The exclusive baptism of believers: some questions for wider discussion.

Thompson, David M.

Origins

At the annual meeting of the Secretaries of the Christian World Communions in 2012 (at which those present report on significant developments within their own communion each year), the representatives of both the Baptist World Alliance and the Mennonites spoke of fresh thinking within their traditions about the place of baptism in their life. It struck me at the time that there had (to my knowledge) never been a consultation among those traditions that do not practice infant baptism, and I asked whether these two comments suggested that the time might be opportune for such a meeting. As usually happens in such situations, I was invited to bring back some proposals the following year for consideration. I submitted a memo containing the following three paragraphs of this paper, with some suggestions about the format of a meeting, and we were encouraged to proceed.

Although it has been widely recognized that the text on baptism in Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1) reflects a deeper consensus than the other two texts, significant questions concerning the meaning and practice of baptism remain. This was reflected in the fact that the text did not immediately resolve several of the outstanding issues relating to the mutual recognition of baptism. The more recent Faith and Order text, One Baptism: Towards Mutual Recognition, (2) is intended to address some of those issues; but it is a study text, which on these matters formulates questions for the churches, rather than seeking to express any kind of consensus. What is striking, if one reflects on the course of discussions over the last 50 years, is that much effort has been spent on tackling the divide between churches that practice infant baptism and those that do not, but relatively little time has been spent on reflection by those traditions that do not practice infant baptism on the extent to which their understandings of baptism are shared.

Someone brought up in the Disciples tradition will immediately recall the difference, which led to the separation of Disciples from Baptists in the 1820s over whether baptism was for the remission of sins. But numerous other examples can be cited, such as the admission of unimmersed persons to the Lord's supper, the sense in which baptism is understood to be baptism in the Spirit, the relationship of baptism to conversion and entry into membership of the church, etc. Some of these may be traced to differences of emphasis in the New Testament itself, between the Pauline imagery of redemption and adoption and the Johannine imagery of new birth and regeneration. Whereas that difference relates, as it were, to the effects or consequences of baptism, a separate question may be asked about the conditions for baptism, i.e., whether baptism is essentially a rite of repentance, as might be implied in what we know from the New Testament about the teaching of John the Baptist, whether it depends upon being able to make a credible profession of faith (and how this point is worked out in relation to those with learning disabilities), and how significant the amount of water used (i.e., affusion or immersion) is to the perceived reality of the rite. Another long-standing difference is between those who emphasize the effectiveness of the rite itself (sometimes, possibly misleadingly, summarized as an ex opere operato view--which was originally intended to indicate the effectiveness of the action as distinct from the character or status of the one baptizing)--and those who would always emphasize the divine agency as distinct from or over against the action itself. (These two positions may be regarded as differences of emphasis rather than fundamental disagreement, but some of the possible implications were reflected in the responses of those traditions which were uneasy about the language in BEM that "baptism effects this or that," where the divine agency seemed at best implicit.)

Although the consensus reached in BEM depended heavily on an agreement on the significance of the process of Christian initiation as a whole, that consensus in turn depended on the assumption of the priority of the Christian community into which initiation takes place. In other words, the communal dimension of baptism was regarded as more significant than its importance for the individual, and indeed as a means to express personal commitment to Christ. Here the significance attached to the visible, as distinct from the invisible, church is fundamental. This might be our first question: How far do we regard the communal dimension of baptism as primary? On the other hand, the typological understanding of baptism as the new circumcision (notwithstanding the fact that the older rite only applied to males) finds little place among traditions that do not practice infant baptism. But although such an understanding most readily seems to refer to the identification of the people of God with a particular ethnic community, this is partly because it is difficult to rid the understanding of the Jewishness of the chosen people from ideas of ethnicity which date only from 19th-century social anthropology, coupled with the particular kinds of nationalist ideology also characteristic of that later period. One might, for example, suggest that Christians have something to learn from the model of diaspora Judaism (detached from specific emphases on the promised land), dating at least from the exile, about what it means to exist as Christians in a counter-cultural situation in modern society--"here we have no abiding city." This was, of course, the context of Paul's missionary journeys.

The preceding paragraphs do not begin to explore how baptism is understood in Pentecostal or Adventist traditions, nor the extent to which in Africa and Asia baptism may be linked to indigenous initiation rituals concerned with puberty or adolescence rather than birth (though historically these have not been absent in Europe). There are other long-standing traditions not represented in the Faith and Order Commission that it is possible for this meeting to reach.

I would like to sketch how some of my own ideas have developed on this matter since the 1960s, together with some of the questions they raise. I first became involved as a Churches of Christ (UK usage) observer in the Congregational-Presbyterian conversations in England and Wales, and later as secretary of the negotiations between Churches of Christ and the United Reformed Church (which had been the result of the earlier conversations). Even later I wrote a book, Baptism, Church and Society in Modern Britain (2005), based on the Hulsean Lectures, which I had given at Cambridge in 1984. Much of my later thinking on the topic has been influenced by my participation in the International Theological Dialogue between Disciples of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church since 1980.

