2.2 Dunk and Run (radical evangelicalism series)

2.1 The State of Faith in America
_______________________
5. In the Parable of the Soils, Jesus talks about four different kinds of soil that the word can fall on (Mark 4). Some seed is immediately snatched by birds -- the word of the gopel goes in one ear and out the other. Then there is rocky soil. The wheat springs up immediately but lacks depth and is scorched by the sun. The seed that falls among weeds is choked by the cares of life. Finally, some seed falls on good soil and not only grows but multiplies.

It's fairly obvious that not everyone who "comes in the door" of the church ends up in the kingdom. Different Christian traditions deal with this phenomenon differently. A Calvinist might say such a person was never truly a believer to begin with. My own tradition can take the text pretty much like it is -- some people start off in Christian faith but do not endure to the end.

I already mentioned 1 Corinthians 9:24-27, where Paul suggests that even he might not make it into the kingdom if he does not continue disciplining himself as a spiritual "athlete." Hebrews presents the starkest imagery of this sort in the New Testament. Hebrews 6 suggests not only that it's possible to fall away, but that one cannot return if one does (6:3-6). Such a person is like a field that, despite constant watering, only yields thorns and thistels (6:7-8).

However one wants to process this phenomenon theologically, the long and the short of it is that not everyone who gets baptized will end up in the kingdom of God. We see this happen in Acts 8, where many Samaritans are baptized, but they have not yet been truly saved (8:4-25). One of them, Simon the sorceror, is remembered in Christian history as the earliest heretic of Christianity.

6. In America, Baptists are the largest Protestant group, and they have had enormous influence on American Christianity. Every tradition has its potential weaknesses, and the greatest danger from the Baptistic influences on Christianity  is what I might call "dunk and run." The majority of Baptists in America believe in "eternal security" or "once saved, always saved." It's the belief that, if you get truly saved, you will make it to heaven no matter what.

In a popular form, it can reduce to "Read the prayer on this card and you'll make it to heaven no matter what you do." This is not official Baptist belief, but it's how the doctrine can play out on a local level. The result has sometimes been an emphasis on baptism in American Christianity without nearly as much attention to what comes afterward.

This flavor has made its way into the culture of the American megachurch. Although many such churches call themselves non-denominational, many are functionally Baptist or Baptist with a charismatic twist. [8] Of late, we have seen more and more "baptisms on the spot" in these churches. Appealing to the book of Acts, they bring out the tubs and baptize people right there on the stage, sometimes with little or no preparation.

The danger has always been that there would be no follow up. This was an early critique of Billy Graham's crusades. Many people came forward to give their lives to Christ, but initially there was no system in place to get these individuals into the ongoing discipleship of a church. Thankfully, in the later decades of his crusades, a structure of follow-up by various area churches was put in place. [9]

Similarly, most mega-churches today have created systems to try to get the newly baptized into small groups. Still, it is hard not to get the impression that these streams of American Christianity are "front heavy" with inconsistent follow up. The danger is that someone who gets baptized might think they are fully cooked and that they need not worry too much about their walk with the Lord thereafter.

7. Paul himself ran into the problem of getting baptism out of perspective with the Corinthian church. A man named Apollos had followed him to Corinth. Because he had formerly been a follower of John the Baptist, baptism apparently played a more significant role in his teaching than it did for Paul. Paul is frustrated enough that he said he was glad he only baptized a handful of people there (1 Cor. 1:14-17).

Why? Because they were getting things out of focus. At Corinth, they had come to view who baptized them as a matter of prestige. They missed the point of baptism. It represented the cleansing of their past sins and their inclusion into the body of Christ. It was a beginning, not an end point.

One danger with the current climate of Christianity in America is that we focus so much on getting people wet that we miss the long haul of faith, which is actually the more crucial part in the end. We don't want to miss "running with patience the race that is set before us" (Heb. 12:1-2). Because it is not starting the race that ultimately matters. It is finishing it. To use an illustration from the book of Hebrews, all of Israel started off the journey in the wilderness. But they did not make it to the Promised Land (Heb. 3:16-19).

The danger of evangelical "conversionism" has long been a lack of discipleship. This is one area where John Wesley excelled, one of the earliest evangelicals in the 1700s. His rigorous system of discipleship made sure that a new believer did not simply evaporate away. George Whitefield, another evangelical of that day, once remarked that those who had been saved under his preaching were a rope of sand in contrast to those saved under Wesley. He had no system for discipleship.

[7] "Eternal security" is actually a mutation of two quite distinct theologies. Its base is Calvinism, which holds logically that if you are predestined, then you will endure into the kingdom. But Baptist belief mixed this idea with the later idea of the "assurance of salvation." This is the quite distinct tradition that you can know now whether you have truly become a child of God. Mix the two together and you have a theological Frankenstein: 1) if you know you are saved now then 2) you know you will make it to the end.

[8] Even the Assemblies of God church, which is one of the largest denominations in America, could be said to have the flavor of a Baptist church with tongues and other spiritual gifts added in.

[9] Bill Hybels also lamented this about his legacy at Willow Creek.

_______________________
1. What is Evangelicalism?

• Revivals of the 1700s and 1800s
• The "New" Evangelicalism
• The Poltical Takeover

A Brief Thought on Wesleyans and Baptism Debates

Someone asked me, given the recent article in Wesleyan Life, how the son of a Wesleyan minister might never have been baptized. Many Wesleyans do not know that the Pilgrim Holiness Church was not strong on baptism.

For example, my grandfather was a Quaker minister before he switched when the Pilgrim church was officially formed in the early 20s. Asked to perform a baptism in his 50s, he decided he should be baptized too first. My mother was not baptized until she was in her 40s (and our family was good friends in Florida with the Coates, with a similar background). [1]

If you find this incomprehensible, there is a key factor in play. Few of us realize that we wear glasses when we read the Bible. This was true of the Quakers, but it's also true now of us as Wesleyans. America is Baptist country. It suits our culture like hand in glove. Quakers and Salvation Army folk are wearing a different set of glasses and don't generally baptize at all.

I believe in baptism as a norm. I love that you can still be baptized as an infant in the Wesleyan Church, following our Wesley roots. I love that we don't specify immersion, pouring, or sprinkling.

Wesleyan Church Wesleyans generally borrow their thinking from others. The more academic side says, "But we're Wesleyans; it needs to be more sacramental." The more populist side feels the forces of baptistification and says, "Acts, Acts, Acts."

And I feel like we Wesleyans have been doing just fine with our big tent position on baptism. Paul looks on at our current debates and says, "Were you baptized in the name of believer's immersion? I thank God I didn't baptize any of you (to your horror). Ok, maybe I did baptize a handful." We all think we're just reading the Bible and doing what it says. And so do the other 20,000 denominations.

Here was my attempt to capture what I perceive to be the Wesleyan Church position on baptism (now in this). Here is another piece I wrote before that, "The Skinny on Wesleyans and Baptism."

[1] As an artifact of her upbringing, I remember my mother noting in Mark 16:16 that while baptism is mentioned as part of being saved, the second part only says that those who do not believe will be condemned. In other words, it does not say that those who are not baptized stand under condemnation.

A Practical Theology of Baptism

Today my Romans class reached Romans 6:4 and we ended up spending most of the class discussing the practical theology of baptism. I consider myself very wesleyan when it comes to the topic (in contrast to Wesley-an). Of course I don't expect anyone to agree with me but here were my positions:

• Baptism is normative (although not essential for salvation... Salvationists and Friends can still go to heaven). Baptism does not "save" you, nor does it cleanse "original sin."
• Baptism is a means of grace, but the specifics of the grace dispensed varies somewhat depending on the point when a person is being baptized (e.g., infant versus child versus adult, etc).
• The earliest church probably baptized primarily by immersion, but the word baptizo does not necessarily mean "to immerse." It's not a point to fight over, although immersion probably has the strongest symbolism of death to our former self.
• There are advantages both to infant and believer's baptism. The advantage for infant baptism is the strong claim on the child for Christ by the community from the very beginning. It does not "save" the child, who will need to confess faith subsequently and receive the Holy Spirit. But it strongly affirms inclusion in the community of faith and makes faith the assumption of the future.
• The advantage of believer's baptism is the power of conscious, individual choice. It strongly affirms the individual faith decision for Christ, although it suggests the person is in a kind of limbo up to that point (the child is a stranger in the church's midst).
• Rebaptism is not ideal or necessary, but is a pastoral call--would rebaptism significantly invigorate the person spiritually.

SA3. Christians have varying perspectives on baptism.

This is the third post on sacraments in my ongoing series, theology in bullet points. The first unit in this series had to do with God and Creation (book here), and the second unit was on Christology and Atonement.

We are now in the third and final unit: The Holy Spirit and the Church. The first set of posts in this final unit was on the Holy Spirit. The second set was on the Church. This third set is on sacraments.
_______________________________
Christians have varying perspectives on baptism.

1. Baptism is an area where Christians have disagreed strongly in the days since the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s. But while baptism has arguably been a common feature of Christianity since its beginnings, a person can be saved without being baptized. Accordingly, neither the mode nor the timing of baptism is essential to salvation. This observation puts debates over baptism into the category of "disputable matters" (cf. Rom. 14-15, 1 Cor. 8, 10), and Christians should accordingly be charitable toward each other when it comes to such disagreements.

