from Christina Ramos Art (http://www.flickr.com/photos/christinaramos/2781726916/sizes/o/)
I was moved to write a brief post on baptism after reading a series of articles on Harvard’s Fish Tank where I noted that the “baptism wars” were alive still in the next generation! On the one hand, I tend to glaze over when I read, once again, the same old arguments with no side convincing the other. On the other hand, I reckon that each generation fighting for its own convictions, even if that means perpetuating the same old, tired debates, is probably a good thing. Wasn’t it Jacques Ellul (or was it Barth?) who said that the church must be reborn every generation? It can’t really be handed down.
I don’t want to pontificate or be condescending towards anyone for whom this “doctrinal” issue looms large. And while my title is tongue-in-cheek, I’m not really demeaning the sometimes healthy (sometimes pathetically divisive and hateful) practice of discussing, even debating, hot topics… so long as it is done as brothers (I really think N.T. Wright’s perspective is correct there, see “What Saint Paul Really Said” where he notes that doctrine can and should be debated, but as brothers). But I notice, that like most ideological “wars”, people tend to land along a continuum from militant to phobic, hence the title.
Baptism-phobic
What I mean by “baptism-phobic” is that a certain group of Christians seem, to me, so afraid that we will put undue emphasis on our role in salvation, on our behavior, on our “work” that they go to an extreme. They deny any real importance of baptism. In doing so, I feel they not only miss out on a great Christian practice which ties us to our deepest roots all the way back to Israel and to Adam, but they also are out of sync with the vast majority of Christians for the last 2,000 years.
Honestly, I struggle (I admit it, it’s a struggle, not a point of boasting) with being patient with this group. I tend to want to shrug my shoulders and walk away perplexed. In truth, I sincerely question whether one can be intellectually honest if after reading the many passages in the NT that touch on baptism, one relegates baptism to some superfluous, ineffectual, optional practice. One thing I am pretty sure about, though, is that getting into debates about baptism is not particularly helpful or unifying.
I have a dear, Christian friend (yes, he’s a Christ-follower, full of love and devotion to our Lord) who believes that water baptism is unimportant, non-essential and human in origin. He reasons that baptism in the NT is used metaphorically (in the same way Jesus spoke of persecution as a “baptism”, Mk 10:25ff) and almost always refers to baptism of the Holy Spirit. The problem with that logic is that metaphors only work if there exists a logical connection. For early Christians, the baptism word-family could indeed be used metaphorically (e.g., baptism of the Holy Spirit) precisely because they understood the well-established sacramental practice of immersion in water.
Baptism-friendly
Happily, it appears to me from reading a broad range of contemporary Christian authors, baptism has become, once again, a positive topic among evangelicals, who were the largest (voir the only group to minimize baptism, when compared to most Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Anabaptist and Restoration Movement Christians). It seems that a large number of folks have been convinced, by (a) a renewed appreciation for ancient traditions which seems more characteristic of the post-modern mind than the modern thinker, and by (b) the sheer volume of scriptural references to baptism, that baptism just might be a valuable symbol and a downright cool ritual! Alhough they still have an overall take-it or leave-it approach to its practice.
I tend to believe that the fear is that by overly affirming baptism, we might be “tying God’s hands” and reducing HIS salutory work at the cross to a contractual agreement which leaves Him “unfree” to save whom He wills, as He wills, when He wills. Moreover, we might actually start believing we can, in some sense, save ourselves. I’m sympathetic to this concern. In my own tradition, where believers not only affirm the importance of baptism, but the exact manner of the baptism (including form, age, understanding and prerequisite repentance) is of such primordial importance that any deviation from the correct practice of baptism jeopardizes one’s salvation and standing with God. Seeing how poorly Christians agree on baptism, that does seem to put a bit too much focus on our part with the corollary effect of minimizing the effectiveness of Christ’s work.
Baptism-affirming
Going beyond the previous (artificial) categories, it seems to me a more robust theology of baptism is warranted. Rather than debate the moment of “salvation”, drawing lines of fellowship based on the exact way we practice baptism, or going to extremes of dismissing the practice altogether or neurotically wondering if one was baptized “correctly”, I believe we should reclaim the richness of baptism as a sacrament that ties the church to its historical and theological roots.
- Theologically, we should celebrate baptism, richly and enthusiastically, as a reminder of God’s ongoing salvific work throughout the ages. From the parting of the waters in the Genesis account of Creation, to the waters of the flood which divided between the wicked and the righteous Noah and his family, to the salutory parting of the Red Sea AND the Jordan River in order to both free Israel from slavery and lead them into the promised land, to the prophetically symbolic purification and salvation of Jonah through a watery burial and resurrection, to John’s baptism of repentance, to Jesus’ own entering into his ministry by submitting to immersion in the Jordan, to the Apostles’ practice and teaching of the believer’s own burial and resurrection through baptism (Romans 6), God has repeatedly used water to “save” his people.
