Baptism

Have you ever got into an argument about baptism? There can be all sorts of reasons why. You might be arguing over who should be baptized, or when. You may argue over the mode of baptism. You might argue over whether infants should be baptized, or only adults. Some say that living people can be baptized on behalf of others who have died in the past, and to others this seems ridiculous.

Baptism was always meant as something that would distinguish us as something set apart from the rest of the world. But for some reason it's changed. It's no longer the single unifying act that binds all Christians together into the new family of God. Instead baptism is an act that has come to divide us focused on the details.

Galatians 3:26-28 says:

"So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

This is a beautiful description of what baptism is meant to be. Baptism forms a new family. Baptism breaks down the walls of class, race, and gender. We are clothed in Christ. Notice the language that says "all of you who were baptized" are clothed. This means that we're not all individually clothed with Christ, rather we are all, as a community, clothed with Christ together.

I believe that we can still hold a baptism as a faith which will bind us together rather than divide us. This will take a conscious choice on our part to see others as bonded together with us rather than as 'the other.' We can reject the language and culture of divisiveness that uses baptism as an excuse to refuse and exclude.

I have a couple points following that should help us on this road of seeing different forms, ideas, and practices as still part of us.

1) Scripture shows a principle of variety around baptism:

There are many out there who will argue that baptism can only be practiced properly by full immersion. I think that immersion is a beautiful way to baptize. I think that it grips a lot of the major imagery and meaning surrounding baptism, and it would be my first choice. Is it the only way though? I don't think so.

Those who say that immersion is the only way rely heavily on the literal translation of the Greek word baptizo which means 'to dip or immerse.' The argument is basically that we must follow the literal description of this word in order to baptize properly. However, I would say that the meaning of the word 'baptism' as a sacrament naturally means something more and different. In fact it would be necessary for baptism to mean something more and different than simply immersion, or it wouldn't mean anything. Getting wet isn't baptism after all.

Again, I want to renew that I'm not saying that immersion isn't baptism, far from it. What we do say is that the literal meaning of the word does not have to describe the only way to baptize. In fact, in the stories around baptism we see a general principle of variety rather than strict adherence. 

Jesus was baptized in a river. The Ethiopian eunuch was baptized in a pond. The believers in Jerusalem at Pentecostal would have been baptized in pools or fountains. The form of baptism in these cases aren't described in detail, but the body of water itself shows a principle of variety.

In some cases people are baptized and then they receive the Holy Spirit. In other cases they receive the Holy Spirit and because of that they are baptized. This has led to a lot of discussion and debate around whether or not baptism is necessary for receiving the spirit. But the answer is clear to me. The receiving of the spirit and the receiving of baptism happen within variety rather than strictness. 

Finally, in 1 Corinthians 10 Paul describes the ancient Israelites as having been baptized when they crossed the red sea on dry land. Few would suggest that crossing a body of water which is being miraculously divided by God's power as the only acceptable form of baptism. However, this is the only detailed description of a baptismal form in the New Testament. (Beyond simply 'immerse' which could still be performed in a wide variety of ways). 

Again, I want to be explicit that the crossing of the red sea example does not mean that immersion, sprinkling, or pouring are incorrect. Rather it does show a principle of variety. It is obvious to me that Paul was not protecting a sacred idea of the only acceptable form of baptism if he used this and described it as baptism as well.

Throughout scripture, a variety of baptism is seen as acceptable.

2) Baptism is a communal rather than individual reality:

The idea of individualism is an illusion. Nothing we due is truly without consequences on others. Our most secret activities will have subtle or direct impacts on our families, our co-workers, our friends, and our communities. None of us truly live within a vacuum. We cannot live lives which do not directly affect others. So to think that baptism is my baptism is also an illusion. There is no other way to see baptism rather than to see it as our baptism.

In the New Testament there are examples of individuals who are baptized and then their entire households follow suit. The biggest example of this is the jailor in Acts who comes to believe then him and his entire household are baptized. This is the principle of the communal nature of faith. The household believed because the head of the household believed.

Furthermore we can look at this from a more philosophical angle. We are baptized into Christ, but Christ is not only of this generation. There are countless people throughout history who have been baptized and clothed under Christ. And we share our baptism with those people throughout history. Christ is eternal, and those who have died even thousands of years ago, belong to this new family just as strongly as we do.

Here's the point. When we deride, insult, or demean others in the faith for their baptismal practices. When we deny them because their practice and mode are different then ours. When we do these things we are insulting the church of Christ today yesterday and tomorrow. When we insult Christ's church this way we insult Christ himself. If we lose the communal nature of baptism and forget that it clings us all together in Christ then we demean the fullness of Christ's body.

Conclusion:

I can't say that every practice in every denomination is acceptable or true. The baptism of individuals on behalf of those who've died for example (although biblical in a way) is not something I would push for. 

Although I do think that some of our hard-held beliefs are held not because they are truly commanded that way. I think that some of the hard-held beliefs are hard held because they give us a further distinctness. They give us a chance to say who is out more and more, and give a greater significance to our own baptism and faith. But I do nor believe that the exclusion of others can be greater significance to our faith. We can instead refuse to be a part of divisiveness, and choose to see baptism as that great equalizer creating no "Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female."

Discussion Questions:

1. How were you baptized? How was it meaningful to you? Would you change it?
2. When you were baptized did it seem individual or communal? How has that changed?
3. If you have never been baptized, what have you thought through this discussion?
4. How can we treat baptism as something that pulls us together rather than pulls us apart?