2. The New Testament records few debates over baptism. The problem in Acts 19:1-7 was that these individuals had only an understanding of John the Baptist. They did not know that Jesus was the Messiah and so had not experienced baptism in the name of Christ. This issue thus does not speak to debates over re-baptism or whether tongues authenticates baptism or over what name/names should be invoked in baptism. [1]

At Corinth, various parties in the community boasted that their baptism was more significant because of who had led them to believe, including who had baptized them (1 Cor. 1:10-17). These verses seem to indicate, first, that baptism was not a central element in Paul's ministry, at least not at this stage of it. They also indicate what would become clear about three hundred years later in the Donatist controversy of the 300s and 400s: baptism gains no significance from the person who baptizes you.

Christians commonly believe this fact of all the ministries of the Church. The validity and power of God's grace do not depend on the righteousness of the minister. Baptism takes its validity and power from the Holy Spirit and the faith of those involved. If it would turn out that the person administrating baptism is not a believer or if that person is wholly unrighteous, the baptism is still valid because the power comes from God.

3. It is commonly assumed that the earliest church baptized by immersion. This is a reasonable position, given the nature of Jewish miqvaot, the cleansing pools that one finds archaeologically in Jerusalem and its environs. Paul's imagery in Romans 6:4 seems to suggest as much. We are "buried" with Christ in baptism.

However, it is surely significant that the New Testament never makes a point of the method of baptism. Indeed, while baptism is a common feature of the New Testament, the manner by which a person is baptized is never a matter of contention. It thus goes well beyond Scripture to demand that a person must be baptized in a certain way. There are points where we have to address issues that were not raised in the Bible. There are points where biblical teaching is only in a seminal form that can be fleshed out. But the issue of baptism does not seem to be one that we should fight over.

Around the year AD100, someone put together the Didache, a collection of teachings reported to summarize the teaching of the apostles. Although we cannot at all be sure of that claim, it is surely significant that this text is very practical when it comes to baptism. Ideal is a baptism involving immersion in cold, running water (7.2-5). But if it is not possible, then pouring even with warm water is a valid alternative. [2] Baptisands are also asked to fast for a day or two before undergoing baptism.

Immersion captures the imagery of dying with Christ and complete coverage of one's sins. Sprinkling captures the Old Testament imagery of the altar being sprinkled with blood (e.g., Lev. 16:18-20). But while the Bible may describe various practices, it never prescribes one in relation to baptism. [3] It is thus not only foolish but unbiblical and counter-Christ to engage in divisive conflict over the mode of baptism.

4. Throughout the vast majority of Christian history, Christians baptized their children as infants. Infant baptism is not explicitly mentioned in the New Testament, although it may very well be inferred in a few passages. In Acts 16:15, Lydia's household is baptized when she believes. Similarly, the whole family of the Philippian jailer is baptized in Acts 16:33. No qualification is given about the age of those baptized. Indeed, no qualification is made about the faith of each individual in the house.

Here we must reckon with the fact that the ancient world consisted of collectivist cultures. That is to say, identity was group-embedded rather than individualistic. This is arguably the default human societal pattern. Homo sapiens is a herd animal. As such, it would be understandable if the decision of a head of household was assumed to be binding on the rest of the household, which would include family members beyond what we call the "nuclear" family, extending even to any slaves in the house.

None of the primary reformers questioned infant baptism. [4] Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin (not to mention Wesley) all supported infant baptism. Yet it was inevitable that a movement that emphasized justification by individual faith would eventually have some who would argue that baptism should thus take place when a person is old enough to make an individual confession. [5] This was not a problem for the high Reformers because individuals still expressed their personal faith in confirmation.

Confirmation is the practice of undergoing teaching that leads to an individual confession of faith that "confirms" the faith the Church had for you in baptism. It is a reminder that, even in those traditions which practice infant baptism, that baptism is not sufficient to "save" a person. There must also be a personal confession and owning of faith.

This is the most historic and, perhaps, the preferred approach to Christian baptism. A child is baptized soon after birth, claiming the child for Christ, invoking the faith of the community that surrounds him or her. The child is "in" the Church, and belonging is his or hers to lose. Then when the child is of age, he or she undergoes discipleship in Christian faith and practice, leading to a formal and personal confession of faith before the Church, which can then also be a means of God's grace.

5. However, it is understandable that individualistic cultures would tend to prefer "believer's baptism." Since individualistic cultures emphasize that each individual determines his or her own identity and destiny, it is predictable that they would emphasize a form of baptism that focuses on an individual's confession of faith. Since the New Testament records the first generation of believers, it is understandable that the overwhelming majority of baptisms in the New Testament are adult baptisms. These adult baptisms in Acts easily became the model for baptism in the Americas.

Christians should not de-Christianize each other over such things. It is clear that believer's baptism fit the context of a democratic culture astoundingly well, which is why forms of Baptist Christianity have prevailed in the United States. They did not do so well at first, when in Zurich in the 1500s, some individuals came to Huldrych Zwingli arguing that he had not gone far enough in his reformation. He "baptized" them by drowning in a river. Such de-Christianization of those who practice credobaptism, "believer's baptism" is to be condemned.

Yet, the words of Paul echo toward those who would de-Christianize groups that practice infant baptism as well. "I thank God that I baptized none of you... For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel" (1 Cor. 1:14, 17). Baptism is thus a disputable matter, one in which the most important thing is charity toward each other, not the timing or mode of the act.

6. Some groups, reacting against the ritualism of the Roman Catholic Church, went so far as to stop the practice of baptism altogether. The chief examples of this, arguably over-reaction are the Quakers and the Salvation Army, which is a branch of Methodism.

On the one hand, we must agree with them that a person can be saved without being baptized. The essential element in crossing from death to life is the working of the Holy Spirit, not baptism. While the thief on the cross was technically still before Christian baptism or the age of the Spirit, Jesus' promise that the thief would join him in Paradise exemplifies well the hope of those who place their faith in Jesus even if they are not baptized.

Yet we argued in the previous article that God uses baptism as a means of grace and that it is the primary act that signifies the inclusion of a person into the community of faith. Why then would we deprive anyone of such blessings? The ritual of non-baptism has itself thus become a "vain ritual" that continues only because of a tradition. It has been five hundred years. There is no more need to protest! Why deprive a part of the body of Christ of a blessing?

Hopefully it is clear that rituals are a key element of human existence. Symbolic acts that we repeat on key occasions are far from empty. They are usually the richest and most powerful memories that we have. Movements that have them will always be exponentially more powerful than those that do not, and we deprive ourselves of such power to our own loss.

Nevertheless, we should not in any way de-Christianize those who do not practice baptism at all.

7. Most importantly, we should receive into our fellowship those who have been baptized in other groups. There is New Testament precedent for baptism in Jesus' name (e.g., Acts 19:5) and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (e.g., Matt. 28:19). Both should be accepted.

Whether a person has been immersed, sprinkled, or poured, we should respect their own conscience and, in a perfect world, we would accept them into our fellowship on the basis of their individual confession of faith, not the particulars of their baptism. To be sure, it is acceptable for individual Christian traditions to baptize in a preferred way. There are enough choices, at least in the West, that we as individuals can worship in a community that baptizes in our preferred way.

The question of re-baptism is a sensitive one. There is no need for a person who was baptized as an infant to be re-baptized. However, Paul would urge us to have our own convictions before God (Rom. 14:22). If it would help a person's faith to be re-baptized, it is in the spirit of Paul to indulge them. We do not want to be a cause of stumbling to anyone, so why would we refuse anyone an opportunity for more grace and an easing of conscience?

What would be far worse is if we sowed seeds of doubt about a person's past baptism. In this case, we are the potential source of the stumbling block. In this case, it is not the individual Christian that needs assurance but it is we who are sowing the seeds of doubt! This is much to be opposed. While the New Testament never fights over the timing or mode of baptism, it strongly opposes any believer who de-Christianizes another over disputable (and in this case even unbiblical) matters such as these.

Ideally, we should think of baptism as a one time act of inclusion. Re-baptism should thus be the exception rather than the rule. And we should not think that a person needs to be re-included into the body of Christ over and over again. True, a person can walk away from Christ. If the break was strong enough, perhaps it could be meaningful to be re-baptized.

What we should not encourage is a sense that a person will move in and out of the family of God repeatedly in their Christian life. Belonging to Christ is not a "one sin you're out" type of situation. Leaving the family of God is possible, but it is not something that happens by chance or casually. We may wrong others in our family and still remain in the family. In the same way, if we practice re-baptism at all, it should be reserved for the most striking of re-entrances.

8. Baptism is a means of grace. It is a sacrament of inclusion, of filling with the Spirit. Christians have practiced baptism since its very beginnings, and it remains a foundational practice today. While we believe it is not necessary for salvation and respect those few traditions that do not practice it, it is a core Christian practice. Let's do it!