- Historically, we should understand baptism a concrete way in which we express solidarity with Adam, Noah, Moses, Joshua, Jonah, the apostles and Jesus himself (not to mention the thousands upon thousands of Christians who have gone before us). And yet, we are not only expressing solidarity, but we are participating in their story, which is ultimately the story of our God, the one and only true Savior.
- Sociologically or politically, we should recapture the deeply subversive character of baptism as a very public, visible moment when each Christian proclaims his/her emancipation from all other kingdoms, all other allegiances, all other masters, when we say “I am no longer yours” to any lord that would rival our Lord & King. At that same moment, we are “born again” into a new family where gender, race, nationality, status no longer divide us because we have become “brothers” and “sisters”, God’s own household. In baptism, we renounce (we die to and are buried to) our old politics of exclusion, our economy of scarcity, our prideful individuality, and we embrace (we are raised to a new life characterized by) a new ethic, a kingdom way of living.
Baptism is simply TOO RICH to be either ignored and sidelined, or, reduced to a divisive, superstitious ritual. It is an identity giving, salutory sacrament overflowing with rich theology and history.
Baptism-militant
I’ve spent my entire life in Restoration Movement churches. It seems to me that what started as a simple, brotherly, Spirit-led call to restore biblical practices somehow became a rather sectarian group of believers whose reputation became “Oh, you guys are the ones who think you’re the only ones that are saved.” Sadly, that’s pretty much what most of us believed. And to this day, for this family of churches, the issue of baptism looms large. Sometimes, it’s cause for anxiety over one’s salvation (“was my baptism valid?”); other times, it’s really THE bottom line test of orthodoxy and fellowship (“that’s all great, but what do you guys teach about baptism? do you say it’s essential for salvation”).
So, to set the record straight for my “baptism militant” brothers, I affirm baptism (see above). I teach and practice the immersion of adult believers for the forgiveness of sins. I am moved to tears every time someone is baptized. I love feeling connected to our rich salvation history. Moreover, I think it does us good to know, to remember that there was a day, a specific moment when we buried our old way of life and embraced God’s proclamation that “Now is the day of salvation”. And, even though our salvation is ongoing (sanctification) and future (eschaton), there indeed came a time when we were “made alive in Christ” and “by grace we were saved” (Ephesians 2:5).
But, I simply cannot be dogmatic and sectarian. I have about as little patience for the “baptism-militant” as for the “baptism-phobic” believers. Several friends from the International Churches of Christ have recently told me that the issue of “cognizance” and baptism is a hot topic in that fellowship these days. What that means is that the question is whether a baptism “counts” as a valid baptism if at the time of the baptism the person is not convinced that baptism is essential for salvation. In other words, if you were baptized out of obedience or to become a member of the church but believed your sins were forgiven at some other time than baptism (for instance, when you prayed for forgiveness), then the idea is that your baptism is invalid so that you are not forgiven, not saved, not a Christian and most likely going to Hell. Of course, that issue and all the attendant arguments have been around in the churches of Christ since long before I was born.
Needless to say, I couldn’t feel more detached from that kind of argument. I feel like rolling my eyes and sighing. Why?
- I just can’t relate to the vision of God that is necessary to get lost in such debates. God is no longer a Father who Judges (because he hates injustice and how it hurts his people). He is a Lawyer and Judge who has forgotten how to be a Father. He is more concerned with Law than people. He writes in terms obscure enough to confuse (like all lawyers) then condemns those who missed the fine print.
- I can’t shake the Old Testament and New Testament images where God shocks the so-called orthodox believers who honestly think they are the ones who are “right” with God. He shocks them by his generosity, by his love of sinners (including apostate Israelites), by his freedom to save whom He wills. Think of Rahab, the Ninevites, Zacchaeus, the sinful woman, Levi…. Remember that the Pharisees were devoutly holding to the Torah and remaining loyal to Yaweh. Imagine their stupefaction and scandal to see Jesus, this supposed prophet, hang out with obvious sinners; not Gentile sinners (that could be understood), but apostate Jews, Jewish tax collectors, Jewish prostitutes, Jewish fall-aways. Yet, Jesus said they were entering the kingdom ahead of the law-keepers. Talk about disorienting.
