After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he remained there with them and was baptizing. John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because water was plentiful there, and people were coming and being baptized (for John had not yet been put in prison).
John was in the business of baptizing before Jesus began his public ministry. Then, for a short while, they both administered baptism to the people. This created some tension in the followers of John, which we will discuss more in the passage to come. But since this passage has brought up baptism, it is best that we give the subject some consideration.
Baptism became an important identifying ritual (usually referred to as a sacrament) in the fledgling Christian Church. The last words of the book of Matthew are spoken by Jesus and help to explain why baptism is considered important: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inthe name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28.18-20).
While baptism is frequently mentioned in the New Testament, what baptism is is never really spelled out. I say this here, recognizing that doing so is controversial. However, I suspect that other Christians, if they would maintain their composure long enough for a civil discussion, would concede the ambiguities. In general terms, baptism is a public ritual marking the initiation of individuals into the Church. The use of water is representative of spiritual cleansing. The Church divides over the types of baptism. Many denominations sprinkle infants, while others dunk adults (or children old enough to make a “credible profession of faith”). Some in the Church see baptism as a sign of regeneration; some see it as a sign that allows inclusion in the Church until persons are capable of expressing their own faith; some see it as representing an individual’s faith and decision to join the Church.
The genius of infant baptism is that it recognizes that children are holy in God’s sight by virtue of their parents’ faith. This understanding lines up with God’s design of the family as the primary unit of society, as well as the key to human identity, God having made both man and woman in his image. Because of this fundamental familial structure, God permits, perhaps insists, that children of believers are to be recognized as members of the Church. For children under this Covenantal arrangement, there is an expectation that, because they are brought up in the love of Christ, because they have been raised in the truth of the Word, and because of God’s mercy, they will arrive at the place where they will come to recognize the triune God as their Lord. Are there children brought up in this way that turn away from the faith? It would seem so. Most who practice infant baptism do not claim that it guarantees salvation (though some do believe this).
Those who believe that baptism should be reserved for those who express faith are at a disadvantage when it comes to raising their children. They have the same conviction that they should raise their children in the love of Christ, that they should raise them under the tutelage of the Word, and they have the same hope in the mercy of Christ. What they miss is familial unity. It is a troubling relational disconnect for parents to teach their children that they stand profoundly separated from their parents until they profess a true faith in Jesus Christ. This seems a good way to teach a child to doubt his parents’ love, particularly if he has reservations about the existence or goodness of God. Or, from another perspective, it can put tremendous pressure on a child to outwardly conform while being inwardly apathetic.
While there is this difficulty with believer baptism, there are also clear benefits. Baptism is associated with repentance in the New Testament. It is a public repudiation of sin. It is a recognition that the fundamental sin is self-reliance and the worship of self. “We make our own way. We formulate our own reality. We write our own laws. We claim our independence. We are the lords of our own lives.” Christianity says this is juvenile and delusional. God is the creator, the sustainer, the source of all wisdom, and the one who explains the meaning of love. Repentance is the turning away from juvenile, destructive behavior, and turning to the truth of the lordship of Jesus Christ. This requires deliberation and action not possible by an infant.
Adult baptism creates a society of people who publicly profess to be faithful followers of Christ. It’s possible for individuals to go through the motions of baptism for other reasons than belief, of course. But at least it can be said of those baptized that they gave the ritual enough thought that they were willing to go through with it in public, knowing what it was supposed to mean. In contrast, it is possible to have been baptized as an infant, to consider oneself a Christian, but to have given little thought to the inherent commitments of that identification. Such a person is called a “nominal Christian”. This is a posture of habit rather than conviction. The practice of infant baptism has contributed greatly to the proliferation of nominal Christians.
In Acts, the Apostle Peter was introduced to a group of godly gentiles who were interested in the good news of Christianity. Peter began to share with them his experiences with Jesus. While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 10.44-48).
The focus of this section of the book of Acts is the inclusion of Gentiles into the Christian Church, which initially was made up almost exclusively of Jews. But the point of interest here is that the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard Peter’s preaching. This phenomenon was God’s confirmation that their response was genuine conviction. Their faith preceded their baptism, which buttresses the argument for believer baptism. Also interesting is that, even after having witnessed God’s endorsement, Peter still considered it necessary for the new believers to undergo water baptism. What was his concern? I believe the implication is that baptism is not merely a statement of faith on the part of those being baptized, it is a statement of faith by those Christians who witness the baptism. Those who witness are saying, “We recognize your faith. We believe your confession. We accept you into the Christian Church. You are now part of our spiritual family. God has recognized you; we recognize you, as well.”
Looking at this more broadly, when John baptized his message was, “Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.” One way of looking at this is that, because the kingdom is about to arrive, a repentance is meaningful, effective and liberating. What’s the point of repenting of evil behavior if the world remains under the control of evil people. What’s the point of repenting of evil behavior if after life we just die and disappear to history, like the ashes of our corpses? This is the great fallacy of humanism: there’s really no point to it. Repentance within the context of the arrival of the kingdom of God is a repentance that begins painfully but drives on to glory and joy.
Another way of looking at it is that since the kingdom of God is about to arrive, it is necessary to repent of old allegiances. The primary allegiances that must be rejected are those that call for personal gain at the expense of others, as well as being part of systems that promote this same world view. Social Darwinism, for example, a logical offshoot of Darwinian evolution, is a kind of allegiance directly contradictory to the kingdom of God.