However, it is not a practice over which we should de-Christianize others. Its particulars fall, ultimately, into the category of disputable matters. Immersion was perhaps the default New Testament practice, but it was not an absolute. Infant baptism has been the dominant mode throughout Christian history, but credobaptism has obviously been most meaningful to the majority in the individualist West.

Baptism is a sacrament of inclusion into the community of faith, but Christians have varying perspective on its particulars. "Let all be fully convinced in their own minds" (Rom. 14:6). Do not let how you baptize "cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died" (14:15).

Next week: SA4: Communion is a sacrament of re-empowerment.

[1] Oneness Pentecostals see tongues as a sign of receiving the Holy Spirit and thus question whether someone who has never spoken in tongues is truly saved. Suffice it to say that tongues are not mentioned in every instance of conversion in Acts (e.g., Paul's in Acts 8). How much less, then, is tongues a necessary validation of baptism!

[2] In the Didache, such pouring is done three times in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

[3] The lexical fallacy is sometimes committed in arguments over baptism. This fallacy presumes that words have root meanings that are in play in every instance of a word's use. So, someone might argue, that the root bapt- has a connotation of dipping. This may be true in the dark origins of the word group centuries before Christ.

However, words change meanings and develop in their meanings over time. It is fallacious to assume that some root meaning to a word (or original meaning to a word--the etymological fallacy) will always be part of a word's meaning no matter its context. Words just do not work like that.

So in Mark 7:3, it is not clear that the word baptizo has any connotation of how the Pharisees washed their hands. It would seem in this context that the word simply means that they "washed" their hands. A valid translation of baptizo, it would then seem, is "to wash," with no clear connotation of the manner of washing. In the end, since the Didache could speak of a baptisma that involved pouring, it is clear that the word baptism did not include the manner of baptism in its definition at a very early point in Christian history indeed.

[4] The rise of individualism is indeed part of the rise of Protestantism, and Protestantism fostered the rise of individualism. The two naturally fed off of each other.

[5] Or, as it is sometimes called, pedobaptism, from the Greek word for child. This contrasts with credobaptism, or "believer's baptism."

SA2. Baptism is a sacrament of inclusion into the people of God.

This is the second post on sacraments in my ongoing series, theology in bullet points. The first unit in this series had to do with God and Creation (book here), and the second unit was on Christology and Atonement.

We are now in the third and final unit: The Holy Spirit and the Church. The first set of posts in this final unit was on the Holy Spirit. The second set was on the Church. This third set is on sacraments.
_______________________________
Baptism is a sacrament of inclusion into the people of God.

1. Baptism has been part of Christian practice since its earliest days. The medium of this ritual is of course water. Its symbolism is, in the first place, that of cleansing.

However, the hearts of those who come to baptism as an adult are often cleansed on the basis of faith before they reach the waters of baptism. And those who are baptized as infants have not yet exercised individual faith and, indeed, they do not yet have sins in the proper sense to be cleansed. [1] The power of cleansing for sins, done by the Holy Spirit, thus does not coincide exactly with the act of baptism such that we might say that baptism is a sacrament of cleansing in most cases.

2. On the one hand, baptism is associated with the cleansing of our sins. In the book of Acts, the absolutely essential element of that cleansing is receiving the Holy Spirit. [2] It is the moment of the reception of the Holy Spirit when our sins are cleansed. It is this "baptism" in the Holy Spirit that is the moment of our justification and initial sanctification as belonging to God. This is the true moment of adoption as God's children, of regeneration, of redemption.

But baptism, on the one hand, acts out this cleansing symbolically in the most powerful of ways. Baptism enacts ritually our death to sin and our rising to new life. In the book of Acts, baptism and being filled with the Holy Spirit go hand in hand. In Acts, they are associated events.

But we are not literally saved through baptism. This wording in 1 Peter 3:21 is figurative. Baptism in water is an outward sign of the inward grace of the cleansing of sins. But because the "inward grace" in this case is typically a different event in time than the "outward sign," we cannot say that baptism is the catalyst for this more important spiritual cleansing (although it can be).

In Acts, baptism sometimes precedes being filled with the Spirit, and sometimes it takes place after receiving the Spirit. In each case, it is the reception of the Spirit that is the moment of cleansing. In Samaria, they are baptized and believe, but it is days before they receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-17). In the case of Cornelius, he and his company receive the Holy Spirit before they have been baptized (Acts 10:44-48), as is usually the case with adult baptism in the world today. Paul presumably was baptized by the Holy Spirit in that order as well (Acts 9:17-18).

3. Yet baptism is not simply a memorial of an event that has already taken place. It is more than a powerful symbol. Baptism has been considered a sacrament throughout Christian history. That is to say, there is a power of the Holy Spirit associated with the event that is much more than a memorial. What is this power? What is the inward grace that coincides with the event of baptism itself?

It certainly can be the grace of cleansing. That is to say, in those few cases where one's baptism coincides exactly to being filled with the Holy Spirit, what a powerful sacramental moment that is!

True baptism always involves the grace of re-filling with the Spirit. In the book of Acts, being filled with the Holy Spirit is not a one time event. It is something that can occur over and over again, especially as we face challenges that require a special "anointing" and empowerment from God (cf. Acts 4:31). We can surely say that: Authentic baptism coincides with a moment of power from the Holy Spirit, no matter what the age of the person being baptized.

4. So baptism is memorial of the cleansing of our sins. It is also a sacrament whereby we are filled with the Holy Spirit afresh. But being filled with the Holy Spirit in the early church had another "outward sign" more directly associated with it, namely, the laying on of hands. In Samaria, when baptism in water does not lead to a baptism in the Holy Spirit, Peter and John lay hands on the Samaritans so that they will receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:17).

We find other places in the New Testament where laying hands on a person is sacramental in this way. 1 Timothy 4:14 perhaps refers to Timothy's anointing for ministry (and no doubt an associated filling with the Holy Spirit), enacted by laying on hands. Herein is thus a precedent for ordination as a sacrament, with the laying on of hands as the outward sign.

Might we not find some divine grace that is almost always associated with the event of baptism itself, though? Might we not find some inward grace that usually coincides with the act of the outward sign itself?

There does indeed seem to be a more precise grace that God does in the moment of baptism, one that we should say involves a filling with the Holy Spirit. This is the divine grace of inclusion within the people of God. Baptism in water is the outward sign, whereby God brings an individual from outside the people of God to within his people.

5. Like circumcision for males in God's covenant with Israel, baptism ritually enacts the joining of God's people. It is the threshold of inclusion. Would we say that an uncircumcised male 6 days old was an Israelite? Well, yes, in a sense. But the act of circumcision was the outward sign that confirmed it.

In the same way, a person who has exercised faith in God is already justified, is already "saved." But the act of baptism is the outward sign that confirms it and enacts the crossing from outside to inside the people of God. In this way, an infant who is baptized is seen as part of the people of God until they remove themselves. His or her inclusion is something to be lost. [3]

The act of baptism thus enacts coming from the wilderness into the camp. It enacts the transition from "not my people" to "my people." It is a sacrament of inclusion within the people of God.

This is not merely a memorial of this transition. There is a change that takes place, and the person baptized experiences this change when the baptism is authentic. It is a change that involves the Holy Spirit. Any sin is cleansed. There is an empowerment for righteousness and service.

5. Faith is always involved in sacramental baptism, although in the case of an infant it is the faith of the community that baptizes. In adult baptism, the faith of the "baptisand," the person being baptized, is essential for the baptism to be sacramental, for there to be actual change and transformation in the act. In the case of infants, the faith of the community invokes the power of the Holy Spirit over the child to insulate it from the power of Sin as he or she reaches maturity. It is a faith that commits to protect the child from the world, to which the Holy Spirit responds with power.

Baptism is thus a sacrament of inclusion into the people of God. It remembers the faith and cleansing of the Holy Spirit that has usually already taken place (or looks forward to it). But it is a moment in which the Holy Spirit fills the person being baptized. Any sin is cleansed on the basis of faith. Power is received for righteousness and service. Most of all, in baptism God leads us across the threshold into the company of God's people.

Next Sunday: SA3: Christians have varying perspectives on baptism.

[1] In its proper sense, in the sense of what brings condemnation, sin involves intentional wrongdoing. An infant does not yet have a mature enough will to do wrong intentionally. While it is common, especially among older Christian traditions, to think of a baby's original sin being cleansed in baptism, it is ultimately problematic to think that any guilt can attach to us on the basis of Adam's sin or anyone else's sin. We sin like Adam. The power of Sin has control over the world as a consequence of Adam. But we did not sin in Adam, an Augustinian misinterpretation of Romans 5:12.

[2] Prior to Christian baptism, both the ritual washings of Judaism and the baptism of John the Baptist were sacraments of cleansing. For Jews before Christ, the ritual washings enabled a person to participate in the temple worship. These were often a matter of external purity, although no doubt God met many a Jew with his grace in those moments.

The baptism of John the Baptist was not yet Christian baptism, as the event in Acts 19:1-6 makes clear. John's baptism was a baptism for Israel to repent of its sins and be washed in preparation for the arrival of the messianic kingdom. No doubt the Holy Spirit met many of those who were baptized under John with cleansing. Indeed, the Holy Spirit anointed Jesus for ministry when he participated in John's baptism (although no cleansing was necessary; Matt. 3:13-17).