- And then there’s Jesus himself. He did not set aside the Law (nor should we set aside baptism, the Eucharist….). BUT, he always landed on the heart! His harshest words were for those who were lost in the fine points of the Law (or, for us, “doctrine”) and forgot about mercy. In fact, in a verse that is often misused to create doubt in believers who have differing doctrine (e.g., baptism), Jesus tells people who drove out demons and performed miracles in his name, “I never knew you, depart from me you evil doers” (Matt 7). I heard it used (and used it myself) to tell other believers who did not practice baptism “sure you do many good things in the name of Jesus and are very devoted, but since you were not baptized, HE DOES NOT KNOW YOU.” I now cringe, because this passage, coming at the end of the sermon on the Mount is not at all about doctrine but about heart. Jesus is saying the exact opposite of what we’ve made the verse say. He’s saying that doing all the right religious things (like being baptized) is NOT what he’s after (though these might be good, just like casting out demons and performing miracles were good). If the kind of heart that he has been talking about–the heart that refuses to call a brother a fool, or to lust after another man’s wife, or to boast in prayer and fasting, or to judge a brother, or to live selfishly–is absent, then the right behaviors are meaningless.
- Finally, there is the inescapable reality that many serious Bible students who are devout believers who not only call Jesus Lord but have quite evidently made Jesus Lord of their lives don’t understand baptism as I do. As one example, N.T. Wright is perhaps today’s greatest NT scholar and a man who deeply loves both Christ and his Church. His writings have benefited believers throughout the world. Is such a man really to be understood as a false-brother, as worse than an unbeliever because he affirms infant baptism (he is Anglican)? Or is a humble woman like mother Teresa who has served orphans and loved the poor more than any other, devoting her entire life to the service of Christ really to be pitied as one whose life, service to man, faith in Christ, hope in Christ were all in vain? as one who in the end fell short of the goal because she believed in original sin and infant baptism? After all, Jesus himself taught that a tree is know by its fruit. Paul believed that the Spirit could be discerned in the lives of others. Neither ever said that baptismal orthodoxy was the sign of a true believer.
So, for myself, in the end, I still teach and understand baptism the way I was taught. I have a very high view of its place in the life of the Christian community. It is a beautiful, meaningful, profound sacrament. But, heeding Jesus’ words to “beware of the yeast of the pharisees”, I cannot give in to politics of exclusion, to confident self-satisfaction, to a spirit of judgment. I simply cannot refuse to embrace as brothers fellow believers who’ve submitted to the Lordship of Christ because they might think differently. Instead, we can have brotherly, honest and passionate, but brotherly dialogue on any point where we disagree. I think we should all be “baptism-affirming” without falling into a misplaced militancy on that count. There are many things we probably should be more militant about (pursuing peace, eradicating poverty, radical love of our brothers, radical love of our enemies, …); I don’t think baptism is one of them.
Hi, Dr. McAnulty! I was happy to see that you’d been keeping track of my blog posts over at The Fish Tank, and figured I’d return the favor.
As someone who falls much less on the dogmatic side of things than most in the ICOC, I cannot help but be slightly amused (in a good way) that I am now being perceived as dogmatic! I’ve thought about baptism a lot and I’ve thought about how we should approach baptism. Where do we draw the line? What if someone’s elbow doesn’t quite make it under? What if someone didn’t completely repent? What if someone’s in the desert and doesn’t have access to sufficient water for a “valid” baptism? Such questions are endless, and I agree with you that they miss the point. (I love to joke that people are saved as soon as their noses bridge the plane of the surface of the water; it highlights how silly some of the details are!)
Along with you, I also would argue for a more holistic (or “richer”) understanding of baptism. Within my church (and with people with whom I study the Bible), I try to emphasize that the Bible never directly addresses a lot of our questions about baptism, and that we should always withhold our judgment and trust in God’s grace. Do I think that no one was saved in between (say) AD 400 and AD 1400 because everyone was baptized as an infant? No. Does the Bible instruct us with regards to those who are practicing and faithful Christians but have not (for whatever reason) been baptized, or who were baptized as infants?
I also have discovered that endless debates about baptism generally go nowhere. I am only debating Nick on The Fish Tank because he is someone I know (and someone, by the way, whom I consider a brother) and someone whom I thought I could convince. Of course, he is also someone whom I think is (egregiously) wrong when it comes to baptism. God certainly examines the heart, but the New Testament does tell us to defend sound doctrine and to refute false doctrine. In my mind, what the Bible says about baptism is clear enough and important enough to warrant some good debates on the matter, even if those debates may sound tired to some! Too many Christians today have shied away from that exhortation in the name of ecumenism, something I find terribly sad and alarming.
