Mark Riessen
April 2009
200 years ago debate on the theological and ecclesiological meaning, as well as the practice of baptism, was a hot topic. The Campbell’s were certainly very passionate about commitment to ‘New Testament’ practices and about their commitment to obey the Scriptures. When it came to the practice of the baptism of believers it was considered that a person must be of an age to make their own conscious decision to be baptized and that the correct interpretation of scripture was to baptize by full immersion under water.
A theological reflection on Romans chapter 6 was an influential text in Campbell’s commitment to believer’s baptism by full immersion.
“We have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” (Rom 6:4 NRSV)
The act of baptism by immersion gives shape to an identity found in Christ, linked also with an ecclesiological identity – formal membership with the Church.
Theological shape
Death, burial and resurrection are symbolised as a believer is immersed under water and raised up again. It is into Christ’s death we are buried and into his resurrection we have new life in Christ. This is more than just a ritual. It is a response of faith – a symbolic act through which God’s grace is made known.
How then does this act still shape our theology? Do we still see this as an ‘essential’ response to faith in Christ or an optional extra?
One of the voices of our movement in Australia, Gordon Stirling said, “it was the intention of Christ that those who were made disciples should be baptized.” Other voices of the 20th century, such as former College of the Bible principals A. R. Main and E. L. Williams, prominently asserted that baptism of believers was the follow-on action of a person who confessed their faith in Christ and that this act was to occur in the immersion under water just as the Gospel texts suggest Jesus was baptized.
I found myself in an interesting conversation recently when we had a baptism at our church. The conversation occurred around water restrictions and whether we could continue to justify our commitment to full immersion baptism in the building where we gather for worship. It caused an interesting dilemma for us as we considered the theological implications in changing the act. Would it have theological implications if we changed from immersion to say believers’ baptism by sprinkling? We concluded that we would consider alternatives to be more appropriate stewards of water management and even shift location of a baptism to preserve the symbol we so strongly identify with because it is in fact, an important theological connection for us to make.
I wonder how this affects Churches of the Restoration Movement in deeply effected drought stricken areas? Are there water restrictions on baptisms?
Ecclesiological identity
For as long as I can remember, having grown up in a Church of Christ, baptism was always identified with church membership. The series of rituals seemed so simple and clear to a young person like me, considering my commitment. It seemed to have three stages: you get baptized, become a member of the church, then you can vote on matters that affected the life of the church. Was this just my experience or did others experience that as well? It concerns me as I wonder what kind of impression we are making on believers today when they get baptized This type of understanding begs the question, ‘why be baptized?’ Has it really been reduced to this?
Many will have been through a discipleship class before their pending baptism to help understand what this next stage of the Christian life is really all about. But is church membership and eligibility to vote really where our ecclesiological identity takes shape?
Maybe church membership and baptism need to be redefined separately from one another so as not to lose sight of the identity we must first and foremost be shaped by – an identity in Christ. I know of some churches in our Movement who have separated baptism from the administrative acknowledgment of church membership. It clears the way for the symbol of baptism not to be lost and become merely a precursor to membership.
Ecclesiological identification is found in Christ, through our baptismal confession, not a voting slip.
Does baptism shape our identity still?
I don’t hear of, nor do I witness, as many baptisms today as I used to. I wondered if it was just me. However, some of my colleagues have noticed the same. Are there water restrictions on baptisms? Are people just not responding to the Gospel by way of being baptized into Christ? Whatever the reason, it must raise some level of concern for us because after all we must continue to ask this question of ourselves; ‘Does this one of two ordinances we observe still shape our identity today?’
When I was travelling in the USA with a group of Churches of Christ ministers a couple of years ago, we visited a number of Christian Churches in the Western States. One thing I noticed in each church we visited is that they had baptistries full of water, ready to go 7 days a week. When we inquired of this observation we received an answer that was just as much about theological implication as it was about cultural identification in the life of the church. The implication was an urgency for salvation. Once a person had come to a point of decision to be a follower of Jesus, they didn’t wait until Sunday, they were baptized right away. The identification was, as a church of the Restoration Movement, their expectation was that they were actively bringing new people to the point of making a decision to follow Christ and, of course, their first act as a Jesus follower was to obey scriptures and follow the actions of Jesus and be baptized by full immersion.
