Back in January I took a
seminary course on pastoral theology and took the opportunity to explore the
issue of baptism in greater depth as the topic of my major paper for the
course. This has been an issue that has been heavy on my heart for some time
now and I was grateful for the chance to critically engage it in a scholastic
sense and to garner the feedback not only of my professor, but also of my peers
and classmates. What happened as a result of my study was a shift in my own
understandings and convictions about baptism. This surprised me, but further
study has only further solidified my convictions on the matter. So what I have
done is adapted my paper for this blog and broke it into two posts (because it’s
quite long) and shared it with you so you can understand my journey.
The first post is a more
objective survey of the theology of baptism and it borrows from an earlier post
I did on the topic a few months ago. But the second post which I’ll put up early
next week formulates some applications in a five-point personal theology of
baptism. The tone is a little academic, but I think if you stick with it you
will be rewarded. Thanks for reading.
Chris
___________________________
Mention baptism in my church
and you’re likely to elicit a wide range of responses from the congregation.
Some will think of a milestone in their faith journey when they really decided
to ‘get serious’ about following Christ; some will think of an unusual ritual
that is reserved for only the fervent and fanatical; some will imagine an empty
and misleading ritual perpetrated upon very young children against their will;
while others will consider the means by which they know that they have
assurance of salvation. Baptism, a rite that ostensibly serves to be a visible
sign of the unity of the Church (Eph 4:13-16), has become a testimony to the
great divisions that have fractured the fellowship of Christians. In the
following pages it is my intention to give a cursory explanation of the broad
streams of thought and theology when it comes to the doctrine of baptism and
then to more narrowly focus on what I believe constitutes five core theological
principles that will guide my pastoral presentation and application of the
doctrine going forward from this study.
Toward a Definition of Baptism
Attempting to draw lines
around this doctrine can seem to be a futile endeavour at times, there does not
appear to be a period in Church history when there has not been significant
(and often heated) debate over baptism.[i]
Rather than foolishly attempt to do justice to all the possible teachings and
practices of baptism as understood across the totality of the Christian Church
I will focus on a broader understanding of what constitutes more widely
accepted doctrinal points while making mention of significant areas of
divergence as they arise. To do this I will come at the topic from three
different vantages: biblically, theologically, and historically.
Biblically
Baptism is a rite of repentance. John practiced
Baptism in the Judean wilderness for the express purpose of “repentance for the
forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3). It has an inextricable link with the
ideas of cleansing and purification. A naturally understood function of water
is for washing – cleansing us from our past sin and purifying us for holy
living. John’s baptisms emphasize the first aspect primarily – but John himself
prophesies of one who will come and perform the second part of the cleansing
(Matt 3:11, Luke 3:16) baptizing not with water, but with the Holy
Spirit and fire. Jesus’ own baptism models our own need for the Holy Spirit to
empower us for ministry; while the great baptism of Pentecost fulfills the
second part of John’s prophecy when the infant Church is baptized by Christ
with the Holy Spirit and (tongues of) fire.
Throughout Christ’s earthly ministry Baptism is an
assumed an essential part of discipleship (John 3:22-26, 4:1-2), in his post
resurrection teaching it is at the core of his instructions to the church (Matt
28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16), and after the birth of the church at Pentecost
is becomes the standard practice of initiation into the
community of faith for all who profess Christ as saviour (Acts 2:41,
8:16,36-38, 9:18, 10:47-48, 16:13-15,31-34, 18:8, 19:4-7, 22:14-16). One
simply cannot speak of a New Testament believer who given the opportunity to be
baptized[ii]
– was not.