I see your concerns about militancy and share them (for the most part), and have tried to “soften” some of our stances where I find them troubling. I have written a little about the cognizance issue – http://deusdecorusest.blogspot.com/2009/08/some-thoughts-on-cognizance-issue.html – because I think what we decide about that issue could have huge consequences (good or bad) for the future of the ICOC. In this case (but not all cases!), I think taking a more liberal stance is scripturally warranted and could open doors for more humble and gracious dialogue with churches outside the Restoration Movement.
Ultimately, as you said, what matters is the heart – but I do not think that emphasis on the heart is mutually exclusive with emphasis on doctrine! “Doctrine” is a dirty word today, but I believe that it is essential. The danger lies, I think, in the WHY behind our pursuit of doctrine. You alluded to some sinful motivations to pursue doctrine: “politics of exclusion,” “confident self-satisfaction,” “a spirit of judgment.” I think the danger for the ICOC (and for me personally) is to want to saved by right doctrine (rather than by grace). I think we can assume that liberal positions are bad positions, when the truth is that un-Christlike positions are bad positions. (Not that I don’t have problems with more liberal theologies – I have plenty – but there are dangers in both directions. Having strong convictions does NOT mean having the most conservative convictions possible.) I think we can be reactionary in our views about baptism out of fear of losing our identity, an identity which still labors under the specter of a “One True Church” mentality. Most importantly, I think that we can assume we have the truth in a way that precludes honest, open examination of other positions.
However, I cannot help but see a beautiful, simple-minded devotion to the Bible where others see only dogmatism and exclusivism. I know people who would do the hokey-pokey if they thought that was what the Bible taught, without a second’s worth of hesitation. These people, like the early Christians, want to figure out every nitty-gritty detail and follow God perfectly; that might get them into trouble at times, but I love the heart behind it. In contrast, some of my most religious Evangelical friends haven’t given me the time of day when it comes to baptism merely because it strikes them as implausible that God would care about little things like that – not to mention the countless people who have studied the Bible and used implausible views of baptism as excuses not to repent.
So it’s a complicated issue, to say the least.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Joseph. I’ve enjoyed your many posts on the Fish Tank.
I do agree with your last comment, “so, it’s a complicated issue, to say the least.”
While I find myself uninspired by long essays on baptism, I hope you know I’m not assuming that you and others who go to the effort of thoroughly engaging in the topic are automatically dogmatists! I wouldn’t presume to judge someone I know so little.
I plan to post something on doctrine soon; I hope you’ll check back. Thanks for reading … and keep writing!
Thank you for a great article David.
I’ve long felt that, like the basis for many denominational divisions in Christianity today, the militant view on baptism is an over-compensating response to modern doctrines which dismiss it (like baptism-phobia), and is itself heretical. I love the balanced perspective of the baptism-affirming position. It maintains the tension of not having things completely spelled out in the Bible regarding baptism, and maintains the emphasis on the heart.
I have been in the church of Christ for over a decade, and have appreciated your fellowship. This article, like many of our conversations, leaves me feeling affirmed and empowered to pursue a balanced, earnest walk with God (no small task)! Fussing about the depth of immersion seems a subtle trick to distract from what’s important, and I’m ashamed I ever worried about such things.
Thanks again.
David –
A very interesting and thought-provoking blog post … will need to sift through your archives for additional gems! As a strongly-baptism-affirming ICOC member, I share your unwillingness to ascribe to the militant viewpoint, not willing to limit God’s right to apportion grace in any manner that he may choose, but would like to pose the following question : If you or I were to study the Bible with someone who was obviously repentant in response to the sacrifice of Jesus and was eager to love the Lord his God with all his heart, soul, mind & strength and love his neighbor as himself, but did not feel obliged to submit to adult immersion … would you, if so how would you, admit him into your church family and fellowship?
Hi Lee, a few thoughts in response to your question:
1. I feel comfortable–judging by not only Jesus’ example but also the sense of time running through the whole Bible– being patient and letting God do the convincing over however much time it takes, rather than me trying to “wrestle to the ground” a fellow believer trying to convince him. There comes a point where trying to “persuade all men” (as Paul did) crosses a line and becomes coercive, alienating and divisive rather than edifying.
2. I think Jesus took unity very seriously. We make a grave mistake, in my mind, when we place discipleship or “doctrine” (or anything else) above or even in opposition to unity. The truth is that genuine unity, precisely because it draws from the divine (particularly the Trinity), is very uncomfortable for humans. Being one with people with differing understandings stretches us, troubles us and confuses us. To refuse fellowship to such a person as you described would seem out of step with the kind of unifying spirit that Jesus exhibited, wouldn’t you think? Having said that, I confess it is harder to do in practice than in theory. For instance, I don’t find myself particularly “at home” with fellow believers who believe in a hard doctrine of double predestination (i.e., God preordained some from the beginning of time to go to heaven and others to go to hell in everlasting torment)! Fortunately–and also maybe sadly–we seem to eventually gravitate towards close fellowship with those that are more akin to us in beliefs. Yet, that does not preclude us having brotherly attitudes and actions towards those who differ, because they are still brothers!