What does this dialogue look like in our churches? Do these conversations shape the culture of your church community?
How urgent is it that these be the conversations that continue to shape our identity as a movement?
Mark – some good questions on a topic that has vexed us over a good many years. The pendulum seems to swing between grim adherence to a formulaic pattern of “this way or no way” or complete abandonment of any rite of entry – a stepping over the threshold – into the kind of commitment that displays immersion, not so much into water, but the spirit of the living Christ who changes us incrementally in personal and community growth.
I think several factors have led to our present ambiguity.
1. People are no longer identifying as much with denominational labels. In one sense a movement such as ours would welcome this phenomenon as a significant step along the way to fulfilling the original vision (see previous essay on “Unity”) It means however, that we are looking for ways to accommodate and integrate a range of understandings of initiation into faith community, and the effect dilutes our particular witness to believers’ baptism.
2. Our participation in ecumenical dialogue and the impact of the WCC Lima document “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” has broadened our acceptance of different forms of baptism at some (but by no means all) levels.
3. Culturally, we are influenced by the swing of emphasis from means to meaning. Of course, we would want to respond that in something like the ordinances, it is meaningless to divorce the means from the meaning!
. Nevertheless, it is a cultural reality with which we must contend.
The way forward? Point 3 above is what challenges me the most. Much of what I grew up with was propositional. The perception amongst my peers was “Follow this sequence (as you described) and you’re in the club called ‘church’.” Life overall was a lot more formulaic then. These days people are influenced by relationship and narrative, and I reckon a sanctified imagination can return the significance of our witness to the rite of baptism right back to centre stage along these pathways. What is the most emphatic way I can give expression to my growing relationship with Christ? What is my story and how does it meld with Christ’s story?
After all, baptism is more about relationship and becoming part of the great story than it is about following a set procedure.
Sanctified imagination! Let’s proceed from there!
It is my humble opinion that the wonderingpilgrrim has in fact wondered from the truth revealed to us by Christ Himself. Regardless of what anyone else’s story or experience is, what does Christ say? The word baptism in Greek means: to dip, to plunge, to immerse (as in the dyeing of cloth), to sink (as in a ship). Sprinkling is completely out of the question because Greek has another word, and if that was meant, then Jesus and His Apostles would have used it and practised it. It’s essentialness in salvation is obvious by all the verses where baptism is mentioned. The Great Commission says in fact we make disciples by baptizing! Romans 6 says it is the very death of our old life and the commencement of the new life in the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 says it is necessary for the forgiveness of sin and the gift of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Colossians 2:12 ff teach us that baptism is not our work but the very work of God we are trusting Him to do in saving us. In it our guilt of sin is taken away! The very thing man is in trouble for–sin! 1 Peter 3:21 says it SAVES US because it corresponds to the “shadow” of the flood. Whatever ones hermeneutics are, one cannot say the opposite. I personally call upon us to return to His authoritative Word. God has no trouble communicating. With words He brought the universe into existence. What God wanted us to know and to do is recorded in His God-breathed Scripture. For 200 years the Restoration Movement has declared unity based on God’s loving truth–not a union based on the majority practice. I do not fear being small, I fear being wrong. Why? Because God has spoken and we must obey Him in faith to what He was done on the cross and to what He has breathed-out in the New Testament.
ONLY A SYMBOL?
To what extent does baptism still define our movement? Not as much as it used to when baptism was one of a number issues that differentiated Churches of Christ from more established communions. There has, however, been a convergence. Very few mainline theologians would deny that New Testament baptism was by immersion; that it was deeply symbolical of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus; and that it was linked with incorporation of the believer into the Body of Christ. They might, however, argue that christening plus confirmation = baptism. So is the symbol important?