Theologically
When we look to the Scriptures to construct a theological framework for our understanding
of baptism we see that baptism is indicative of a larger movement of God in the
life of the believer. First and foremost, when speaking about baptism in the
theological sense we must first acknowledge that baptism is primarily a work of
God and not the work of the believer (Col 2:11-12)[iii],
and it is in this work of God that we find ourselves connected to Christ (Rom
6:3-7) and by extension with his body, the Church (1 Cor 12:12-14).[iv]
In doing so we must also acknowledge that in baptism the fullness of the
Godhead participates in the model of what we see at Christ’s own baptism. In Christ’s
baptism the Son obeys, the Spirit empowers and the Father declares
(Mark 1:10-11) and in a similar way all three are involved in our baptism
too. The Son initiates and invites us into union with himself, the Holy Spirit
empowers the believer through the mysterious rite and the Father declares us to
be children of God (Gal 3:26-28) – in right standing before the Father by the
appropriated work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
Theologically we must also speak of what baptism accomplishes and what role it plays in
the grand drama of salvation. For some traditions baptism is itself a means of grace, that is to say that it
confers what it signifies. In these traditions the model of John’s baptism “for
the forgiveness of sins” is emphasized and it is believed that the act of
washing away one’s unrighteousness is symbolized in the rite. These traditions
assert by the power of God, baptism actually washes away our
sins ex opera operato (from the work having worked).[v]
This is the official position within the Roman Catholic tradition, which uses
baptism as a pre-requisite for participation in all other sacraments. For
others, baptism is a promise of grace
to be fully realized in a future understanding and confession by the believer;
as practiced in many reformation churches. While still for other traditions (of
which my tradition, the Christian and Missionary Alliance, is one) baptism is neither
a means of grace nor a promise of grace but rather the evidence of grace in the life of the believer. For this third group
it is the fruit that is produced by the work of God in salvation, and the
evidence therefore of a life transformed by, and submitted to the will of
Christ (Luke 6:43-45, Jas 2:14, 17). Baptism, in this view, neither
accomplishes what it signifies nor is merely an empty symbol or ritual without
vital importance to the salvation of the believer.[vi]
As for the specific role baptism plays in the grand
drama of salvation – baptism is associated
with God’s work of justification as a symbol for the cleansing
of the believer’s sins; with the work of regeneration as an
evidence of being “born again” (John 3:5-6) and living a new life in Christ
(Eph 2:4-5, 2 Cor 5:17); and baptism is also closely linked to the work
of sanctification whereby the Holy Spirit fills and empowers the
believer for holy living and ever increasing christlikeness. Baptism therefore
is important to all aspects of the process of salvation for Christians.
Historically
To be honest and true – most Christians throughout
history have been Paedobaptists[vii] –
that is to say that they have practiced the baptism of the children of
Christian parents as a guarantee of salvation that will be confirmed in a
future confession.[viii]
For those traditions it is understood that baptism is a “sign and seal of the
covenant of grace”[ix] that
extends back to the original promise made to Abraham. Paedobapists point to
passages like Romans 4 which says:
And he [Abraham] received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. (Rom 4:11 NIV)
And also in Colossians 2:
In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Col 2:11-12)
Paedobaptists, in understanding baptism as a
continuation of the covenant practice of circumcision, understand baptism to
likewise be more significant as an initiatory rite into the fellowship of the
Church. Some paedobaptists will understand the rite in an extreme sense as an unconditional
promise of salvation,[x]
whereas many others (including virtually all protestant paedobaptists) will
hold onto it only as a guarantee of salvation to be personally actualized when
the believer can fully understand and articulate their own faith in Jesus
Christ. In the fall out of the protestant reformation however, many groups
started to emerge that advocated for a believers’ (or more
accurately, confessional)[xi]
baptism whereby a person is only baptized after a real and personal
understanding of what Jesus Christ has done for them, and out of personal
desire to obey him and show evidence of their decision by participation in the
baptism rite. These groups will argue from Scripture that there is no explicit
reference anywhere in the New Testament to children being baptized and that a
person’s decision to follow Jesus must be grounded in a personal profession of faith
rather than works done on one’s behalf.
Beginning with the Anabaptist movements and then continuing into the
Evangelical traditions, Believers’ baptism became for these groups the
normative (and often exclusive) practice of baptism. This has led to the issue
of what to do with Christians from paedobaptist traditions who join churches
that hold to a believers’ baptism position? Does the church recognize and
affirm the validity of their baptism or does it require them to be re-baptized
in accordance with the tenets of believers’ baptistic theology?
An interesting case study for this problem is
available in the history of the Christian and Missionary Alliance; a movement,
which in significant ways owes its existence to a theological conviction toward
believers’ baptism.