3. The idea that somehow I have any right to “admit him (or not) into my church family and fellowship” is problematic isn’t it? To be certain, for centuries now, church authorities have wielded considerable control and sway over people by their self-proclaimed power to exclude. This has been used to exact conformity, orthodoxy, obedience and allegiance. But no matter what authority Jesus might have given the apostles to “loose and to bind”, he seemed pretty clear about the fact that it was his and his alone to judge who were his (see the parable of the weeds). So, I would not presume to tell someone they were unwelcome in Jesus’ church family and in the fellowship of those that Jesus has brought together by grace! It is His church, not mine! Simply put, I’d rather accept someone that Jesus later says “I do not know him” than reject someone whom Jesus later says “he is mine”. After all, that kind of judging and excluding was the spirit of the Pharisees. It is a spirit that is very strong in most aspects of our world but that should not find a home in the church.
4. That is not to say there is never a basis to “exclude”. But in my own careful study of “false teachings” (or heresy) mentioned in the New Testament, I find no precedent for treating Christ followers who acknowledge his Lordship as non-brothers or as unbelievers because we may have some “doctrinal” differences. The biblical examples where individuals or groups are labeled false teachers (and subject to disassociation) always seem to touch on (a) the very core of the gospel (for example, when the real-flesh-and-blood existence of Jesus, or the reality of his resurrection are denied) or (b) a fundamental attitude towards sin & righteousness (for instance when immorality is not only practiced but even proclaimed as good). I don’t see finer (albeit important) points of doctrine, such as the Trinity, baptism, transubstantiation, predestination, etc… as grounds for no longer calling someone brother.
Thanks for reading and dialoguing.
Thank you so much for sharing!
David,
Thank you for sharing your heart on the web! It is a very bold thing indeed…and I hope it leads to increased conversation and openness for believers.
I found many of your thoughts on this subject in-line with my own. I am still shocked to hear and see certain responses from the “extremes” – especially given that baptism is almost not mentioned at all by Jesus. He offers no real “teaching” on the subject…certainly never a reference to heaven/hell and what someone must believe at the time they are immersed. It makes me wonder if we’re less comfortable being disciples of Jesus and more comfortable being disciples of Paul. After all, Jesus makes some vague and ambiguous statements (like, “Whoever is not against us is for us” in Mark/Luke 9) and teaches that those “”born of the Spirit” are like trying to pin down and follow the wind (John 3, his only real mention of baptism – or at least water). Those aren’t the clear directives we’d traditionally like from our leaders. Yet we are told that the words he had spoken “are Spirit and they are life”. Sadly, in my former years, I didn’t really lead people to Jesus or even trust that he’d “get them there” on his own. Despite his words, I need clearer, surer “steps”.
So I turned elsewhere, maybe to Paul. He’s got some answers and some direction. Granted, some of his teachings are setting and time specific, but for many of us he’s an answer to the “leadership” heavy emphasis often found amidst human effort. He gives those of us who have often felt compelled to have a “clear statement” and to be able to “draw the line” (between who and what is always a great question) something to point to. I don’t know if that’s where Paul wanted or intended for his teachings to be, but some of his statements (especially on baptism) are elevated right there with “Love the Lord your God with all your heart…” In that setting, many have found themselves needing to either turn a blind eye toward some of Jesus’ more gracious and generous teachings or toward their church culture. It’s certainly a tough spot to be in.
Today, I land where I *think* Paul may have been when writing to the church in Rome. He never planted that church or made a visit prior to writing the letter to Romans. And so, in Romans 6, when he asks, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” – I think he is, in fact, asking a question. He’s met the Apollo types, the folks in Ephesus who were devoted to Jesus but knew only the baptism of John – and so he asks very plainly, “Do you not know?” He presents clearly his understanding of what happens at baptism – but never follows with, “and for those of you who didn’t know, you need a do-over!”
If the man who solidified so much of the early church doctrine (and held occassional conversations with the resurrected Lord directly) never extends himself beyond what Jesus taught, then I suspect there is little reason for me to do so other than fear (fear that someone will “miss that critical step”, that their “effort will be for nothing”, etc.). Now, I turn to faith and “am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day” (1 Tim 1:12).
Great lesson! Thank you.