Rethinking Baptism in an Open Table Theology
Reposted from Energion Discussion Network:
In a previous post I argued for the adoption of a completely open
Eucharistic Table. I made this argument on the basis of Jesus’ own practice of
Table Fellowship. In the practices of most American congregations, at least
Protestant ones, the Table is completely open. That is, rarely does a
congregation bar a person from taking Communion. They may suggest that it is
open to believers and may even suggest that children refrain from taking
communion if they’re not baptized, but other than that it’s open. The rationale
for this practice is more pragmatic than theological. We want to be nice and hospitable,
but is that enough? As for me, I would like to have a theological foundation
for my practice. I hope to explore these ideas in more depth over the next few
years. One of the components of this conversation is the role of Baptism.
If you open the Table to all-comers, what does that do to Baptism, which has
traditionally functioned as the entry point into the community and the
prerequisite to receiving communion?
I would argue that the connection between Table fellowship
and Baptism emerged in the second century, probably for good reason, but it
doesn’t lie in the New Testament. Of course, silence is not the best evidence.
Nonetheless, I have not found evidence that first century Christians required
Baptism prior to admission to the Table. So, could Baptism function in a
different way than we’ve typically understood?
I need to state up front that I am part of a tradition that
practices Believer’s Baptism, though we also practice “open membership.”
By that I mean we affirm the Baptisms of those who come to us, even if they
were administered differently than is true of our own practice. In other words,
if you were baptized as an infant, we won’t immerse you before we accept you as
a member. Now, I was born into the Episcopal Church, and thus I was
baptized as an infant, and later Confirmed. On that basis I would have been
welcomed into full fellowship as a member of a Disciple church. However, before
I ever became a Disciple, I was rebaptized, as a teenager, at a church camp. I
did this because I was looking for a sense of confirmation that my new-found
commitment to Christ was real. I wanted to have it sealed. This decision, this
need for a sealing event in my spiritual life, led to an ongoing struggle with
my own baptismal theology. I finally recognized that my issue may have had more
to do with my Confirmation experience than my Baptism (I even wrote a lengthy
article for Church History on 18th century
Anglican Confirmation practices), but nonetheless I have thought often about
the meaning of the church’s baptismal practices and theology.
What then is the connection between Table fellowship and
Baptism, if we practice an Open Table? What role should baptism as a sacrament
play in our faith journeys? I would like to argue that Baptism is that
sacramental event that signals one’s desire to enter into a deeper covenant
relationship with God and with God’s people.
In Acts 2, Baptism functions as the point at which one
enters a redemptive relationship with God. Peter suggests that Baptism follows
repentance, and is the key to the reception of forgiveness and the gift of the
Holy Spirit (though in Acts 10, the mark of the Spirit comes before
Baptism). In Romans 6 it is through Baptism that one identifies with
Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. Paul connects the symbol of Baptism to
our identity as people linked into Christ’s death and resurrection. To be
baptized in this scenario is to have died to sin, and have been raised to new
life in Christ. Now the reality is that in this earthly life sin’s hold on our
lives remains present. I am by no means perfect in my discipleship or my life
practices. I get angry. I say things I shouldn’t. I’m selfish. I can even be
mean-spirited (hopefully not very often). At the same time, I am a new
creation, to draw from Paul’s language in 2 Corinthians 5.
Baptism is understood to be a once in a life-time event. We
don’t need to continually go through ritual baths to purify ourselves, while
the Table is understood to be an event that we participate in regularly. I
would argue for weekly communion, at the very least. The Table then functions
both as entry point, and as the point at which we are nourished by the Bread of
Life (John 6). But once again, Jesus didn’t require the crowd who gathered to
share in the feeding of the 5000 to be baptized before receiving bread and
fish.
I’m still working this out. I don’t have all the answers.
But, if we’re going to practice an Open Table, then we need to consider the
consequences of this practice for Baptism. That is, if we’re going to affirm
the sacramental importance of Baptism, then we need to figure out how it
functions in our faith journeys. Baptism must be more than simply a naming
rite. It needs to be more than simply a rite of passage into adulthood. For
those communities that practice infant Baptism, they, like we Believer Baptist
types, might need to strengthen their Confirmation practices that often
parallel our baptismal practices.
With this brief introduction I invite you to consider with
me what it means to baptized in the 21st Century. This will
become, I believe, increasingly important since the numbers of persons in our
society having no previous Christian connections begin to enter our
congregations. Paedobaptist types will need to figure out how to embrace
growing numbers of adults who haven’t been baptized as children. Believer
Baptism types will need to address the difference between the experiences of
our children who have grown up in church and those who are coming in for the
first time. Parents can determine when a child takes communion. The same is not
true for an adult!
What is the meaning of Baptism in an Open Table community?
That is the question of the day!
Comments
Ultimately the infusion of the value into both baptism and communion comes down to the theological effort made by each member of the witnessing community.
Personally while I can sacrament ally connect communion to baptism, (spiritual food for the spiritual person that we have become through our baptism) I think that there is much theological value to be gained by communion participants who have not been baptized. If we as believers accept the notion that the grace which God promises to us is infused into the communion elements then we as believers must also understand that such grace is not the exclusive property of the baptized believer but ought to be made available to everyone. Continuing in the same line of thought, it seems to make sense that if we believe in the grace of God which is contained in these communion elements, then we should not be opposed to allowing God to work through these elements to bring Grace and wholeness to the unbaptized.
We need to learn to trust in God's efficacy, after all it is not for us to convert but to care for, the work of conversion is ultimately God's work.
However, unlike Campbell, I don't think Baptism should be used to fence the table. I allow my 11 year old son to take communion. He's a believer, but I don't think he's ready for baptism. However, I think that, as a believer, he should not be bared from the means of grace which is the Eucharist.
Bob, have you read John Mark Hicks on this topic? He has both a book on baptism and on the Eucharist...writing for a Stone-Campbell audience. There is much of value there.
I've read the Hicks book on the Table, and he has a similar view on the openness of the Table as do I. I've not read him on baptism, and likely should!