Long ago on a Sunday afternoon in early August, I gathered with other baptismal candidates, our families and our church family on the bank of Sandy Creek near Antonia, Mo. After singing a hymn, and shooing the cows we waded into the stream and, one by one, we were dipped beneath the sacred, if not altogether sanitary, waters of baptism. In so doing, we were officially admitted into the fellowship of our Baptist church.
Jim White
|
In this issue of the Religious Herald we have attempted to look at baptism afresh with the awareness that a number of Baptist churches are asking whether they should accept as members Christians who have been baptized by modes other than immersion. The reason for their inquiry is not advancing liberalism, as some will, no doubt, allege, but rather springs from a sincere desire to be faithful followers of Jesus.
Pewboy: There you are! I’ve been looking for you everywhere. We need to talk and I mean pronto.
Altarego: Hello, my friend, what seems to be causing your current distress?
P: You know that really nice young Presbyterian couple that has been attending our church for the past year? [Altarego nodded his recognition] Well, they have decided to join our church.
A: Fantastic! I’m sure the whole church is thrilled to have such wonderful new members. I seem to recall that their level of spiritual maturity is quite remarkable considering their age.
P: You are right on both counts. We are thrilled, and they are two of the most authentic Christians you will ever hope to meet. [Here he paused] But … [From years of experience with his friend, Altarego knew to wait. Finally, Pewboy continued]. Well, I guess we all assumed they knew they had to be baptized to join our church.
A: You mean they have never been baptized?
P: Well, not like we do it. They both say they were baptized in their former church by sprinkling. He came to faith as a college student and was baptized then, but she grew up in a Christian home and was sprinkled when she was a baby.
A: And let me guess. They have reservations about being immersed.
P: Yes, in fact they do. But I don’t think it’s just that they have an aversion to water. The real issue is they feel that to go through the ritual again would make one or the other of their baptisms a sham. “Just getting wet” is what she called it.
A: So, what are your thoughts?
P: Well, to me, immersion is a beautiful symbol of Christ’s burial and resurrection.
A: No doubt about it. It also symbolizes that our sinful past is dead and buried and that in Christ we are raised to new life through faith in him.
P: True. I’ve been reading up on this. And in immersion we also see the blessed hope of eternal life symbolized. Though our bodies die and are buried, we have the sure and certain hope that we will be raised to live forever in heaven with the Lord.
A: I’m impressed. You have really taken this seriously!
P: Yes, I have! Did you know that until 1311 the official mode of baptism in the Catholic Church was immersion? Of course, in actual fact they poured water on their heads, but immersion was on the books.
A: Go on. I can see you are on a roll.
P: [Without pausing] And the eastern branch of the Catholic Church — I’m not talking about the Eastern Orthodox Church — no, these are churches that recognize the Pope and everything, but they still baptize by immersion.
A: True. In fact, they immerse every person three times one each for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
P: Wow, who would have guessed that some Catholics would outdo us in immersion! [He paused briefly for reflection] I read in an online Catholic library something I thought I’d never see. It said, “It is true that immersion best represents death and resurrection, bringing out more fully the meaning of the sacrament than pouring or sprinkling.” How about that? How could anybody think about baptizing any other way?
A: As curious as it may seem to you and many other Baptists, if immersion best depicts the aspects of the Christian life we have mentioned, it may also be true that other modes symbolize more fully other aspects of our faith.
P: Huh?
A: Take for example, the pouring out of the Spirit (Acts 2:17, 18). Pouring may actually better represent the infilling of the Holy Spirit than immersion. Still, there is no doubt that the early church practiced immersion as the primary method of baptizing new believers. Archeological evidence supports this view overwhelmingly.
P: Primary? You mean the early church practiced other ways of baptizing?
A: Well, yes, it is true that the early church occasionally used other methods as well. An ancient document called the Didache, which means “teaching,” dates from about 70 A.D. This is what it says: “And concerning baptism, baptize this way: having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.”
P: I have to admit, I’ve never heard that. But doesn’t this teaching presuppose that immersion is the usual mode? Otherwise, why would it make a point of pouring as an exception?
A: Yes, I think you are insightful in recognizing that. Other writings from very early in the life of the church indicate that pouring was used, and accepted, when water was scarce or when the health of the person to be baptized made immersion difficult or risky.
P: That’s interesting. I think what that says is that the early church was flexible enough to incorporate other modes as required by circumstance. Perhaps the mode was not the essential thing? I don’t know. But aside from immersion, when this lady who was sprinkled as an infant wanted to join our church, it raised the whole question of believer’s baptism.
A: So you are asking how sprinkling can be authentic if a baby had no choice in the matter?
P: Exactly. How can people think they were baptized if they can’t remember it first of all and secondly, it wasn’t even their choice?
A: You ask a logical question. The problem is, the answer defies logic. If you ask this woman how it can be meaningful, much less authentic, she will tell you that her baptism was a sign of Christ’s acceptance of her by grace. She will say it has meaning in and of itself apart from her own choice. She will say it affirms God’s part of her salvation rather than her own. In short, it may make no sense to you, but she will say it is certainly real to her. Still, it would seem that accepting infant baptism would be a radical departure from believer’s baptism that Baptists have always practiced, and some see it as a move toward Calvinism’s idea of sovereign grace.
P: So what are you saying? Do you think my church should admit members even if they haven’t been baptized by immersion or not?
A: I can’t say because your church may not believe it is the right thing to do. But I can say that your church shouldn’t question the biblical commitment of another church that does. After all, the autonomy of the local church is also big with Baptists!
Jim White is editor of the Religious Herald.