[3] Rather than the unpleasant limbo we often leave such children. By denying an infant baptism, we say they are outside the camp in the wilderness for years. We take the first seven days of an uncircumcised male Israelite and stretch them out to a decade or more. They are strangers in our midst in church, present but not belonging.

Followers of the Way (4)

This section would end the investigative part of the first chapter of The Essential Jesus, titled "The Baptism of John."  I probably won't blog the last part of the chapter, "Life Reflections."
____________
We can speculate further about the nature of John the baptizer's message by looking at what became of those who followed his teaching, in the decades long after he was beheaded.  We hear about such followers at Ephesus in Acts 18-19.  The first is Apollos in Acts 18:24-28.  He is instructed in the "Way of the Lord" and proclaimed the coming of Jesus, but was only aware of the baptism of John.

This scenario only makes sense if John the Baptist proclaimed the way of the Lord, if this expression goes back to him.  In making this connection, it is interesting that both Isaiah 40 and Malachi 3 use the word "way."  These are again the passages that the gospels remember in relation to John's prophetic ministry.  So it is not a stretch to say that John must have proclaimed quite literally "the Way of the Lord" as one of his key messages.

Followers of the Way were thus individuals who bought into his message--whether they believed in Jesus or not.  Apollos could be a follower of the Way and know very little about Jesus.  What he knew was John the baptizer's prediction that the "anointed one," the messiah, was coming.  The Gospels also remember this message as part of what John proclaimed: "The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals" (Mark 1:7, NRSV).

Acts 19:1-7 reinforces this interpretation.  Paul finds certain "disciples" at Ephesus.  These individuals only know the baptism of John.  They do not seem to know much of anything about Jesus.  When Acts calls them "disciples," it must not mean followers of Jesus but followers of the Way, followers of the movement started by John the Baptist.

For Acts, receiving the Spirit is the big distinction between the two movements.  The Jesus movement was part of the Baptist movement.  Both were followers of the Way.  But the Jesus movement believed Jesus was the messiah John predicted, and it involved the Holy Spirit.  Jesus' followers received the Holy Spirit.  At some point, John's baptism became distinguished from baptism "in the name of Jesus," so much so that Paul has the followers of the Baptist get re-baptized so they will receive the Holy Spirit in Acts 19.


The Gospel of John indirectly supports and extends this interpretation.  None of the gospels are simply recording history.  They each present Jesus in a way that brings out particular themes and emphases. [6]  One of the intriguing features of the Gospel of John is the extent to which it downplays John the Baptist in relation to Jesus.  John never actually mentions the Baptist baptizing Jesus.  John's presentation makes it very clear that the Baptist's mission is basically over once Jesus arrives (e.g., 1:36-37; 3:30).  Only John's gospel tells of Jesus' followers baptizing at the same time as the Baptist.  Finally, in contrast to Matthew 11:14, the Gospel of John denies that John the Baptist is Elijah (1:21).

Why would the Gospel of John downplay John the Baptist so much more than the other gospels?  A plausible answer is that, as we see in Acts 18-19, there were followers of John the Baptist at Ephesus who not only were not Jesus followers.  There may have been followers of the Way there who opposed the Jesus movement, who opposed the idea that Jesus was the messiah.  John and Acts are thus written in such a way as to make it clear that Jesus is the one John predicted. [7] 

So not only did John proclaim the coming judgment of God and the potential restoration of political Israel.  He was one of those Jews who also predicted the coming of a king to rule Israel in this coming kingdom, the messiah. [8] In preparation, he called Israel to repent and to wash themselves in the Jordan, symbolizing the washing and forgiveness of their sins.

What a massive movement he must have started!  We do not know much about it apart from those of his followers who went on to believe Jesus was in fact the predicted messiah.  But at the time his movement must have paralleled that of Jesus, perhaps even been bigger.  Some in this movement of the Way may have known very little about Jesus at all.  It must not have been clear at the time that John endorsed Jesus as the one he predicted.

In fact, we can read passages like Matthew 11:2-6 as the Baptist himself having some uncertainty.  John is in prison but sends some of his followers to ask Jesus if he is the one.  The things he is doing make him a prime candidate.  But John must not have been entirely certain. [9]

What is clear is that all four gospels see Jesus' ministry in continuity with that of the Baptist.  In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus is baptized by John, which indicates that Jesus endorses John's message.  As many Jesus scholars have argued, this fact has enormous implications for how we understand Jesus' own mission and message. [10]  We must understand Jesus' words not as wise sayings a philosopher might say but as words said against this historical background.

[text box on the Jesus Seminar]

[6] As we will see more clearly in the second volume of this series.

[7] The incident in Acts 19 is thus not about entire sanctification (as many holiness revivalists preached in the late 1800s/early 1900s).  Still less is it about the necessity of tongues as evidence of truly being converted (certain Pentecostal groups).  Acts 19, including its added evidence of tongues, was originally a polemic against followers of the Baptist who did not believe Jesus was the messiah.

[8] Again, if we have to pick a Jewish group his message best fits, it would be the Essenes.

[9] This scene has of course given rise to much speculation as to John's motives, especially if you bring Luke 1 and John 1 into the conversation.

[10] One of the first to point out this fact was A. E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History **.  E. P. Sanders' Jesus and Judaism then built on this approach.

John the Baptist (3)

Previous posts in this series were 1) Looking for a Messiah and 2) The Restoration of Israel.

Into this context comes John the Baptist.  Of all the Jewish groups of the day, he looks the most like an Essene.  He is off in the desert wearing the clothes of a prophet like Elijah.  He is actually baptizing not far from Qumran, a conservative Essene community. [4]  He is preaching the approaching kingdom of God, the restoration of God's people.  Once again, of all the Jewish groups we know from the time, the Essenes most seem to have had this emphasis from time to time.

But many Pharisees probably did too.  Of course, most Jews in Palestine did not belong to any group of this sort.  At their peak, there may not have been more than 6,000 Pharisees and 4,000 Essenes.  Like today, most people were simply doing their best to get by, farming their land and feeding their children.  We should not think that the latest Pharisaic idea on purity made the average dinner conversation of your average Jew at the time, any more than philosophy is a big dinner conversation in most of our homes.

John arguably baptized at about the place where Joshua led Israel into Canaan.  In itself this speaks of the restoration of the nation.  The gospels remember him by way of texts like Isaiah 40:3-5.  Although New Testament authors did not always think of the original context of a passage when they quoted them, the context of Isaiah 40 fits John's situation well.  Isaiah 40 was originally a call to captive Israel in Babylon to come home from exile.  Be comforted, Israel, for God is calling you home.  Make a bee line through the desert.  Lower the mountains, raise the valleys, straighten out the road so that you can get home as quickly as possible.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke also remember John in relation to Malachi 3:1, whose context is a messenger who comes to warn that God is coming to judge his people and the temple in particular.  The Essenes in particular had serious problems with the high priests and temple administration of their day.  In fact, their very origins may very well have involved a split with the temple, with their founding leader coming out on the losing side of the argument. [5]

These two Scriptures alone give us a very plausible sense of what John the Baptist was doing there along the Jordan River.  He was a messenger announcing both the coming judgment of God on Israel for its sin yet also proclaiming its coming restoration as a nation.  The appropriate response was repentance for sin, accompanied by a symbolic washing in the river that symbolized Israel's transition from the wilderness to the land.  The baptism stood for washing their sins, with God's forgiveness accompanying.

The Jewish historian Josephus mentions John the Baptist. [6] As we would expect, he sterilizes his description somewhat, arguably softening some of the more nationalistic dimensions to John's message.  So John preached virtue, righteousness toward one another, and piety toward God.  Josephus removes the concrete element of Israel's restoration as a nation.  Even here, however, he mentions that John's baptism had a politically threatening element.  Josephus gives the potential for rebellion as the reason Herod Antipas put him to death.

John did not invent this sort of ritual washing.  You will find miqvaot all over Israel at the time.  These were baths for a person to purify themselves from all the different sorts of impurities found in Leviticus, like uncleanness from touching a dead body.  These were large enough to walk down into and be immersed, and probably "baptism" usually did involve immersion at the time.

However, a couple aspects of John's baptism seem quite unusual.  For one thing, John's baptism was not about ceremonial uncleanness.  It was a cleansing for sin, which would normally involve sacrifices in the temple.  Of course if John did not accept the current temple as legitimate, we can see how baptism for him and possibly at Qumran might arise as a temporary but appropriate substitute for sacrifice in the temple.

A second difference from the normal ritual washings is that John's baptism had somewhat of the nature of a one time event.  It is not that John necessarily would have refused a person who returned a second time but that the baptism was in preparation for the Day of the Lord, not an act to be repeated every time you sinned.  It was thus an "apocalyptic" baptism, one that related to soon coming, world changing events.

