The Baptismal Divide

Michael Westmoreland-White has been writing to his newly baptized daughter about the meaning of her baptism. As a Baptist, Michael's daughter was immersed (dunked in water) upon profession of faith. Although there are minor differences of understanding of meaning between Baptists and Disciples, we're in agreement at least in terms of practice. I think you'll find this a most beneficial essay to read.
Along these lines there has been a bit of ink spilt over recent comments by the esteemed Senator from Arizona and Presidential Candidate -- John McCain. John apparently is born and bred Episcopalian (I join him in that) but for the past 15 years he's been a regular attender if not member of a Southern Baptist Church. He's never been immersed as a believer, so one assumes that he's not a member of that church. John himself seems a bit confused, first he said that his pastor didn't require him to be "re-baptized" nor did he see it necessary to his spiritual growth. Now, he could join a Disciples church without being rebaptized, but that's less true of Baptist churches that I know of.
Then I read today a little online essay at Christianity Today reflecting on this issue -- quoting from conservative theologian Wayne Grudem, who esteems baptism to be a minor doctrine. Of course, he's from a tradition -- the Evangelical Free Church -- that doesn't take a position on the issue. It was McCain's own confusion that stirred this particular essay.
From my own experience -- I was baptized as an infant in the Episcopal Church and then later baptized at a Foursquare high school camp-- in a creek by my youth minister. So, I'm pretty well covered. The question arises as to whether baptism is truly a minor doctrine or a central core doctrine? Setting aside practice or even timing, is the message encapsulated in baptism at the heart of our faith or not?
From a Disciple perspective -- Baptism is rooted in Jesus' own experience of being baptized by John, as well as the broader witness to the importance of baptism as a marker of one's identity as a follower of Jesus -- an identity perhaps best expressed by Paul in Romans 6 -- that in baptism we identify ourselves with Jesus in his life, death, and resurrection. I think baptism stands behind Paul's statements about reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5.
I appreciate this statement from Disciple New Testament Scholar, Bill Baird:

The personal commitment of faith takes concrete expression, according to Disciples, in baptism -- a sign of the risk of faith and an act of commitment to the crucified one (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). Baptism is first of all an act of God -- the action of God's saving power to which faith responds. Faith can only respond out of freedom. The faith which constitutes the church affirms the personal understanding of God's authority. (quoted in Stephen Sprinkle, Disciples and Theology, Chalice Press, 1999, p. 108).

While the mode of baptism or the timing isn't determinative of salvation -- in our tradition -- it is central to who we are. To say it's minor is to miss the power of this symbol of transformation that happens as we give ourselves fully as followers of Jesus Christ.

Comments

Mystical Seeker said…
Quakers don't baptize at all, for what it's worth. I often hear Christians say that baptism is a necessary precondition for what defines a Christian. When they say that, they are either a) saying that Quakers are not Christian, or b) it hadn't occured to them to consider where Quakers fit into the overall scheme of things.

I was given a believer's baptism when I was in the sixth grade. Dunked, because I attended an independent Christian church of the NACC variety. In Vacation Bible School, we had a woman who would drill the children in a sort of group catechism, where we had all sorts of doctrines drilled into us. She made it clear that there is only one kind of baptism--immersion--and that any other kind just plain violated the precepts of the New Testament.

If Christians can't even agree on what constitutes baptism or when it is necessary to be baptized, and even on how crucial those two matters are in the scheme of things, then my opinion is that it surely can't matter that much, except to the extent that it serves as a meaningful ritual to those who want to participate.

I read a book in the last year or so about a Quaker woman who switched over to the Episcopalians, and as part of that she felt a strong urge to be baptized. As a former Quaker myself, I was sort of offended by that, because she was essentially invalidating her years as a Quaker as counting for anything in the life of her faith; but I also respect anyone who feels an urge to undergo that ritual themselves.
Anonymous said…
I was going to post about this in my McCain/Niebuhr post today, but I had so much stuff going on I left it out. I had forgotten about this Baptist doctrine and was rather shocked by it. From my perspective as a Catholic (albeit an uncommon one), I find the Baptist doctrine of rebaptism heretical. I don't know of anything in Christian tradition that would invalidate a Baptism by sprinkling — in fact, the Didache explicitly allows this form of Baptism.

And like you, I'm disturbed by the contention that Baptism is a minor doctrine. But then, you're a member of the Disciples, so our agreement isn't surprising. :-D
Robert Cornwall said…
Baptism and the Eucharist are two central practices of the historic church -- both among Protestants and Catholics -- the exception being Quakers. Quakers take a more spiritualized approach to these things and so they have chosen not to engage in the tangible sacramental practices.