Albert Benjamin Simpson (1843-1919) was a Presbyterian
minister pastoring a Church in New York City when he underwent a theological
crisis moment regarding his own understanding of baptism. An avowed
paedobaptist by tradition and training, Simpson began to become uneasy with his
convictions and based upon his growing understanding of the doctrine of
sanctification, sought out a Baptist minister he knew and submitted himself to
re-baptism as an adult believer. Reflecting on this experience in his work, Baptism and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit,
Simpson writes:
As these visions flashed across his mind there came to him such a restful and unalterable conviction that baptism was much more than he had dreamed, much more than the rite of initiation into the Christian Church, much more than the sign and seal of a hereditary conviction on the part of parents for their children; that it was the symbol of personal intelligent, voluntary and profoundly earnest surrender of our life to God in self-crucifixion.[xii]
This conviction was not
without consequence though; based upon the conviction that it would be
dishonest to remain a practicing paedobaptist after personally undergoing
believers’ baptism Simpson resigned his pastorate in the Presbyterian Church[xiii]
and began a new work of the Gospel that would eventually become the Christian
and Missionary Alliance. Although Simpson was personally convinced of his new
doctrinal position on baptism he understood baptism to be of serious, but not
ultimate, importance in the mission of the church.[xiv]
Consequently, in his zeal to fulfill what was the ultimate aspect of the mission
of the Church (spreading the Gospel) he was more than happy to recruit and
enlist partners in ministry of any and all baptismal convictions. Writing of
his later decision not to formally align himself with a baptistic church
Simpson writes:
After this step of personal obedience it might be supposed that the next step would be uniting with the Baptist congregation, but this did not, follow, and probably never will. The conviction came with great clearness that this was a matter of personal obedience to God, but not sufficient ground to justify one in separating himself in the communion of The Church of God from brethren who did not see it in the same light. To take the position of a close communion church, which made the ordinance of baptism by immersion a term of membership, and excluded from that communion table godly brethren who did not see it in this light, was a step the writer could not take. And while it has been his privilege to belong to the 'beloved Baptist body in a very sweet and spiritual sense, it has been his equal privilege to feel that he belongs likewise to every other evangelical denomination of Christians that hold the living Head, and love the Lord Jesus in sincerity, and that he can sit down with any of them at the communion table with the blessed sense of equal fellowship and Christian brotherhood.[xv]
That openness to
the fellowship of Christians of varying baptismal convictions remained a
hallmark of the early Alliance movement until sometime after Simpson’s death.
Specifically the 1912 General Constitution and Principles of the Christian and
Missionary Alliance do not specify baptism (of any mode or conviction) as a
requirement for full membership in the movement.[xvi]
Yet between the early days of the movement and its establishment as a
full-fledged denomination in the mid 20th century the Alliance
adopted the position of being a movement that exclusively recognized believers’
baptism as the only valid baptismal doctrine.[xvii]
So it is against
this backdrop of re-baptizing big-tent evangelicalism that I now shift toward
constructing my own biblically-grounded theology of the doctrine of baptism.
After considering the sources that I have consulted in research for this paper
and after more than a decade of practical theological engagement in pastoral
ministry with my own tradition I have come to five convictions that frame my
understanding of baptism. The first four fit well within denominational policy
and the fifth places me at odds with policy but in line with Alliance history.
They are: 1.) Believers’ baptism as best practice, 2.) the immediacy of baptism
upon profession of faith, 3.) the
inextricable link between baptism and church membership, 4.) the availability
of child dedication only to baptized members of the church and 5.) a
prohibition against the practice of re-baptism.
We will look at these in detail in the next post.
[i] Michael Root and
Risto Saarinen, eds., Baptism and the Unity of the Church (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 23.
[ii] This
of course allows for the caveat of the thief on the cross who was quite clearly
assured of salvation, yet who had no opportunity to be baptized into the
discipleship of Christ. The mandate would seem to be against the rejection of baptism not against the failure
to receive baptism full-stop.
[iii] Gordon T. Smith, Transforming
Conversion: Rethinking the Language and Contours of Christian Initiation
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 140.
[v] Bernie Van De
Walle, “The Nature and Purpose of Baptism,” (paper presented at the 2007
District Conference of the Western Canadian District of The Christian and
Missionary Alliance in Canada, Calgary AB, April 27, 2007)
[vi] Certainly
this perspective on baptism can and has been taken to extremes where it does
become nothing more than empty symbolism. Even in my own experience in the
C&MA I would confess that it has often been no the case where baptism is
done just because it is mandated with no understanding of what his happening or
expectation that anything can or should happen. My point is simply that this is
not the intent or purpose of this baptismal doctrine even if it is sometimes
the consequence.
[viii] G.W. Bromiley, “Baptism, Infant”
in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984).
[x] Karl Barth, The
Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism (Eugen, OR: Wipf & Stock
Publishers, 2006), 58.
[xii] Albert B. Simpson,
“Baptism and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit,” Christian and Missionary
Alliance Weekly, May 17, 1902.
[xvi] General Constitution, 1912, sec. 2.
[xvii] That is not to say
that believers’ baptism has not always been the dominant (and often exclusive) practice of the C&MA, most assuredly
it has been. I am only making the point that at some point in the middle years
of the movement the C&MA ceased to recognize the validity of other modes of
baptism and began to require believers’ baptism as a pre-requisite for membership.
No comments:
Post a Comment