[4] There were many more Essenes than lived at Qumran on the northwest side of the Dead Sea.  The best scholarship on the subject now consider those who lived there to be just one group of Essenes--probably a more conservative and sectarian group than other Essenes who lived in cities.  Some Essenes married; some did not.  Think of how there are more and less conservative denominations within the same Christian traditions, such as the difference between United Methodist and Wesleyan or between Wesleyan and Bible Methodist.

[5] For an excellent overview of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Essenes, see James VanderKam's The Dead Sea Scrolls Today.

[6] Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.2.

The Skinny on Wesleyans and Baptism

Interestingly, The Wesleyan Church can be attractive to Baptists and Pentecostals for a number of reasons.  To Baptists, it offers a very familiar low church feel with a more robust connecting network.  All they have to do is deny eternal security or not bring it up. ;-)  For Pentecostals, it's very similar except tongues aren't generally allowed in worship.  But then again, a lot of charismatic churches don't speak much tongues in worship either.

So what do Wesleyans believe about baptism?  Here's the official statement:

"We believe that water baptism and the Lord's Supper are the sacraments of the church commanded by Christ and ordained as a means of grace when received through faith. They are tokens of our profession of Christian faith and signs of God's gracious ministry toward us. By them, He works within us to quicken, strengthen and confirm our faith.

"We believe that water baptism is a sacrament of the church, commanded by our Lord and administered to believers. It is a symbol of the new covenant of grace and signifies acceptance of the benefits of the atonement of Jesus Christ. By means of this sacrament, believers declare their faith in Jesus Christ as Savior."

But official statements often don't really tell the whole story.  Here's the skinny:

"Until recently, baptism has not been much of an emphasis of the Wesleyan Church.  Most churches practice believer's baptism and have done it maybe once a year.  You may find traces of individuals who have never been baptized or who were baptized as infants, but these are rare.  Few if any would have any theology of baptismal regeneration and in practice, our sense of baptism as a sacrament has generally been somewhat weak."

Now the background:

1. One of the main predecessor churches of the Wesleyan Church (Pilgrims) had significant Quaker elements. So many of the early Pilgrims were like the Quakers or Salvation Army.  They not only did not emphasize baptism.  Many of them were not baptized at all.  My grandfather only got baptized because he was asked to perform a baptism.  He didn't think he should perform a baptism if he wasn't baptized himself.

By far the majority of Wesleyans would now say that, even though baptism does not actually save you, it is a central practice of the historic church with sacramental power. Nevertheless, we still would not believe that a person has to be baptized in order to be saved.

2. The other main predecessor church (Wesleyan Methodist) withdrew directly from the Methodist church over abolition.  Accordingly, it retained the possibility of infant baptism.  Again, the idea is not that such a baptism saves the child or ensures that the child will eventually be saved.

By far the majority of Wesleyans now practice believer's baptism, so much so that many would be surprised to know that it is still allowed to practice infant baptism in the Wesleyan Church.  Nevertheless, my wife and I preferred for our children to be reckoned "in" the church and to have to leave it rather than to reckon them "out" until we could persuade them to come in.  Dr. Bud Bence accordingly baptized our children in a Wesleyan Church.

So basically, in practice we have moved toward the Baptists, although in our theology, we neither specify the method (immersion, sprinkling, or pouring) nor the timing (believer's or infant).  For Wesleyans, baptism is a sacrament in which every believer should participate, but it is neither essential for salvation nor something whose particulars we should fight about.

Were you baptized as an infant?  You do not need to be re-baptized.  If it would be significant for your spiritual pilgrimage, though, we will not stop you.  Were you never baptized?  You should very, very seriously consider it, although we will still call you a brother or sister if you choose not to.

2.2 Getting In: The Holy Spirit

Here is the second section of a sample chapter for a possible proposal I'm thinking of making, Generous Ecclesiology.
________
So baptism in water was the most concrete way of telling whether a person was presumed “in” or “out” of the early church. Certainly attendance at a local assembly of believers pointed in this direction as well, although we can imagine un-baptized individuals being present in a local “church” who would not yet have been considered fully “in.” However, at the same time that baptism played this visible role, the early church soon conceptualized an even more important, underlying element in the entrance equation. What about someone who did not believe Jesus was the messiah but who had been baptized by John the Baptist? Were they “in” or “out”? At some point, at least some Christians came to conclude that such individuals were “out,” even though they were baptized almost exactly like the followers of Jesus. The difference was that these individuals did not have the Holy Spirit, which only could come through Jesus, not John the Baptist.

The portrayal of the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 gives us an excellent picture of this understanding. The disciples have been told to wait in Jerusalem for the promised coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5). John the Baptist baptized in water, but Jesus will baptize with Holy Spirit (Luke 3:16).[i] So on the Day of Pentecost, those who have believed in Jesus’ resurrection are gathered together and are “filled” with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4), also called receiving the Spirit (2:38) or being “baptized” with the Holy Spirit (1:5). In Luke-Acts, this event is part of the commencement of the “last days” foretold by the prophet Joel, the age at the end of which God would restore Israel and establish his kingdom once and for all (e.g., Luke 1:68; 21:24).

Throughout the book of Acts, the coming of the Holy Spirit is the essential moment in “conversion,” as we have seen, more crucial even than baptism. If we are to use this word, conversion, we must make it very clear that—at least in the case of Jewish “converts”—we are not speaking of a change from one religion to another. When we speak of “conversion” to the Way or into the body of Jesus followers, we are talking about joining a group that understood itself as nothing other than the truest people of Israel. Ethnic Israel and its basic categories remained the foundation on which the house of God’s “elect,” his “last days” kingdom people, was built. When Paul speaks of the Gentiles coming “in” to God’s people, he thinks of them being grafted into a tree whose natural branches remain ethnic Israel (cf. Rom. 11:17-24).

Nevertheless, as we keep these things in mind, the Holy Spirit is clearly the key element of conversion in Acts, whether one is a Jew or a Gentile. Two incidents we mentioned in the first part of the chapter make the point clear. In Acts 8, some Samaritans have believed and have been baptized, but they have not yet received the Holy Spirit (8:14-17). Peter and John lay hands on them so that they will receive this most crucial element in conversion. In the thought world of Acts, it does not matter that they have been baptized, indeed that they already believe (8:12-13). They are not “in” because they have not received the Spirit. Similarly, in Acts 10, the question of whether Cornelius and the Gentiles with him can be included in God’s people and baptized is made moot by the fact that God has already poured out the Holy Spirit on them. The question of the ritual act is settled by the fact that the reality it signifies has already taken place (cf. Acts 15:8-9).

When we move beyond the presentation of Luke-Acts, we find a very similar theology of the Holy Spirit in relation to becoming a true “child of God” and a true member of God’s people. Paul does not consider anyone—Jew or Gentile—to be one of the elect, a true descendant of Abraham, part of the body of Christ and a member of God’s true Israel, unless they have the Spirit. “If someone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person does not belong to him” (Rom. 8:9). “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God” (8:14). “You have received the Spirit of adoption, by which we cry, ‘Abba, Father’” (8:15).

Similarly, Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit as the arrabōn of what is to come, God’s “seal” on us that shows he is our owner (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; cf. Eph. 1:13-14). An arrabōn was like the earnest money someone puts down on a house. It is both a guarantee that makes it clear you are going to buy the house and a deposit toward buying the house. The sense is thus that the Holy Spirit is both a guarantee that believers will receive the inheritance of the kingdom, while providing a spiritual deposit of what that kingdom will be like. When we compare what Paul has to say about the Spirit with what he has to say in his writings about water baptism, there is simply no comparison. The Spirit is the primary element.

The anonymous book of Hebrews similarly presupposes that true membership among the descendants of Abraham (cf. 2:16) entails partaking and tasting of the Holy Spirit (6:4-5). We should not think of such tasting as merely dabbling any more than Jesus “tasting” death was a mere flirtation with death (2:9). As problematic as Hebrews 6:4-8 may be to us, we can be sure that Hebrews understands those who fall away at one time to have been full members of God’s people.

But what did this experience look like, and what would it then look like today? In Acts, the coming of the Spirit is frequently depicted in dramatic terms, with miracles and tongues often accompanying. Paul and Hebrews also imply that wonders often served as ratification of the Spirit’s presence (e.g., Gal. 3:1-5; 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:4). Are we to think, though, that everyone in the early church who was understood to have the Spirit experienced some dramatic manifestation of the Spirit’s coming? It does not seem likely. While we hear of many dramatic conversions, the New Testament is silent about such manifestations in relation to the vast majority of the early believers. Paul speaks of the Spirit witnessing with our Spirit that we are children of God (Rom. 8:16), which might imply only a calm sense of assurance.

When we ask today, almost two thousand years later, what receiving the Spirit might look like, at first the answer seems straightforward. Regardless of when you were baptized, you receive the Spirit after you repent of your sins and confess faith in Jesus as Lord. Thereafter the Spirit “fills” you—as God sees fit.[ii] Acts 2:38 captures this sense well when Peter tells the crowd on the Day of Pentecost, “Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Although it is probably fair to say that most Christian traditions do not focus much on the Holy Spirit at all, we still find significant disagreements among different Christian groups on their official positions. For example, perhaps most Christian traditions associate the timing of the Spirit with the timing of baptism more closely than we would argue the New Testament would necessarily warrant. Although in many respects they are on opposite ends of the church spectrum, both the Roman Catholic Church and some forms of the Christian Church would so associate baptism with receiving the Spirit that one’s salvation is in deep trouble without it. The first baptizes infants, the second only adults, but both see baptism as essential to receiving the Spirit to where the soul of an un-baptized person is in serious danger regardless of any confession of faith they might have made.