Although I don't believe that Quakers aren't Christians, their dissent doesn't take away its centrality to historic Christian faith -- it does stand as most dissenting positions do -- as a reminder that we need to consider carefully what we believe and practice.

It is the disagreement that has led many to push them to the side. I'm not inclined to do that. I'd rather continue to keep them at the center, for I do believe the symbolism inherent is key to understanding the Christian faith, and continue talking.

Disciples will re-baptize but we tend not to-- out of respect for the validity accorded other traditions. That being said, the Baptist tradition is a strong dissent to the idea that Christian faith can be inherited. Both Karl Barth and Jurgen Moltmann have embraced believers baptism as not just the biblical practice but as the best symbol of our call to embrace our faith for ourselves. Both of them of course came out of state church traditions that assumed membership and citizenship being the same.

I think there's room for both traditions -- infant baptism and believer baptism -- though not surprisingly I embrace the believer baptism position. But unlike Father Chris, I can't call rebaptism a heresy.

My hope is that perhaps we can have some conversation about this important rite (not ritual) of the Christian faith.
Mystical Seeker said…
I can buy the idea that baptism has been central to the "historic" Christian faith. But my question is, is it essential requirement for being a Christian? If one's answer is yes, then one believes that Quakers cannot be Christians. And if one accepts that Quakers are Christians, then one has to accept that it is not an essential requirement for being part of the Christian faith.
Robert Cornwall said…
I got fired once over this -- teaching at an Independent Christian College -- but no while central symbol of the Christian faith, and one I would encourage be done, it is not essential to one's being a Christian -- as long as one, like the Quaker, has a valid reason why they shouldn't take that step.

I'm walking that tight rope!!
Anonymous said…
I appreciate what Bob has written. My own response, for some reason, did not show up and I do not have the strength to recreate it here.

Both Mystical Seeker and Fr. Chris do not seem to have actually read what I said on my post. I feel judged at 2nd hand.

No Baptist believes that baptism is necessary for salvation. We point to the salvation of the thief on the cross as evidence. But neither do we think we are asking for "heretical rebaptism."

I will say more on this tomorrow. But I ask the courtesy of actually reading what I write before dismissing it--or reading it through previous experiences with other Baptists. We Baptists have no pope and no one can speak for another of us.
Anonymous said…
Like Bob, I don't think being un-baptized excludes one from the Christian family, though I place a lot of emphasis on the practice as being important. But Scripture itself refers to a baptism of desire which seems to be perfectly sufficient. Having that be the ordinary practice of the Church would make me very nervous, and I think would disconnect us from important streams of the Christian tradition, but I don't feel compelled to exclude anyone on the basis of not receiving a water baptism.

Responding to Michael, I'm sorry you took my comment as an attack on your post -- as Bob's post focuses mostly on your contribution and general theology of Baptism, I can see that that misunderstanding was my fault. I was referring to established practice of rebaptism in the Southern Baptist church and other churches that frequently require rebaptism. That doctrine is indeed heretical — the Christian tradition accepts "one baptism, one Lord", not several baptisms in succession.

I don't have a problem with a preference for believer's baptism, and I see the arguments for it though I don't necessarily find them compelling enough to mandate the practice. (It's actually the de facto practice in many Independent Catholic parishes, simply because some parishes don't have all that many infants running around.) However, I see nothing in the Christian tradition or Scripture to support the practice of rebaptizing those who were already baptized as infants or as members of denominations with slightly differing doctrine. If there is a serious question as to whether the Sacrament was administered, the Christian tradition has a long-standing solution — conditional rebaptism. But this is only acceptable if one is not certain whether one has been baptized at all, or if form or matter were missing or flawed (baptism in the name of "Jesus our God" or the name of Krishna or something).

I respect the right of other Christians to hold a different view, but this is a substantial doctrinal division between Catholics and many Protestants on the one hand, and some groups of Protestants on the other. And it's one where that first group of churches — at least the Catholic ones (I'm including here Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and many related groups that are not canonical) — have extremely strong convictions about.
Anonymous said…
Okay, I am rested enough now to try again. I am a Baptist, not a Southern Baptist.

