This is difficult for a Methodist. In Beaumont, Texas, Baptist was the default religion. If you weren’t anything else, you were just presumed to be Baptist, or “Babdist,” as we were inclined to say. Whatever else Methodists were, we were not Baptist. The truth is that Baptist piety and practices deeply influenced popular Methodist religion, but Methodist leaders worked hard to distinguish Methodism from Baptist culture. A lot of Methodist “New Member Classes” taught very little about Jesus and God and salvation and stuff like that but were really just extended polemics against Baptist views and practices. So why would I think the Baptists may have been right after all? Well, lets see…
1. Infant baptism isn’t the swooftest idea anyone ever came up with. Methodists have so vehemently defended infant baptism that you would think our Article of Religion would say something like this:
Those damnable heretics who do confound the catholicity of the holy Church of God and contradict the inclusiveness of the community by denying unto young children their rightful place in the Kingdom of God which our Saviour hath promised unto them through the holy sacrament of baptism are to be decried in all places and in all times as enemies of the common grace which God hath ordained unto all of God’s people and as disgusting pisser-offers of the saints.
But that’s not what our Article says. What our Article actually says is the following truly lukewarm nod in the direction of infant baptism:
The baptism of young children is to be retained in the Church.
Ho hum. So let’s face it: the New Testament doesn’t mention infant baptism. It doesn’t explicitly deny it, and it does mention family baptisms (“When she and her household were baptized…” Acts 16:15; and cf. Acts 16:33) without any explicit cut-off age (so it doesn’t add, “excluding of course those kids who were below the Age of Accountability”). Moreover, the United Methodist Church and many other churches that baptize infants have “received” an important ecumenical document, the WCC Faith and Order text on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1984), which states that, “baptism upon personal profession of faith is the most clearly attested pattern in the New Testament documents” (BEM, section on baptism, p. 4). That’s correct. In fact, the Catholic Church and some other churches have begun to emphasize that adult baptism should be seen as the theologically normative form of baptism, since it involves all elements of Christian formation together, even though infant baptism continues to be practiced. So in the 1988 United Methodist Hymnal, for the first time the service of adult baptism with profession of faith comes first and the ritual for infant baptism and baptism for others unable to answer for themselves comes second.
Those of us who practice infant baptism – and the baptism of other people who are unable to answer for themselves – do so because we believe that baptism is the means by which we incorporate people into the Christian community, whether they are below the “age of accountability” or not and whether they’ve professed a conversion experience or not. I’m not opposed to infant baptism, but infant baptism leads terribly easily to the idea that incorporation into a Christian community can somehow substitute for personal commitment. It can’t. See number three below. But meanwhile…
2. Immersion should be the preferred mode of Christian baptism. It really should be. Among the guild of historians, there’s little doubt that immersion was the normative mode of baptism in the earliest Christian communities. The word baptizein itself means “to dip.” So “John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim because water was abundant there” (John 3:23). Get it? Get over it, Methodists.
Catholics have all-but ruled out sprinkling these days because of the altogether casual connotations sprinkling has had in Christian history, like when medieval priests threw water in the direction of Saxony in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and proclaimed the Saxons then to be Christians. Sprinkling carries the connotation of easy religion, casual religion. It’s just as cute as it can be.
Methodists have prided themselves in the past on the supposed freedom they have to sprinkle, pour, or immerse candidates for baptism. But having no (deep) baptisteries in our churches, sprinkling has been the dominant mode by far. It’s cute and casual, and you can do it with a rose to make it even cuter and more casual. It’s a “sacrament lite,” dudes, like using grape juice instead of what Jesus said… Don’t get me started down that path.
It’s not that I think early Christians were terribly worried about the quantity of water. The second-century Didache document has a passage stating that Christians should be immersed three times in running water (like a running stream), but if you don’t have running water, then three times in still water will suffice, and if you don’t have enough of that, then you can pour water three times. No biggie, but no doubt immersion was the preferred mode. Get over it; get over it; get over it. Reach out in faith and build baptisteries. Big ones.