The United Pentecostal Church is a fascinating example of a group that sees baptism as essential to getting in and links receiving the Spirit closely with baptism. But its real uniqueness comes in that it considers speaking in tongues the sign that a person has received the Spirit and insists that baptism can only take place in the name of Jesus alone, since this group does not believe in the Trinity. Thus a person who does not speak in tongues or who has not been baptized in this way has a dubious claim to be a Christian. Other Pentecostal and holiness groups have considered the Day of Pentecost a model not for conversion but for a second experience as a Christian. But even these groups usually have a place for receiving the Spirit in some sense at conversion as well.

The question of those Christian groups that baptize infants is a tricky one as well. Such groups usually associate receiving the Spirit officially with baptism, even though the child is obviously unable to make a confession of faith or repentance. Although the first impression of many is simply to dismiss this idea out of hand, we remember that in Luke 1:15 John the Baptist is filled with the Spirit even before he is born. Luke-Acts makes no clear distinction between this filling with the Spirit and the baptism with the Spirit in Acts 2. The clear implication is that the author of Luke does not see repentance and confession necessary for an unborn child to be filled with the Spirit. We thus cannot make a clear theological objection to the idea that baptized infants might receive the Spirit at that time, at least not biblically. Certainly it is biblical to expect that such a person will also need to appropriate Christ as Lord and as their means of atonement later in life.

When the smoke clears from the disagreements between different Christian traditions, we are still left with potential common ground. On the one hand, the absolute necessity that a person have the Holy Spirit in order to belong to God’s people remains. We also find the strong common sense of Christendom and the Bible that receiving the Holy Spirit is closely associated with baptism. It is appropriate for us to maintain this association as long as we do not insist that a person must be baptized to receive the Holy Spirit and recognize the need for a person to maintain the presence of the Holy Spirit to the end of one’s life. Whether a person was baptized as an infant or adult, the Spirit must nevertheless be present till death if one is to be "saved."

[i] The Gospel of John preserves this same thinking when Jesus says, “If I go away, I will send him [the Holy Spirit] to you” (John 16:7-11).

[ii] We remember that at Samaria the Spirit filling was not immediate and, theologically, we probably want to give God the final say as to when a person actually receives the Spirit, rather than making conversion a matter of some formula that we as mortals can effect whenever we want.

2.1 Getting In: Baptism

If I were to write A Generous Ecclesiology, here is what I picture as the first section of chapter 2, "Getting In: Baptism and Other Things":

We have every reason to believe that baptism in water was the most concrete way among the early Christians to tell whether a person belonged to “the Way” or not. “The Way” was apparently one of the earliest designations for the Jesus movement (e.g., Acts 9:2), although it is at least possible that some Jews considered themselves followers of the Way without specifically believing that Jesus was indeed the Jewish messiah. We at least wonder about this possibility because John the Baptist apparently preached “the way of the Lord” in conjunction with his baptism, and we find hints in the book of Acts and the Gospel of John that there were Way followers of the Baptist’s sort who were not Jesus followers.

It may be worthwhile to flesh out this idea just a little. We hear of an incident at the city of Ephesus in Acts 19 where there were followers of the teaching of John the Baptist who had been baptized accordingly (19:1-7).[i] In the story of Acts, Paul does not consider this baptism sufficient to be “in” the Christian group. He has them baptized again in the name of Jesus and they receive the Holy Spirit. Similarly, the Gospel of John portrays Jesus’ interaction with John the Baptist in such a way as to make it clear that Jesus’ presence immediately made that of John the Baptist obsolete (e.g., 3:30). The Gospel does not even mention that Jesus was baptized by John, and it alone has Jesus ministering at the same time as John the Baptist was still baptizing (3:22-24).[ii]

A very plausible explanation of these things is that, at the very first, baptism of the sort John the Baptist practiced was sufficient to be a part of the Jesus movement. Some followers of “the way of the Lord” came to believe that Jesus was in fact the messiah John the Baptist had foretold. At the same time, others may not have been convinced or may have lived in the Diaspora where they had only heard of the Baptist’s message. For example, we have no evidence that any of the twelve disciples were ever re-baptized in the name of Jesus, while they presumably were baptized as part of John’s movement. In time, however, it may have become more and more necessary to distinguish the baptism of John the Baptist from baptism in the name of Jesus.

If we are to follow the book of Acts, baptism took place as soon as a person believed. The story of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 is perhaps the best illustration. As soon as the Ethiopian believed, he thinks of baptism and suggests he be baptized in water immediately (8:36). The clear impression we get is that Philip presented water baptism as a very important element in the process of getting “in” the Christian group and that it was the next step in the process, if not the first.

At the same time, we have no clear evidence that the early Christians were obsessed with baptism. For example, the book of Acts focuses far more on receiving the Holy Spirit as the key element of the “entry process” far more than baptism. The baptism of Simon Magus and the Samaritans was insignificant because they had not received the Spirit (Acts 8:9-17). Meanwhile, baptism is a kind of “after the fact” recognition of something the Holy Spirit has already done for Cornelius in Acts 10:47. Paul strangely baptized only two or three households in the church of Corinth (1 Cor. 1:14-17), making us wonder who baptized the others. He almost trivializes the act when he says that "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the good news" (1 Cor. 1:17). We get the impression that, as central and important as the act of baptism apparently was in some parts of the early church, it represented something else that was more significant than the act itself.

When we move from the early church to the variety of practices among Christians today, we need to keep several things in mind that we mentioned in the first chapter. For example, it is not clear that we have to do everything in exactly the same way that the earliest Christians did. Indeed, there was some variety of practice among the early Christians themselves. Similarly, we do not want to get certain practices out of focus by making various elements in the equation more significant than they were.

Did the earliest Christians baptize by immersion? It is quite possible that they did. The baptismal pools (miqvaot) in Palestine at the time certainly were large enough for immersion. Paul’s comment about being “buried” with Christ in baptism would not have to refer to immersion in water (Rom. 6:4), but it would be particularly meaningful if it did. Yet we are really reading between the lines here.

If baptism by immersion were really as important to God for the later church as some groups make it, we might have expected God to inspire some statement to that effect in Scripture. The early Christian writing called the Didache is very practical about the matter. If cold, running water is available, baptize in it. If not, then in warm water. In a pinch, though, pour water over the head. The key is that a person be baptized—not how a person is baptized. The evidence from the early church gives us no basis to be rigid about how baptism must take place.

Those groups that emphasize baptism as soon as possible after believing in Christ seem to come closest to the original idea of baptism as a concrete embodiment of what God was doing or had done in relation to a person’s sins. However, the New Testament never teaches that it is the act of baptism itself that “saves” a person. It is true that 1 Peter 3:21 speaks of baptism “saving” believers, but this is a figure of speech.[iii] 1 Peter 3 itself indicates that it is not the physical washing but the cleansing of sins that is the operative element in the equation. So while those churches that do not baptize immediately vary somewhat from the practice of the early church, it is not clear that we can condemn their practice for that reason.

More problematic are those groups that do not baptize at all (e.g., Quakers, Salvation Army). These groups represent the working out of the Protestant rejection of "empty ritualism" to its furthest extreme. Of course we find an increasing recognition today that ritual is quite often far from an empty activity, indeed that in many respects it relates to aspects of the human psyche that go much deeper than surface level thoughts or ideas. Nevertheless, what can we say to our Christian brothers and sisters who seem to have abandoned one of the central elements of early Christian conversion?

We can probably say that while they are missing a potentially powerful moment in Christian life with a heritage going back not least to Jesus, they correctly understand that the essence of being “in” is something deeper than the act of baptism. Following through with the character of God as we believe it to be, we believe that God will indeed accept these brothers and sisters because, like the uncircumcised and un-baptized Cornelius of Acts 10, they have received the Holy Spirit.

The question of infant baptism also requires us to go beyond any clear statement in the New Testament either in favor or against. It is true that all the explicit evidence of the New Testament describes the baptism of adults, all of whom presumably repent and confess faith in the Lordship of Jesus as Christ prior to baptism. At the same time, we are never told that the children of households whose fathers or mothers confess faith were not baptized. Individuals in the ancient Mediterranean formulated their identities more in terms of the groups to which they belonged than as a function of their individual decisions. It is at least conceivable that a father or mother would decide for their child (cf. Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 7:14). We have no evidence that can be decisive either way.

What we find is that while the practices of some Christian groups today are closer or farther from early Christian practice, we have no basis to exclude any group from the church because of how they do or do not baptize. We also may believe ourselves to have a good basis to critique the theology behind certain baptismal practices. But as we suggested in the first chapter, God is much more concerned with our hearts and how they lead to life than with the particulars of what we think.