Historically, Baptists have agreed with Quakers that, strictly speaking, baptism isn't necessary for salvation, for one to be a Christian. (This was one of our arguments with Alexander Campbell in the 19th C.--although, as I told Bob, I think there was much misunderstanding on both sides.) Unlike Quakers, we didn't think this meant that baptism was unimportant. Although we may have been wrong, when one examines early Baptist arguments with Quakers over baptism (we competed for converts and traded members in those early days) one sees that Baptists were afraid that Quaker reliance SOLELY on the Inner Light and relativizing the importance of Scripture and dismissing baptism and the Lord's Supper (Eucharist) altogether really amounted to a denial of the Incarnation--a denial that the world of matter and bodies was created and good.

Although we emphasize immersion as the form of baptism that fits the word (baptizo in Greek = "I dunk") and symbolizes the believer's identification with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12), Baptists have been far more concerned that baptism follow after personal repentance and faith. In other words, our emphasis has usually been on the necessity of believers' baptism not of how much water or how applied. For our 1st 40 years, most Baptists--like the Mennonites--baptized by pouring water over the head 3 times in the Triune name.

The Baptist insistance on believers' baptism is NOT "rebaptism." Like other baptistic groups, we simply do not recognize infant christenings as valid baptisms. They break with the NT pattern.

The question, Are Quakers Christians?, is not easy to answer because many liberal Quakers seem confused themselves on this. I have met Quakers who considered themselves Buddhists and others who were Unitarians. Certainly Quakers at the time of Fox, Fell, Barclay, and Woolman were Christians--even if Christians with a deficient understanding of baptism and the Eucharist. (They made up for it by better understanding the nonviolence that following Jesus entails better than most Christians.) And certainly Christocentric Quakers, the majority, are Christians.

Now, about "rebaptism." The heresy called by that name referred to the Donatists and others who believed that post-baptismal sin could not be forgiven and who demanded that lapsed members be rebaptized. But Anabaptists (a pejorative name that Catholics and Reformers used to try to conjur the image of the Donatists) and later Baptists simply deny that infant baptism IS baptism. So, we are not rebaptizing.

Some Baptists, ever since John Bunyan's early tract, "Water Baptism No Bar to Communion," have accepted members who were baptized as infants, even though we do not baptize or christen infants ourselves. I belong to such a congregation. We have former Catholics, Methodists, and Presbyterians as members who have considered their infant christening a legitimate baptism and, although our official polity disagrees, our belief in liberty of conscience prevails.

We have open communion--all who come to the table of the Lord are welcomed. None are turned away, remembering that not even Judas was forbidden to partake at that first Eucharist.

I am sorry if Baptist views cause ecumenical dissent, but we place the NT witness on these matters above councils and popes or the leadings of any Inner Light.
Mystical Seeker said…
Baptists were afraid that Quaker reliance SOLELY on the Inner Light and relativizing the importance of Scripture and dismissing baptism and the Lord's Supper (Eucharist) altogether really amounted to a denial of the Incarnation--a denial that the world of matter and bodies was created and good.

I would disagree with that characterization of Quakerism. Far from being world-deniers, Quakers have always been strongly active participants in the world. Their history of activism on social justice matter testifies to this. Instead of an inward-looking, monastic mysticism, Quakerism is an outward-focused, world-affirming mysticism. This applies to sacraments as well. Quakers actually do believe in sacraments--they just don't believe in limiting the sacraments to the two, seven, eight, or whatever number various Christian groups come up with. Quakers believe that everything in the world can and should be sacramental. You can't get much more world-affirming and incarnational than that, in my view.
Mystical Seeker said…
We have open communion--all who come to the table of the Lord are welcomed. None are turned away, remembering that not even Judas was forbidden to partake at that first Eucharist.

I really appreciate it when churches take this point of view. I have always felt that closed communion is a repudiation of Jesus's radical inclusiveness. The justification for closed communion has usually revolved around the sacramental nature of the rite; as a "sacrament", it is supposedly only available to those who the gatekeepers let in the door. I think this sort of sacramental approach to communion that turns it into something too precious for the general public is contrary to what Jesus was about, though.
Anonymous said…
Michael -- I appreciate your continued comments. They clarify a lot. However, I should stress that while you personally may attend a church that welcomes former Catholics and others, accepting their baptisms, many Baptist churches do not. My initial comment was more in response to the John McCain story, with him publicly waffling on whether to be rebaptized or not.

As for this:

The Baptist insistance on believers' baptism is NOT "rebaptism." Like other baptistic groups, we simply do not recognize infant christenings as valid baptisms. They break with the NT pattern.

First, from a Catholic perspective, yes, it is rebaptism. You may not recognize the validity of such baptism, but we believe very strongly they are valid. The real problem here, what makes it heresy from our perspective, is that you are denying (in our understanding) that God works where God has promised to work. We, along with most other Christians, believe the Holy Spirit has promised to be present and effect the Sacrament anywhere water is used and God is invoked using the form "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," with the intent to baptize.