In a limited way, all political allegiances also must be rejected. God calls on Christians to be law-abiding citizens, seeking the good welfare of whatever nation, state, city, or neighborhood we may find ourselves in. And yet, these citizenships are subject to the primary citizenship of the kingdom of God. In this way Christians are generally the best of citizens, but also always the most dangerous of citizens. Governments must always take care not to push Christians beyond what their consciences permit. When others complain that religion does not belong in the “public square,” Christians must remind them that all thought is religious, so that the public square is made up of nothing but religious ideas. Christians must limit secular culture, as well as influence and drive culture in ways guided by both mercy and respect.
So, baptism, then, represents a statement of belief by an individual, but it also represents a two-way commitment between the individual and the Church. But the Church on earth is a stumbling, struggling version of the Church it is to become when fully sanctified. Baptism is more than these, because it also represents a commitment on the part of God and the full kingdom that is his. The children, in the Chronicles of Narnia, walked through the back of a wardrobe into another world. Baptism is like this—a portal into another world.
Ultimately the arrival of the kingdom means the demise of all other kingdoms.
I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed. (Daniel 7.13,14).
The radically transformative symbolism of baptism is best represented through believer immersion. However, there is no reason why the Church cannot associate this radical transformation through the act of infant baptism. Unfortunately, with infant baptism there are two basic camps, both of which hold to doubtful positions. One position says that infant baptism results in salvation. This position is similar to the practice of Judaism where inclusion in the kingdom was biological rather than spiritual. To retain such a concept is to ignore the preaching of Christ that emphasizes that the Church membership is determined by the spirit…determined by the Spirit.
Others who practice infant baptism, while they don’t recognize it as signifying salvation, they also don’t really see it as inclusion in the Church. Such churches don’t permit children to participate in Communion, for example, until the children have gone through some sort of catechism or confirmation class, followed by a credible profession of faith. So, while these churches scoff at those who only “dedicate” their children, by excluding their children from Communion, they are also effectively merely dedicating their children.
I would also like to suggest a middle way of understanding baptism. Children of the Covenant should be considered fully part of the Church. “Dedication” is not strong enough and it fails to recognize God’s high valuation of the nuclear family. However, it is not necessary to baptize a child in order to recognize this truth within the Church. “Christening” is another term for infant baptism. Let us “Christen” our children, which is to say, name them as belonging to Christ, and embrace them as full members in his church. At the same time let us reserve baptism itself for the time when individuals are prepared to repent of their tendency to love self, the world and the devil, and to commit to serving the true God. And, yes, employ the whole dunking routine, as did Jesus and John. The physical reality of immersion is a valuable presentation of the spiritual reality, which is what makes it sacramental. It is like a genuine smile is to joy.
In practical terms these theological differences over baptism have become less important over time. There no longer are burnings at the stake, as tragically took place on numerous occasions during the years of the Reformation. The Church today tends to divide (genuine Church vs. counterfeit) over the authority of scripture, sexual behavior, sexual identity, abortion and, to a lesser extent, the roles of women in the Church.
Nevertheless, when the subject comes up in conversation, differences over baptism can still elicit heated arguments. More importantly, secondary standards adopted by churches will nearly always insist on a particular type of baptism. The consequence of this is that godly believers are denied leadership roles in churches where their beliefs about baptism don’t line up with the churches in which they worship. This often results in the packing of bags. Sometimes people will remain, determining that leaving the fellowship would be more harmful than the sacrifices they endure in staying. But in such cases the negative impact of squandering of gifts within the Church remains in place.
Baptism is commanded by Jesus. The Church must continue to practice it. Individuals ought to settle in their own consciences what it means, even as they remain open to new insights. It is clear that the orthodox, Bible-believing Church has not been able to come to agreement about the meaning of baptism. What is also clear is that the two or three basic sides of the question have settled into practices that are not as different as they like to insist. These facts, along with the closely related fact that the New Testament is vague on the subject, all should lead us to recognize that this subject is one where Christian charity needs to be applied. A range of beliefs and practices should be accepted within every denomination and congregation.
This suggestion may seem naive. However, it is not unheard of. The Evangelical Free Church of America, for example, grants considerable freedom on the question: We affirm the ordinance of baptism as a biblical/theological essential. The Lord Jesus mandated that the church celebrate the ordinances. It is not a matter of indifference (adiaphora), since it is a clear command given by the Lord Jesus for the church to celebrate (Matt. 28:19-20). But the timing (paedo and credo) and the mode (sprinkling and immersion) we have placed in a category of silence, i.e. we will not divide over this issue.
The EFCA is primarily believer baptism by immersion in both belief and practice. Some churches do practice infant baptism, though not considered for salvation. We are baptist with a small “b” in that what is critical for membership in a local church is true salvation. The fact that both credo and paedo baptism are allowed is a “significance of silence” issue, i.e. we will debate it but not divide over it.
I sometimes think about heaven and how incredibly better it will be to live there. Just imagine the difference, for example, if everyone in the world were truly honest. What a wonderful shock it will be! I have also thought that we will quickly be instructed on theological fine-points, putting an end to our obnoxious hair-splitting (and denominationalism). But it occurs to me that this may not necessarily be true.
A group is sitting around a campfire with Jesus. “Lord, will you explain to us how baptism was to have been practiced on earth?” “The practice was not formulated in detail because the formula was never the real issue. The formula for baptism, as in all actions, was relevant, but it was also peripheral. I gave you the keys. You were supposed to work it out together. Whatever you would have decided together would have been fine with me. The fact that you came up with different answers was not even a big problem. The fact that you allowed the different answers to come between you was. You’re not going to be spoon fed in heaven, either. You have plenty of time. Now go and work it out.”
Recent Comments