So some groups baptize one way and other groups another way. From the standpoint of the New Testament, it is not an issue. Some groups baptize soon after confessing faith. Some wait some time. Some baptize infants. Some do not baptize at all. Since it is not the baptism in water that actually saves us, these are not issues that should be central to our faith. Each practice seems to have strengths, and each seems to have weaknesses. Those who do not baptize their children create a climate in which those whom God already accepts are not symbolically “in” the church. Their bodies are in the church, but they are like outsiders in our midst. Those who are baptized as children miss out on the power of remembering their baptismal experience.

Those who do not baptize at all miss out on the power of the act and on communion with the saints all the way back to Jesus. At the same time, they are perhaps more conscious than many of the need for an individual interaction with God in repentance and faith. Those who put too much emphasis on the act of water baptism itself may thereby forget the spiritual reality that is what it is ultimately all about. Those that delay baptism until a person can be fully informed of the faith to which they are assenting have the strength of a baptism that takes place with a fullness of understanding.

We will never convert all the Christians who do it differently to agree with us. But it is not necessary for us to try. Baptism is an issue about which we can be generous in our ecclesiology. We may disagree, but the person who argues to the death over such things is far more likely to miss out on the kingdom for their attitude than the person who perhaps baptizes differently from the early church or from the common practice of the later church.

[i] Apollos also in Acts 18:24-26 is someone who had believed in John the Baptist’s message but was apparently not acquainted with the Jesus movement that grew out of John’s ministry.

[ii] In this respect it is interesting to observe that the Gospel of John is traditionally associated with Ephesus, where Acts mentions followers of John the Baptist. It seems quite possible that the city of Ephesus was home to members of the Baptist’s movement who were not Jesus followers.

[iii] It is a metonymy, when something closely associated with something is substituted for it. If someone is known for a certain hat and I say, “Here comes the hat,” the hat substitutes for the person with which it is closely associated. Baptism is thus so closely associated with the actual cleansing of a person’s sins that it is substituted for the cleansing itself.

Baptism 3: Acts

I should finish my baptism series...

When we mention Acts, 2:38 springs to mind: "Repent, let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and to all those far off, as many as the Lord our God should call."

Clearly this reference targets adults (or at least those mature enough to repent) who accept Christ and repent of their sins. They are to be baptized and will in association receive the Holy Spirit. We have no evidence of the laying on of hands being done to infants in the early church. The Spirit is the boundary line for truly being in for Acts and it is connected to water baptism in Acts. So there you have it: I've given a strong argument to those who would argue that baptism must only be a matter of individuals who are capable of repentance.

However, I don't think this is the end of the story. I've already suggested why I think Paul would be in favor of infant baptism if he were here today. Here's why I don't think Acts should be used to contradict this position:

1. Acts is an idealized portrayal of the early church, not a special on the History Channel. I want to make it clear that this does not in any way make me think of Acts as false or untrustworthy in message. It just means that we are getting a theological portrayal in Acts that must be balanced with other theological portrayals, particularly that of Paul.

Think of it this way: if all we had were Luke, we would have a significantly different sense of who Jesus was and what he did than we have when we factor Matthew, Mark, and John into the equation. For example, we would not know that Jesus ministered for three years or had pre-existed before he came to earth. We would not have nearly as great a sense of the saving significance of his death as we do if we only had Luke. Unfortunately, we don't have the second volumes of Matthew, Mark, or John. And you can bet they would shed just as much contrasting light on Acts as Matthew, Mark, and John do on Luke.

Paul's writings give us some hints of what these portrayals might look like. For example, 2 Corinthians 12 lets us know that it was not just the Jews who were after Paul in Damascus. In fact, Paul never mentions any Jews being after him. It is rather the ethnarch under King Aretas, the Arabian king. What we find as we go through Acts as a whole is that one of its thematic tendencies is to downplay conflict between Christians and secular authorities, choosing rather to put blame on non-Christian Jews. This contrast between Paul and Acts 9 is one example.

If Galatians 2 and Acts 15 are the same event--and the most natural way of taking "after 14 years" in Gal. 2:1 pushes in this direction--then we have quite contrasting perspectives on the same event. Paul emphasizes that he went to James, Peter, and John because God told him to and emphasizes his independence from their authority. In Acts he is a delegate from Antioch and looks well submitted and subordinate. In Galatians it looks like a private meeting. In Acts it looks like a General Conference. Paul's writings never mention the letter issued from the conference of Acts 15, even though some of the same subjects came up explicitly at Corinth later (by any reckoning of dating).

Many other "hints" in Acts could be mentioned that make it clear that there is a good deal of artistry and theology in this presentation, as I believe was appropriate for an ancient writer. In that sense, Acts does not always give us the three dimensional portrait we find in Paul. Paul is so "real time" that some accuse him of being hopelessly contradictory as he argues in different ways for different contexts (sometimes with the very same verses in contrasting ways!). Acts is more two-dimensional, the portrait of a general superintendant showing how the church is supposed to be, with everything done decently and in order. And of course it is a very good portrait of what the church should be. I find no fault in a beautiful portrait that is what it intends to be.

2. So we find hints that indeed many of Acts' statements are general statements of theology that are not necessarily exhaustive in scope. So we see whole households being baptized in Acts 16:15 and 33. I believe this would have included children.

One question we face when we read Acts is whether all Christians will have or should have exactly the same experiences as the Christians in Acts. For example, can a person today receive the Holy Spirit and become a Christian if no one is around to lay hands on him or her? I think so.

Are all experiences of the Holy Spirit going to be as dramatic as on the Day of Pentecost? Should we see more individuals speaking in tongues than do today when people receive the Holy Spirit? I don't think necessarily so. Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't think that everyone will have a huge emotional experience when they ask God to forgive them of their sins. If you have truly surrendered yourself to God's lordship, I believe you should claim by faith to have received the Holy Spirit and to be bound for the kingdom. I think you should do this whether you feel any differently or not. I would of course hope that you would feel a special sense of peace, but it sure seems like some of our emotional wires are unfortunately crossed up for any number of reasons.

I believe we should take Acts as a general picture of conversion but not force everyone into it as a Procrustean bed, the cookie cutter model for every single person. I believe Acts is highlighting theology in its portrayal. It is not at all clear to me that Peter and John were constantly being called all over the place to lay hands on people so that they could receive the Holy Spirit. In addition to the beautiful structure that Acts presents, we have hints throughout the New Testament of more charismatic things going on with less of a chain of command. Paul considered himself just as much an authority as the "pillars" of Jerusalem and probably would not have liked the way he was portrayed at all points in Acts.

In short, Acts far more gives us the "rule" rather than the exception. It is the place to find the fundamentals of the early church more than the nuances. At least that's the way I see it.

So the household baptisms of Acts, in my opinion, give us some sense of this on this topic. I think Luke would say something like this: "Oh, if you got the impression from my portrayal of the standard conversion that we did not baptize children, that was unintended because we did."

The way I see it today...

Baptism 2: Paul

I suppose Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians on baptism are a little surprising at first. Paul starts off in chapter 1 sounding like baptism wasn't a high priority for him and seems to have difficulty remembering who he had actually baptized while he was at Corinth. He baptized Crispus and Gaius, oh, and now that I think of it, I baptized the house of Stephanus as well (1:14-16).

The way Paul says all this, and a little extra reflection, stretches my imagination a little. For one thing, the baptism of the house of Stephanus is introduced as if it were an oversight. He started in 1:14 with the impression that Crispus and Gaius were it. Further, it is then doubly suspicious that the house of Stephanus shows up in chapter 16, and we find out that Stephanus and his servants were in fact the first converts of southern Greece!!! (16:15). How do you forget that? And, indeed, it makes sense to see them as the ones who brought the letter that Paul is answering for so many chapters of 1 Corinthians (chaps. 7ff).

In short, I have good reason to see Paul's deemphasis on baptism in chapter 1 closely in relation to the situation at Corinth. So I'll respect Quakers and Salvationists who might use this chapter as an argument against the significance of baptism. But ultimately I think Paul considered baptism the fare of every convert. See next paragraph.

Galatians 3:27 implies that all the true sons of God (which, remember, explicitly includes women in this passage) have been baptized. Romans 6:3 also implies that baptism is the common experience of all Christians. In a side note to Friends and Salvationists, we have no evidence here that Paul used the word baptism only in relation to the Spirit. Indeed, Ephesians (which may not reflect Paul's normal use of language, but that's a different issue) speaks only of one baptism (Eph. 4:5).

And if we have to decide on the evidence whether it is more likely that a reference to baptism without explanation would be to water or to a more metaphorical meaning, the normal use of the word is the more likely. Hebrews will later use the image of the washing of the body with pure water (Heb. 10:22); Acts clearly uses baptism primarily in relation to literal water (cf. Acts 8:36); and Paul speaks of being buried with Christ (6:4)--so tempting to see such a comment in relation to immersion in water.

I imagine that most of Paul's references to baptism in these passages relate to adult baptism. After all, he was a church planter who 1) did not like to minister where the gospel had already reached (cf. Rom. 15:20) and 2) saw himself as an apostle to Gentiles rather than to Jews (cf. Gal. 2:8). It thus makes sense that most of his baptisms were adults accepting Christ for the first time.