Negotiations for and with the United Reformed Church

When the three observers from Churches of Christ joined the Congregational-Presbyterian conversations in 1966 (at the invitation of the latter), we were given complete freedom to speak when we wished, rather than waiting to be asked. Furthermore, it was made clear to us that what the primary negotiators wished was to draft a Scheme of Union, which would contain nothing that might make it more difficult for Churches of Christ to participate at a later stage. Indeed, at various points during the negotiations, we were asked whether we thought that Churches of Christ might become participants in the union in 1972. Our answer, based on a realistic assessment of where our churches stood, was "No," though we were happy to be invited to open negotiations with the new church at the inaugural assembly in 1972.

As a result of our comments, the paragraph on baptism became the longest one in the Basis of Union in 1972. There was, however, no change in the basic understanding of baptism:

   The United Reformed Church observes the gospel sacrament of baptism
   into Christ as a gift of God to his Church, and as an appointed
   means of grace. Baptism is administered with water in the name of
   the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It is the
   sacrament of entry into the Church and is therefore administered
   once only to any person.

   When the Church observes this sacrament it makes explicit at a
   particular time and place and for a particular person what God has
   accomplished in Christ for the whole creation and for all
   humankind--the forgiveness of sins, the sanctifying power of the
   Holy Spirit and newness of life in the family of God. In this
   sacrament the Church affirms its faith in the action of God in
   Jesus Christ; and takes corporate responsibility for those
   receiving baptism, promising to support and nourish them as it
   receives them into its fellowship. Baptism may be administered in
   infancy or at an age of responsibility.

The later negotiations made it even longer. The 1972 paragraph already acknowledged that baptism could be administered in infancy or at an age of responsibility; in other words, infant baptism was never normative for the new church. The later discussions were more concerned with the rights of conscience in the matter of baptism, rather than with baptism itself. The Churches of Christ began by seeking and securing an acknowledgment that the rights of conscience for those seeking baptism, either as an adult or as parents for their children, would be respected. That was easy. However, we immediately realized in that discussion that the way this point is usually put is misleading. We often say, "I want to let my child decide for himself/herself, rather than taking the decision for him/her." But we came to see that, whatever decision is taken, it is a decision by the parents for the child--the unbaptized child does not have the opportunity of choosing to be baptized as an infant!

The next realization was that other people have consciences too! For example, a congregation might wish to practice only one form of baptism, but in a truly united church, both forms need to be available everywhere. So this was written into the paragraph as well. Ministers also have consciences. Although it might seem unlikely, it was possible that a minister would be unwilling to perform either the baptism of infants or the baptism of believers. Hence, a responsibility was laid on ministers to find an alternative minister, if there was a request for a mode of baptism with which they did not feel they could in good conscience comply.

This process was an extremely important learning exercise for those of both persuasions, as we sought to tease out the implications of simpler statements that we had each been accustomed to make. As I said earlier, this phase was less about baptism and more about how persons with different convictions could live with integrity alongside one another in the same church. Of course, it would have been easier to stay in our own strongholds. The world would have been able to make more sense of that, but that very fact came to be perceived as a very weak argument. This raises the question, How far are we prepared to live in congregations where both infant and believers' baptism are practised?

There was one point at which the proponents of infant baptism would not give way. That was to allow those already baptized as infants to undergo a "second baptism" (even the terminology is contested) if they changed their convictions. Eventually, this resulted in Churches of Christ failing to secure the required majority in favour of union, and consequently the dissolution of the association, to allow churches of either conviction to go their own way. But at least a majority of us came to see that the integrity of the infant baptism position could not be sustained if this point was conceded. Rebaptism is just as offensive as reordination. Later, I was informed of the special instructions that Catholic priests conducting visits to the Holy Land are given for any who wish to be baptized in the Jordan. That raises a third question: Are we prepared to reject second baptisms?

Rather later it became apparent to those of us who had become part of the United Reformed Church (URC) in 1981 that there was a weak point on the other side, too. We discovered that some URC ministers had supposed that these provisions were simply temporary and that after an interval infant baptism would become the norm again. That has not happened. It has been made clear that the church will live with two patterns of initiation. Candidates for ministry, and for placement in a pastorate, are specifically asked about their views on baptism. It is not that those who believe in only believers' baptism suffer discrimination, but our theological college courses have developed a careful treatment of this subject. Ironically, the only baptism that I have conducted since my ordination in 1999 has been that of an infant, though that was in a Local Ecumenical Partnership with the Church of England, where the candidate's family were Anglicans, and I was asked by the curate to step in at the last minute. As I reflected on what I should do in this situation, particularly given the amount of work I had put in to draft the revision of the URC paragraph, I concluded that my primary duty as a minister of Jesus Christ was to serve, rather than to be served, and I could do that in good conscience. Had I been involved in discussions with the parents earlier, I might have suggested a different course, but I was not. Perhaps there is a fourth question there: How far do pastoral circumstances affect what it is right for a minister to do in such situations?

In practice, there has been a general change in British society in the period since the 1970s, as the number of infant baptisms in all churches has tended to fall; the United Reformed Church has had that experience, too. We have also discovered that some Baptist ministers and more Baptist members have been able happily to join us on the basis we worked out; this has been important ecumenically, since the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland generally has not felt able to go so far.