As for "the NT pattern", I've already mentioned that the Didache allows sprinkling. It was likely composed just a few years after the Gospel of John, and it played a significant role in the development of the early church. So I feel pretty secure in that, though I recognize Baptists have a different relationship to patristic materials than Catholics. In any case, the Didache points to a less restrictive definition of Baptism among early-church communities (the very ones who helped write the New Testament) than most Baptists put forward.
Anonymous said…
The Didacheallows pouring and sprinkling when there is not enough water for immersion. It does not say anything about baptizing babies.

Further, I see no promise by God to work wherever water is used with the Triune formula. In the NT, baptism always follows personal FAITH in Christ. Infant baptism is a form of spiritual coercion.

That is not said flippantly. Well into the 20th C. state churches in Europe had been known to use the police to forcibly take children from Baptist or Mennonite parents and christen them into the Catholic, Orthodox, or Lutheran state churches! I have met people who saw it done.
Robert Cornwall said…
This is a fascinating discussion -- which I hope will continue and maybe draw in some others. I'm going to post a couple of other Disciples oriented quotes momentarily.

I think it's worth noting that my tradition, which was Restorationist in its origins, put greater emphasis on immersion than Baptists. For Baptists it was more the timing than the mode. For Stone-Campbell folks it was both timing and mode, and the only authority valued was the New Testament -- which is why they didn't allow for the argument that baptism was the new circumcision.

Michael is correct about the Didache -- it speaks of mode not timing. As I understand it, and I need to go back to some materials that I have, infant baptism didn't originate until later in the 2nd century -- after the Didache appeared.

In my opinion and that of most baptistic folk, to read infant baptism into the New Testament is to do so on the basis of silence. But more on this later!
Anonymous said…
The Didache allows pouring and sprinkling when there is not enough water for immersion.

Sure — but the point is that even in the earliest Christian communities of which we have records, sprinkling was a valid form of Baptism. Perhaps it wasn't considered licit at the time if it was freely chosen, but there was absolutely no question as to its validity. Given centuries upon centuries of a tradition of sprinkling, I feel pretty secure in its licitness as well.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but there are Baptist communities that rebaptize when someone had only a baptism by sprinkling. That may not be the case with your particular Baptist tradition, but it certainly happens.

It does not say anything about baptizing babies.

I'm not suggesting that the NT or contemporaneous documents specifically support the practice — but it is quite a stretch to suggest that because it took another hundred years for the practice to catch on, it's invalid. One might find it to be a practice that falls short of some ideal of Baptism, but to suggest that that calls into question the efficacy of the Sacrament as practiced for 1800 years or so is a bit much.

So again, I understand that we disagree on this, and that it's not going to be cleared up by a blog conversation. But I hope you understand that because Baptism is a Sacrament to Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and other "ecclesial" Christians, it is not merely a sign. So calling into question the efficacy of Baptism as it has been practiced for nearly all the history of Christianity is to call into question the promises made by God through revelation in Scripture and the Tradition. Perhaps the "h" word sounds rather strong in this context, but I'm not sure how else to term a rejection of what we see as God's promise to his children. It's not just a matter of ecclesiastical policies or recognition of human practices.
Mystical Seeker said…
I would guess that for people of a Restorationist bent, it doesn't matter if an incorrect practice was carried out for one year or 1800. Lots of practices that people now disagree with once had long shelf lives. Even for people who are not of a necessarily Restorationist bent, I would think that there are no grandfather clauses when it comes to matters of theological practice. In any case, the whole point of Restorationism is to attempt to return to a prior set of practices and beliefs that one believes to have been foundational but which were lost. It doesn't matter how soon after the original foundational era the practices were introduced. Whether Restorationism adheres to those operational principles is another question, but that is at least the theory behind it.
Anonymous said…
MS --

Right, but I guess I'm calling parts of that project into question for the fruits it bears -- in this case, requirements about Baptism I don't think the early church would have accepted. The basis for the intended restoration (the New Testament church) is nearly identical to the church that generated the traditions I'm defending, so I find the notion that this rejection of the validity of non-immersive, infant Baptism to be somewhat questionable.
Mystical Seeker said…
Fr Chris,

Well, I'm not a Restorationist, so I can't speak for them, but I do think that it is fair to say that a "church" can engage in one practice and yet, within a generation or two, alter its beliefs or practices. The early church was in flux. It was diverse. Changes did take place.

Some times churches take wrong turns.

Popular Posts