In the blog A Year in the New Testament, I've been working my ways through Paul's "first" letter to the church in Corinth....
In the opening chapter of Paul's first letter to the church in Corinth, we see a dispute in the Corinthian church about baptism. Although the details of the dispute have changed, disputing baptism continues to be a Christian "hobby" even today. This is regretful.
The dispute in Corinth was over which leaders to follow and this was marked by one's choice of baptism. One person says, "I was baptized by Apollos" and another says, "I was baptized by Peter!" Paul confronts this by emphasizing that each of these individuals, including himself, are working together, ministering in various ways. One apostle "plants the seeds", another "waters the crops". How then can any one individual claim full responsibility for the bountiful crops?
In recent centuries the dispute has not been over WHO did the baptism, but HOW it was done. The dispute has been over the mode of baptism. I was a member of one church where one MUST be baptized, by immersion, as a believing adult. If one had been baptized as a child (as I was) then one MUST be rebaptized.
I was also a member of another church where baptism of infants was the norm and the baptism was "sprinkling", that is, placing water on the infant's forehead. Adult believers who had been baptized as children could make a commit of renewal in a certain manner, but one was NEVER baptized a second time.
In the first church (a Baptist church), the pastor told a Sunday School class, "I have never met a sincere Bible scholar who believes in infant baptism." A year later I (while on a sabbatical visit) I was in another church (a Presbyterian church) in which the pastor said essentially the exact opposite, "Serious students of the Bible recognize that baptism is a sign of the covenant, like Jewish circumcision, and it has always been practiced with infants."
What would happen if we put those two pastors in the same room together and locked the door? Would it lead to some type of reconciliation? A friend, upon hearing this tale, said wisely, "Those statements say more about the social circles of the two pastors than it does about theology."
Although the dispute has changed, the application of I Corinthians is straightforward. Paul is almost dismissive of baptism. Yes, it is important, but he is happy that he did not baptize anyone! Then he pauses and says, "Well, except for Crispus and Gaius. Oh, wait, also the family of Stephanos. Hmm, after that, I don't recall if I baptized others." He downplays the rite, as it has become divisive. He certainly does not bother to give any instructions on how baptism should be done!
We should follow Paul's example. Baptism is an important public statement of membership in the Kingdom of God. Practice it in that manner. Let us be welcoming of all others who attest to this membership, regardless of the form of that initiation ceremony!
Wikipedia, of course, has a good article on baptism. If you read that, note the discussion on the mode of baptism in the early centuries of the young church.
The letter to the church in Corinth does describe the mode of another "sacrament", that of communion. (See I Corinthians 11: 23-26.) This too we need to practice regularly and in common with other Christians.
We will return to our study of I Corinthians tomorrow at that sister blog....
As you know, I'm with the side that says don't rebaptize, but I think it speaks to your point that baptism is baptism wherever, however, and whenever it is performed. Once is enough. That's the principle of "one baptism" (Eph 4:5). The reason the Reformers refused to rebaptize Catholics was to maintain that principle and preserve at least that one connection to the Church universal, which of course they hoped to reform. One strand of he logic of believers' baptism is expressed most fully among Landmark Baptists, who teach that there are only individual churches and require baptism every time one transfers membership from one Landmark church to another. Sigh.
ReplyDelete