3. Christian faith demands a heart-felt decision on the part of a believer. Wait – that sounds like a Methodist thing… Well it did. It’s tragic that we would have to say this but sure enough, look what happened. The language of “confirmation,” deleted by John Wesley from his edition of the Book of Common Prayer, crept into our churches without official sanction and so then we sanctioned it and guess what we do now? Just like our pals in Established and Imperial Churches we ask all the kids in the sixth grade or the seventh grade to go through confirmation class all at the same time so it’s a social ritual, a social promotion. More cuteness. Wear a nice dress. Welcome to Christ’s one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. We’ll send you the pledge card next week. True fact: we probably have more church members because we more or less pressure all the kids in one grade to join. Truer fact: we don’t expect a very high level of commitment to Jesus Christ, do we?
Baptists and other Evangelicals can pressure kids (and grownups) into making commitments to Jesus. Yes, I know how to do the “Now as every head is bowed and every eye is closed, I want to see the hands of those who are going to give their hearts to Jesus tonight. Praise God! Hands are going up all over the auditorium…” routine. I was always looking. Bad boy. Can’t we figure out a way to call for genuine heartfelt commitment to Jesus Christ without either running a class through the vat of confirmation all at one time, or without the hokey high-pressure conversions?
4. There are some really good things about congregational autonomy. Methodists are terribly proud of our “connectionalism” but if you ask a lot of folks they’ll say their congregation is just fine, thank you very much, it’s the denomination that’s so screwed up. And let’s face it, a lot of United Methodists are United Methodists because of our brilliant trust clauses. That means that if you stop being a United Methodist, you have to give up that church building that grandpa built. Can you think of a worse way to enforce denominational loyalty? Oh yeah – I forgot: confirmation classes when we pressure everybody in a single grade to say they’re committing their lives to Jesus and our church. So there you have it: the trust clause is only the second worst way to call for loyalty to one’s denomination. But it’s pretty bad. Ooh am I saying we could give up all that property and still “make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” Well yeah, the thought actually crossed my mind.
But I’m supposed to be talking about Baptists. Yeah, some of those old Babdists in Texas get really carried away with the congregational autonomy thing and say that every time you join a congregation you need to be baptized because as far as they’re concerned the other supposed congregations don’t exist and the same of course goes for the Lord’s Supper so if your old Momma is dying and she’s a member of the Salem Landmark Baptist Church (SBC) and you’re a member of the Antioch Baptist Church (SBC) then no you can’t share the Lord’s Supper with her. But I’ll tell you something: I can find you Methodist congregations just as weird as those Landmark Baptists. (I think…)
The truth is that denominations are complex franchising organizations in which we enfranchise some groups to do carry out certain functions (like ordaining clergy) and we enfranchise other groups to carry out other functions (like publishing Sunday School literature or sending out missionaries). Our franchises shift with the passing decades. Is it a matter of fundamental Christian principles that only the bishop and the elders of the conference should ordain clergy, or should lay folk have a voice and vote in that process? Should only the Baptist Missionary Board send out missionaries, or might a congregation do that on their own? I say we can figure out stuff like that, but some level of congregational autonomy is a good thing. (I’m still trying to think of Methodist congregations as weird as Landmark Baptists…)
5. I think I like those Baptist Deacons. I do not of course mean those “Demon Deacons.” I like the idea that some people in a congregation are permanently recognized as leaders of the congregation and are expected to know the denomination’s (and the congregation’s) history and polity and means of worship. Presbyterians have ordained elders in local congregations who function in this way. Wouldn’t that be a cool idea for Methodists? Here’s a really weird thought: we could call them “Stewards.” Nah, that’s too far fetched.
