on full inclusion of all persons, which has been at the heart of this diocese for 150 years, since (our first) bishop and American Indian leaders worked together”.

These statements by the bishops arise from the commitment each of them made, and have repeatedly affirmed, “to seek and serve Christ in all persons” and “to respect the dignity of every human being”. Even more, they arise from Christ’s invitation to those who suffer and are heavy-laden to come to him; and they arise from the vows bishops make at their consecration, “to support all baptized persons in their gifts and ministries”.

A covenant is a solemn mutual agreement to a relationship of gifts and responsibilities. In the Sinai covenant referred to in our reading from Deuteronomy, God has promised to give the land to the Israelites, and to protect them. The Israelites have promised to abide by God’s commandments, which means in particular, giving the first fruits of the land’s produce, back to God. Those first fruits were in turn distributed to the widows, orphans, resident aliens, and priests. In our second reading from Romans, we heard St. Paul’s explanation of the new covenant: everyone who believes in their hearts that Jesus is Lord, is saved, no matter what their religious or ethnic background is: “for there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call upon him”.

In consultation with the Worship Committee, I decided in January to focus in Lent on the Baptismal covenant, as a way to get down to the basics of what it means to lead a Christian life. So today, and this week, I hope we will all reflect on what is now the first promise, “to continue in the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers”. It is important to know that this question is a direct quote from the Book of Acts (2:42), describing the life of the early Christians after the descent of the Holy Spirit. They continued in the apostles’ teaching, by telling and listening to the memories each one had of Jesus. We continue in the apostles’ teaching by reading the New Testament

We also promise to continue in the apostles’ fellowship. This means more than attending worship: it means that the set of relationships we have with one another is the primary place God is revealed. Fellowship enables us to experience the love of God; fellowship gives us support in times of suffering; fellowship enables our spiritual growth, and invites us back when we wander off the path. Fellowship brings out the best in us, and forms us as a community that truly welcomes all people. Fellowship reflects the triune nature of God: the community of three in one.

Then we promise to continue in the breaking of the bread. We commit ourselves to regular participation in this sacred meal, as the event where we are nourished together by Christ’s real presence, and empowered to continue Christ’s ministry in the world. Finally, we promise to continue in the prayers, and perhaps this needs the most explanation. It means that we will be people of prayer, both as individuals and as a community. We promise to give time and attention to prayer, which is the reason we have a bidding book, that allows you to ask the whole congregation to pray for your brother, or your daughter, or your neighbor.

In closing, I want to point out to you the connection I see between the temptation of Jesus, and the baptismal covenant. In the first temptation, Jesus refused to meet his own physical need for food, and did "not" turn a stone into bread. In the second temptation, Jesus refused to take control of the Kingdoms of the world, because he knew he could not save us by force. Our salvation depends on our consent and our faith. In the third temptation, Jesus refused to seek certainty of God’s call by jumping off the Temple, and instead chose faith in the call he had received. In turning away from these temptations, Jesus turned away from the Superman/Divine Rescuer approach to salvation. He chose instead to save us by giving up control, by his own faith in his Father’s love, and by creating a fellowship of love and service. Jesus calls us into a household, a community, where we are his friends. Such is the Lord who promises to be present in the breaking of the bread, and who calls us to seek Him in all persons.