This is Viewpoints for Monday, May 2, 2016

Different explanation

In reflecting upon the Gospel accounts of the baptism of Jesus, Bill Cummings states, “… one fact remains constant: John the Baptizer baptizes Jesus for ‘the forgiveness of sin’ ” (Question: Why was Jesus Baptized? — April 24). I disagree with this conclusion. The Scripture he quoted is Mark 1:4, an introduction to John’s ministry in general: “John the Baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.”

Mark states that people sought his baptism as an occasion to confess their sins (Mark 1:5). As to why Jesus specifically sought to be baptized, the only reason Jesus gives is “to fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). If Jesus were a sinner, why did he not simply state a desire to confess his sins like everyone else?

Nevertheless, Cummings speculates that Jesus sought baptism because he had sinned. I will pose an alternative explanation using the following example: Suppose a child suffers from a bad cough and his father wants him to drink cough syrup. The child refuses, thinking it will hurt his throat. The father then drinks the syrup himself to show that it is OK to do so, and that he expects the child to drink it in imitation of him. Because the father drank the medicine, is it correct to conclude that he also had a cough? No, he drank it for a different reason.

In a similar manner, Jesus did not seek baptism because he was a sinner, but to show that he expects Christians do it in imitation of him. Moreover, Jesus used his baptism to demonstrate that he participates in this sacrament, including the baptisms we receive today.

Cummings theorizes that if Jesus were “a real man” then the expectation would be for him to succumb to the sinful temptations that beset others (such as anger, envy, greed and lust). He points out that when Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple, he acted out in anger “... as if these money changers didn’t have a right to overcharge the people ...” But there is a difference between sinful anger and righteous anger, with the latter being the virtue of zeal (John 2:17). It was not morally permissible to profane the sacredness of the temple by treating it like a common marketplace and charging inflated rates for needed services.

Finally, let me say that I do not understand why resisting sinful temptations means that a person is somehow less human. Quite the contrary, I submit that it makes a person more human and less an animal.

Thanks, Frank

Just want to thank Mr. Gadbois for reminding us of the reasons why Ted Cruz would make a great president. I also want to answer one of his burning questions: You send them back from whence they came, silly. Now that’s not too hard to understand, is it?

Lord, deliver us from liberals.

Truth-telling

As a former employee of the Medical Center of Central Georgia, now Navicent Health, I wish to hypothesize regarding the recent “D” rating from a national rating agency.

I believe Navicent Health, rather than being guilty of sloppy care, is guilty instead of complete and truthful reporting of any and all breakdowns in infection control procedures. It’s this truthfulness in reporting that is the foundation for this rating agency’s “D.”

In my 20 years at the Medical Center I witnessed nothing but the utmost care, through training of all staff members in contact with patients in prevention of hospital-acquired infections, and dogged assessment, retraining as necessary, of these practices by supervisory personnel.

I have been retired now for almost two years and have nothing to gain from this assessment. I don’t believe the Medical Center’s resolute insistence on the highest diligence in the area of infection control has so deteriorated in the years since I left the institution as to warrant this rating.

I believe that many health care facilities, both here and around the nation, have transitioned from “vere loqui” (to speak the truth) to “recte loqui” (to speak the politically correct) in the reporting of their failures in this area.

We are caught in a world of Humpty Dumptyisms — the practice of insisting that a word (or report) means whatever one wishes it to (also called “utiliter loqui” (utilitarian speech) — the art of using language (reports) to better our position in the world)

This story was originally published April 29, 2016 at 9:20 PM with the headline "This is Viewpoints for Monday, May 2, 2016."