Who are the most famous Baptists in America today? Let’s see… Billy Graham, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton. Dang, since Jerry Falwell died, I guess they’re all Democrats. Go figure. Maybe that man from Arkansas… no, not Clinton, the other one…
Hang in there, Baptists. We need you badly. We need you to be Baptists. It would be groovy if some day you could recognize that we’re baptized, but don’t be distracted. Keep calling us to real commitment to Jesus and some day we’ll feast in the Kingdom together.
sensenonsense
April 6, 2011 at 9:15 pm
I’ve been saying a lot that I wish Baptists would really be Baptists and Republicans would really be Republicans.
jeanniecampbell
April 7, 2011 at 9:53 am
As a Southern Baptist displaced in the land of fruits and nuts (California) where SBC churches rarely resemble SBC churches I attended in the South, I wholeheartedly agree with this post, which is why I am a deacon at a Presbyterian church with a closet Baptist pastor who brings in a jacuzzi to dunk people.
Jeannie
The Character Therapist
arkie55
April 30, 2011 at 10:09 pm
I remember a Methodist couple coming to my dad, a Church of Christ preacher, and requesting that he immerse them. I got the impression that their preacher wouldn’t do it. I was rather young, and don’t remember much about the specific circumstances.
Staci Stewart Brian
July 23, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Great article
owngoalnetworks
October 21, 2011 at 6:02 pm
“That’s correct. In fact, the Catholic Church and some other churches have begun to emphasize that adult baptism should be seen as the theologically normative form of baptism”
could you please supply an authoritative source for your claim
Ted Campbell
October 21, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Responding to owngoalnetworks: The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1996, paragraphs 1229-1233) describes the elaborate catechumen ate (process of Christian initiation) in the ancient church, with adult baptism) as a normative practice, with infant baptism as seen as involving “the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way” (par. 1231, see below) whereas the adult catechumen ate (with adult baptism) involves all of the stages in their fullest expression. When I say that adult baptism is seen as “theologically normative,” I mean this in contrast to “normative in practice” or “statistically normative.” /ted
The text of the relevant paragraphs of the Catechism (see http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM) is as follows:
—
1229 From the time of the apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This journey can be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential elements will always have to be present: proclamation of the Word, acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith, Baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to Eucharistic communion.
1230 This initiation has varied greatly through the centuries according to circumstances. In the first centuries of the Church, Christian initiation saw considerable development. A long period of catechumenate included a series of preparatory rites, which were liturgical landmarks along the path of catechumenal preparation and culminated in the celebration of the sacraments of Christian initiation.
1231 Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. the catechism has its proper place here.
1232 The second Vatican Council restored for the Latin Church “the catechumenate for adults, comprising several distinct steps.”34 The rites for these stages are to be found in the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA).35 The Council also gives permission that: “In mission countries, in addition to what is furnished by the Christian tradition, those elements of initiation rites may be admitted which are already in use among some peoples insofar as they can be adapted to the Christian ritual.”36
1233 Today in all the rites, Latin and Eastern, the Christian initiation of adults begins with their entry into the catechumenate and reaches its culmination in a single celebration of the three sacraments of initiation: Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist.37
owngoalnetworks
October 24, 2011 at 4:25 am
(par. 1231)
I think it a far reach to claim this particular paragraph from the Catholic Church Catechism is suggesting adult baptism, or “believer’s baptism” (as known amongst certain non-Catholics), as the normative form.
No, more correctly the chosen wording of ” very abridged” is revealing the reality of our Christian baptism as expressed in, (par. 1275, see below )
Would it have not been more precise to quote Chapter 4 – Who can Receive Baptism? from Article 1 The Sacrament of Baptism (see: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3K.HTM) if wanting to gain insight into what the Catholic Church has always taught on baptism?
excerpt:
The Baptism of infants
1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. the Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth. (51)
1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them. (52)
1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized. (53)
——–
To the best of my knowledge biblical examination does not deny infant baptism of the first century. And would it not be reasonable to assume stories mentioning adult baptism, are mentioning a first generation of converts who just happen to be heads of households who will instruct within that realm? Much more akin to recruitment of leadership verse a denial of initiation to infants don’t you think.