As a side note, Paul never connects baptism with repentance. Indeed, repentance is not one of Paul's dominant categories, an observation that has sparked a good deal of discussion in terms of how Paul related to his Jewish background.

We can at this point ask how the early Christians came to baptize. For various reasons I will leave Matthew 28:19 out of consideration at this point. I imagine that early Christian baptism was an extension of JB's baptism. At first I imagine that many Christians continued to baptize in preparation for Christ's return and the restoration of the nation of Israel. I wonder if at first they saw such baptism much differently from the baptism of JB.

I imagine that baptism was an essential part of converting to Judaism if you were a Gentile. I don't think it was an initiatory rite per se, but rather essential because a Gentile would simply have massive amounts of sins to cleanse. A Jew who accepted Christ as Messiah would want to purify him or herself in preparation no doubt, and perhaps eventually as a sign of allegiance and acceptance of the gospel. Whenever the early Christians came to see Jesus' death to have atoning value (I think almost immediately), baptism in Jesus' name would have been a completely appropriate way of appropriating that atonement.

These are all thought experiments, attempts to fill in gaps in our knowledge of how the early church got from Jesus to Paul. Acts is of course written much later and, as the gospels, is written with the benefit of hindsight.

So eventually Christian baptism is connected with the death of Christ (e.g., Rom. 6:4). It is uniting with Christ. For Gentiles in particular, Paul connects it with adoption into the people of God (e.g., Gal. 3:27). It is possible, although I will just mention the thought, that from 1 Corinthians to Galatians we see some solidifying of Paul's practice of baptism. Since many evangelicals date Galatians before 1 Corinthians, of course, that thought would not be viable for them.

I do not find it at all surprising that Paul baptized whole households like that of Stephanus (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:16). Would this have included children? Given the way I think Paul thinks, I believe it would have. On the other hand, given how pragmatic Paul was, I don't know if he would have baptized very small babies. I'm not sure that Paul would have been a stickler on a particular mode of baptism, but I suspect he at least primarily immersed.

The next text you might expect me to turn to is 1 Corinthians 7:14. In this "strange" verse, Paul encourages those married to unbelievers to stay with them. His reasoning goes like this: the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse, and this sanctifies (makes holy) the children as well. Needless to say, this is not a verse that the typical evangelical would have written. We usually resort to some banal comment on spiritual influence--which seems a rather weak translation of "to sanctify."

Indeed, Paul addresses the church at Corinth as "those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called..." The most natural inference is that the unbeliever and the church are brought into the church by their relationship with the believer--the holiness is contagious in the direction of the non-believer and the children. Now Paul does not equate such sanctification with being saved. He tells the believer not to worry if the unbeliever departs: "How do you know if you will save your spouse?" Here we remember that Paul thinks of salvation mostly in the future tense, as escaping God's wrath on the Day of Judgment (e.g., Rom. 5:9). The connection with the believer brings them into the Spiritual force field of the church, but it does not ensure that they will escape the coming wrath of God.

What does this imply about child baptism? I don't know whether the practical side of baptizing an infant came into play with Paul. But if Paul considered the children from even one Christian parent "in" and sanctified, then how much more would he have considered children from two Christian parents in. I truly believe that Paul would have baptized everyone in the household who was at all willing, including children. And think it would even have been appropriate in that world for fathers of households even to twist a few arms in some cases.

So if Paul were here today and were to comment on this issue, I truly believe he would be in favor of infant baptism--the children are sanctified by the believing parent or parents. Salvation is not thereby a done deal, for salvation depends on where you stand when God comes in judgment. And there might just be a whole lot of time between childhood and that Day.

I don't think I should close until I have mentioned Paul's peculiar reference to baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29: "Then what will those are are baptized on behalf of the dead do? If the dead are not raised at all, why are they even baptized for them?"

To be clear, Paul does not include himself among this group. He does not argue against such individuals, but he does not argue for them either. Here are some thoughts:

1. He is surely referring to Christians, unless this is some strange mystery religion rite he has in mind. Baptism seems a word with a Jewish provenance. But Jews themselves would probably not feel a need to baptize so that other Jews would be part of the resurrection.

2. So we most likely have Gentile Christians being baptized for individuals who died before the Christian message came. Or perhaps we have Jewish Christians who believed baptism in Jesus' name was essential for resurrection and are doing similar things. In either case, Paul's argument makes it clear that it is baptism with a view to future resurrection.

3. Whoever they are, they must be some group that the audience of 1 Corinthians would respect or that Paul thinks they might respect. Apollos or Peter would fit that bill, but I have difficulty picturing Peter teaching this. Wouldn't he more assume that Jewish heroes of faith would be resurrected? Very difficult. 1 Peter 4:6 may picture Christ preaching to the dead after his resurrection, another possible solution to the question.

While I find the following interpretation difficult, it is where I'm at right now. After Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians, we have the teaching that the dead in Christ will rise. But there is no clear teaching by Paul on other dead. What about Jews before Christ? What about Gentiles who never heard of Christ? I wonder if some segments of Gentile Christianity started baptizing themselves for family who had never heard the gospel so that they might be part of the resurrection.

Again, Paul does not promote such a practice. But it helps us get into the minds of the ancient church a little, a church that existed in a world where identity was far more a matter of the groups in which you were embedded than of you as an individual. You can bet that if they were being baptized for the dead, then they were having their infants baptized as well.

So some options on how we might reflect on our our often hyper-individualistic focus today: 1) a God-sanctioned development in understanding from that of the NT world, 2) a balancing out of excess in the early church, 3) we might see it needing some corrective, a partial by product of our own cultural factors today.

More Adventures in Baptism: Gospels

I thought I would wander through the NT and think about baptism for a few entries.

I thought the gospels were a fair enough place to start... and a pretty easy place to start, really.

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the baptism mentioned is primarily that of John the Baptist. We would not, as Christians, consider this baptism to be Christian baptism. Matthew 3:11 does predict that Christ will baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire. Mark 1:8 similarly mentions a coming baptism with the Holy Spirit.

But of most interest to us of these is Luke 3:16, which also predicts that Christ will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire.<1> This prediction in itself is not unique, but in the case of Luke we have Acts to give us what Luke understands to be the "rest of the story." Of greatest interest to us here is Acts 19:1-7, where Paul clearly does not consider baptism by John to be Christian baptism because it did not include baptism with the Holy Spirit. Paul insists that this group of twelve men be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Baptism in Matthew, Mark, and Luke thus is more indirectly related to our subject than directly. John the Baptist of course baptized Jewish individuals who repented of their sins with a view to forgiveness and in preparation for the coming of the Messiah. For JB this was a one time act of preparation, but baptisms were not uncommon, repeatable things in Jewish life at this time. Miqvaoth were cleansing pools that you can find in any number of places in the Holy Land (e.g., at Qumran, Masada, etc...).

John is a little more complicated, for John is the only gospel that says Jesus' disciples baptized before JB was arrested (John 3:22, 26; 4:1-2). Are we to understand these acts as Christian baptisms? Certainly not in the world of Luke-Acts, for the Holy Spirit does not come until the Day of Pentecost. In that sense Jesus "baptizes" no one until that day and we cannot properly even speak of any Christians until that day. Paul agrees in his own way: "If someone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they are not his" (Rom. 8:9).

But I think John also agrees in his own way with these ideas, for he makes it a point to say that Jesus himself did not baptize (4:2). John also teaches that Christ will baptize with the Holy Spirit (1:33) and symbolically presents the beginning of such baptism after the resurrection (20:22).

So what do we learn from any of these gospels about contemporary issues relating to baptism?

1. Mode: It seems more likely than not to me that JB immersed or dipped people in the river water. I suppose it is possible that he poured water over their heads. The text doesn't really say and I don't really buy the argument that the word baptizo in Greek itself proves it was immersion. This seems a kind of root fallacy that insists the root must dictate how a word is used in practice. But words take on a life of their own and often leave the root or etymological building from which they came. Nevertheless, I have no problem with the usual suggestion that JB probably immersed in the river. Again, this does not take us yet to the question of what a Christian mode of baptism might be.

2. Infant: It seems to me very likely that all or at least nearly all of those who came to JB were adults. They were preparing Israel for the Messiah by purging it of its sins. Of course, I would not say absolutely that no children were involved. It seems a little difficult logistically in that they would have to travel out to the river from wherever. I also wonder how many women he would have baptized. I wonder if there were many.

Does this impact the discussion of Christian infant baptism? We'll have to wait for the argument that baptism involves repentance and therefore does not apply to an infant. For the moment, we will simply note that JB's baptism is not Christian baptism and therefore that it is somewhat of a unique moment in salvation's history that does not directly affect our discussion of Christian baptism.

3. Repeatable? I doubt that JB's baptism was meant to be repeatable, although baptism in general was in Jewish culture at the time. JB was preparing for the Messiah. That would normally have been a one time act I think.


<1> By the way, the story of John the Baptist is one of those rare places where Matthew and Luke agree in wording against Mark. Given the extra stuff that Matthew and Luke have in common in this story, it is often suggested that the JB story was in Q.