Subsequent Developments

My increased awareness of the views taken by a variety of churches had led me to see that very different emphases were placed on baptism on either side of what I had hitherto regarded as the primary baptismal divide (between infant and believers' baptism). In turn, this led me to investigate the recent history of these debates since the Evangelical Revival as far as the publication of BEM in 1982. (That was as far as I could go before the publication of the Responses.)

Without going into the details of the history, I came to see that there was a variety of views among those churches that practised infant baptism, and that the ways in which they accounted for its significance changed over time. In particular, the churches influenced by the Evangelical revival, with its primary emphasis on faith and assurance, were inclined to play down the significance of infant baptism, or even abandon it completely. I also discovered the historical explanation of why the Congregational negotiators in the 1960s had explained, somewhat shamefacedly, that an indeterminate number of their members were not baptized at all; I recalled discovering that the reason why one Presbyterian member was so insistent on infant baptism was that, when the time came for his ordination, he discovered that he had never been baptized--and this had to be arranged quickly! He did not want others to be similarly embarrassed. As I reflected on this degree of change in little more than 12.5 percent of the length of the church's history, I also realized that there must have been comparable changes over a longer period, too. From there it was but a short step to the point which I have never had the time to investigate--the different ways in which the doctrine of baptism has been inculturated in different parts of the world. I will not dizzy you with the variety of topics that we could discuss, but you will see that my understandings had to broaden. Finally, one very important theological emphasis that received new momentum as a result of Vatican II was the understanding of the importance of baptismal priesthood. Expressed in this way, it may not have immediate appeal for Protestants who are wary about priesthood, but if you refer to the "priesthood of all believers," then they immediately jump on board.

Initially as a sideline, but later (in the book) as a more significant discussion, I began to investigate what ordinary people, usually (though not necessarily) Christians, believed about baptism. Already in the 1980s, discussions were beginning about the admission of children to holy communion, a practice that posed a severe challenge to someone like me, who had chosen not to have my three children baptized, since I believed that baptism was a pre-condition for receiving the Lord's supper. I began to see that for many, baptism was as much about horizontal relationships within a family as about a vertical relationship with God. For example, in the case of the baptism that I conducted, the pressure for the service came from the mother's mother. Since the 16th century at least, England, like an arc of northern Europe running through the Netherlands, northern Germany, and the Baltic states, has had a distinctive family pattern, where it was unusual for married children to continue to live with their parents after marriage. The extended family of southern Europe and much of Africa and Asia was unknown. The influence of the patriarchal family in sustaining the religious practice of their children's families was reduced, but at the same time the Protestant Reformation began to increase the number of clergy and enabled the church to take over that role. This makes it easier to understand how and why the radical views of baptism held by a range of new Protestant groups from the Baptists and Mennonites to the Quakers were instinctively regarded as a threat to the family (and therefore to the institutions of society as a whole)--language that to a later generation seemed incomprehensibly extreme.

Similarly, some fascinating work done in oral history in the last two decades has served to bring out the family significance of other birth rituals, such as what in the Church of England used to be called "the churching of women"--in effect, a purification ritual from the uncleanness resulting from childbirth. Ironically, in its most recent service books of 1980 and 2000, the Church of England has transformed this service to one of thanksgiving for childbirth, making it theologically (but probably not anthropologically) the equivalent of the service that many churches that practice only believers' baptism offer to families. If the churching of women seems a long way from 2014, you may be interested to know that the mother of my daughter-in-law was talking about it to us on Christmas Day. Finally, ministering in three village communities for the last 18 months has made me realize in a new way the significance of the link the church gains with families in such communities through offering infant baptism--a link that is increasingly important in a steadily secularizing society. In short, although my theological convictions have only slightly changed in 50 years, I now realize that the potentially individualistic interpretation of believers' baptism risks not only an inadequate view of the nature of the church, but also of the nature of human community. I have always been inclined to argue that, unlike some other religious traditions, Christianity is not primarily about the family and rites of passage--birth, marriage, and death; it is rather about the timetable of redemption--prophecy, incarnation, the ministry of Jesus, his death, resurrection, and ascension, and his final coming at the end of the age. But can we ignore the significance of the family, particularly at a time when its traditional patterns are increasingly changing? This suggests to me a final question: How do we, from our particular perspective, understand the relation of baptism to the family? There is work for us to do here.

DOI: 10.1111/erev.12174

(1) Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry, Faith and Order Paper No. Ill (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1982).

(2) One Baptism: Towards Mutual Recognition-. A Study Text, Faith and Order Paper No. 210 (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2011).

(3) Basis of Union, The United Reformed Church, para. 14, at: http://www.urc.org.uk/jobs/62-general/the-manual/ 595-the-basis-of-union.htm

David Thompson is professor emeritus of modern church history in the University of Cambridge, UK, and a minister of the United Reformed Church, as well as an ecumenical canon of Ely Cathedral. He has been involved in ecumenical work locally, nationally, and internationally for more than 50 years.