Underwhelmed

Some of you probably don't know the term "whelm." That's okay. It's not a modern word -- not used today. It means "to engulf or submerge." It was originally to be overcome by water. Of course, our more common version is "overwhelm." And we know that one is simply to be completely overcome by something, but you get the idea from "whelm," right? You can be "whelmed" in a ship where the water sinks the ship or you can be "overwhelmed" by emotion where the emotions engulf you. Same kind of thing. "Underwhelmed," then, would simply mean to not get too wet, so to speak. The water did not go over your head. The emotions did not cause much of an effect.

All well and good. Now what?

I want to talk about baptism. "What??" Bear with me a moment.

In the church there has long been discussions about "immersion" ("whelm," you see?), "dipping," or "sprinkling." That kind of thing. What is necessary? What is valid? Lots of churches vary on this question. The Baptists tend to insist on "full immersion" while others edge farther and farther until you practically only need to acknowledge the existence of water to be baptized. (I exaggerate, but you get what I'm saying.) Is there a correct mode?

I would argue that, no, there is not. And now I plan to tell you what the correct mode is.

The word in the Greek is βαπτίζω -- baptizō -- from which we get our word "baptize." (I know. "Thanks, Stan, that was truly enlightening." Yawn.) According to Strong's, the word means (get this), "to whelm." Oh, and there it is -- a connection to the first paragraph! Yeah! The word is used in Greek to reference dipping, as in dipping a cloth into a dye to color it. John the Baptist (which is a reference to what he did, not his denomination) baptized in the Jordan "because water was plentiful there" (John 3:23), not an issue if he was merely sprinkling people. Paul wrote that we were baptized into Christ's death. "We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4). That is not "sprinkled" or even "poured." That is "immersion."

All the language, from the word used to the context to the content, argues that "baptism" was intended to be "immersion." As the image it is intended to convey, we aren't supposed to be sprinkled with Christ's death or wetted into Christ. We aren't supposed to be lightly rinsed for our sins. We're supposed to be in deep -- overwhelmed. The image just doesn't work any other way.

Having said that, it is an image, and the intent is a public display of an internal work. Even in the early church sprinkling or pouring was allowed in cases where immersion wasn't possible. Because the point is not "a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience" (1 Peter 3:21). I'm not the one who will tell someone, "Go try again; you didn't get wet enough the first time." I am suggesting that the imagery of being sprinkled into the body of Christ is a weak one and if you're considering baptism (as every obedient follower of Christ should), I'd highly recommend immersion. Otherwise, it's just kind of underwhelming.