Some erosion of our traditional position has resulted from the influence of the modern movements that at times have swept across our churches. Paradoxically, baptism does not appear to figure largely in the literature of the emergent/emerging and missional church movements (where one might have expected it to receive prominence). Under the influence of neo-pentecostalism, there has been a tendency for “baptism by the Holy Spirit” to replace water immersion as a symbol of grace. And in the contemporary church, it is very difficult to get serious about either baptism or the Lord’s Supper when a drum kit relegates the Table and the baptistery to a corner. But if they’re only symbols of symbols does it really matter….?
In retrospect, Churches of Christ (following Walter Scott) probably erred by segmenting the conversion process into five steps: faith, repentance, confession, baptism, gift of the Holy Spirit. While this formula can be justified by scripture, and probably had apologetic or didactic benefits, it has had the effect of developing an instrumental or check list view of salvation, and of artificially separating faith from baptism. I think it could be cogently argued that baptism properly understood incorporates faith, repentance and confession. Hence Peter was able to write “…this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you…it saves you by the resurrection of Jesus” (1 Peter 3:21). Why bother with an “altar call” profession of faith when that is what you do when you walk into a baptistery? After the gospel was explained to him, the Ethiopian eunuch asked to be baptized when he saw water (Acts 7). Yes – the symbols are important because they are inextricably linked with the practice.
In respect of ecclesiology, my understanding is that those who have repented and been baptized are members of the church – the Lord adding to the church those who are being saved. (Acts 2: 47). The age at which an individual is added to the rolls of a local assembly is a matter for local judgment, but churches are usually guided by local and custom and law.
Harold Hayward
Anthony W Giezendanner is of the opinion that I have wondered or wandered from the truth but fails to demonstrate how. In all charity, allow me to restate my “wonderings” as propositions as, for some, this is the way “truth” is best perceived.
1. It is a sociological fact that denominational loyalty is no longer a strong motivational force when folk attend worship services. “Affirmations of faith” and “statements of commitment”now take their place alongside “Faith & Baptism” as modes of entry into church membership in many congregations with their roots in the Campbell/Stone movement. The effect has lessened the stridency of our emphasis on “believers’ baptism.”
2. Ecumenical dialogue has led to a greater understanding of the theology of baptism as practiced across the spectrum of the Church at large. We have contributed significantly to this understanding – we have also, in humility, received much.
3. Baptism as an ordinance does not easily separate its meaning from the “means” – nor should it. This is why (like the Lord’s Supper) it goes beyond symbol and embraces all the richness of the biblical texts that support it. My call to engage narrative and imagination to tap that richness does not negate the “authority” to which Anthony summons us; rather it takes us on a voyage into the Word’s “authenticity.” The folk I have baptised most recently have been in their mature years. For the most part, the single motivating factor in their journey of faith through to baptism and beyond has been their perceived connection of their story with that of Christ’s story. Certainly, Scripture fleshes this connection out and invests these unique stories with its particular meanings.
My plea is that we engage our Spirit inspired pastoral/prophetic imagination in reclaiming the two ordinances of baptism and communion in building and fashioning our church communities.
My Brothers,
Perhaps we are asking the wrong question. Does Christ define our identity? Are we disciples of his, or not? I have never personally spoken with anyone who denied that Christ commanded baptism in Mt 28.18-20. So, regardless of what we understand to be the meaning of baptism, those who do not baptize and teach the new disciple to obey are themselves disobeying Christ and those who continue to disobey for whatever reason are habitually disobeying Christ.
The second half of the commandment to make disciples is to teach them to obey all that Christ commanded. If then, we have not been baptized, or are not baptizing those who would be disciples we need to enter that process of learning to obey ourselves and repent in obedient submission to Jesus Christ as our Lord. May the Lord help each one of us individually and as Christ’s church to imitate Jesus and not the religious world around us.
I would remind us all that (Rev 19:10) that the spirit of prophecy IS THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. May God bless us all!