In Closing, contrary to suggestions here and possibly elsewhere, Catholicism/Orthodoxy has is no way altered what it has always taught on baptism to favor adult over infant baptism as a “normative” form.
What we can glean from paragraph 1231 which you have chosen to quote, is more correctly how the baptismal sacrament is celebrated as per the chapter title (III. How is the Sacrament of Baptism Celebrated?) and not whether it be more valid or normative in relation to the age of catechumenate.
is our faith received from baptismal grace (whether one as received adult or infant baptism) is a process of development.
additional source reference:
IN BRIEF 1272-1284 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3O.HTM)
paragraph 1275
Christian initiation is accomplished by three sacraments together: Baptism which is the beginning of new life; Confirmation which is its strengthening; and the Eucharist which nourishes the disciple with Christ’s Body and Blood for his transformation in Christ.
paragraph 1282
Since the earliest times, Baptism has been administered to children, for it is a grace and a gift of God that does not presuppose any human merit; children are baptized in the faith of the Church. Entry into Christian life gives access to true freedom.
Peace to you
Ted Campbell
October 21, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Note in the above that the blessed spell checker has made the single word “catechumenate” into “catechumen ate.” I don’t know what the catechumen ate.
owngoalnetworks
October 22, 2011 at 9:11 am
(par. 1231)
I think it a far reach to claim this particular quote from the Catholic Church Catechism is suggesting adult baptism, or “believer’s baptism” (as known amongst certain non-Catholics), as the normative form.
No, more correctly the chosen wording of ” very abridged” is revealing the reality of our Christian baptism as expressed in, (par. 1275, see below )
Would it have not been more precise to quote Chapter 4 – Who can Receive Baptism? from Article 1 The Sacrament of Baptism (see: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3K.HTM) if wanting to gain insight into what the Catholic Church has always taught on baptism?
excerpt:
The Baptism of infants
1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. the Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth. (51)
1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them. (52)
1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized. (53)
——–
To the best of my knowledge biblical examination does not deny infant baptism of the first century. And would it not be reasonable to assume stories mentioning adult baptism, are mentioning a first generation of converts who just happen to be heads of households who will instruct within that realm? Much more akin to recruitment of leadership verse a denial of initiation to infants don’t you think.
In Closing, contrary to suggestions here and possibly elsewhere, Catholicism/Orthodoxy has is no way altered what it has always taught on baptism to favor adult over infant baptism as a “normative” form.
What we can glean from paragraph 1231 which you have chosen to quote, is more correctly how the baptismal sacrament is celebrated as per the chapter title (III. How is the Sacrament of Baptism Celebrated?) and not whether it be more valid or normative in relation to the age of catechumenate.
is our faith received from baptismal grace (whether one as received adult or infant baptism) is a process of development.
additional source reference:
IN BRIEF 1272-1284 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3O.HTM)
paragraph 1275
Christian initiation is accomplished by three sacraments together: Baptism which is the beginning of new life; Confirmation which is its strengthening; and the Eucharist which nourishes the disciple with Christ’s Body and Blood for his transformation in Christ.
paragraph 1282
Since the earliest times, Baptism has been administered to children, for it is a grace and a gift of God that does not presuppose any human merit; children are baptized in the faith of the Church. Entry into Christian life gives access to true freedom.
Peace to you
owngoalnetworks
October 22, 2011 at 9:23 am
Ted you wrote at the end of your initial reply,
(When I say that adult baptism is seen as “theologically normative,” I mean this in contrast to “normative in practice” or “statistically normative.”)
I understand you clearly however I feel others might just have missed the point if not reading the fineprint! In any case, both adults and infants who enter into the community are entering into the faith of the community as explained more fully by the Church and therefore both adults and infants regardless of individual acclaimations are on a path of learning which is yet complete upon baptism. Faith is a process and that is what is truly theologically normative
Mitchell
April 12, 2012 at 11:10 pm
I, personally, like the Demon Deacons. Go Deacs.