Baptism – getting beyond the controversy Part I
This is the first of a short series of posts on Baptism and how baptism in water relates to three other baptisms mentioned in the New Testament: baptism into Christ, baptism with the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit baptising us into the body of Christ, the church.
I want to write something about baptism. But, if possible, get beyond the controversy over the means of baptism (sprinkling or full immersion) or the timing of baptism (infant baptism or ‘believers’ baptism).
In the New Testament, the Greek word ‘baptizo’ is used for a range of contexts, not just water baptism. The purpose of this article is to explore the following three:
Romans 6 Baptism into Christ Jesus
Acts 1 Baptism in the Holy Spirit
1 Cor 12 Baptism by the Spirit into the body of Christ
I’ll divide the blog into four separate posts. These will be published over the coming weeks.
The first is a brief run-through of the historical background to water baptism, particularly in England. It will touch on the ‘church/chapel’ divide and the ‘non-conformist’ denominations that grew up in Europe and England in part over the controversy over infant baptism.
Then a brief look at what Jews in Israel, alive at the time of Jesus and the apostles, would have made of John the Baptist’s insistence on water baptism before tackling the above trio of passages from the New Testament. If you want to go straight to the last section, you can! I’ll mark each section with a sub-heading.
The next three will tackle the three types of baptism, as mentioned above.
Post One: The historical background
My childhood included a reasonable degree of connection with the local Anglican church. This connection with the CofE and Christianity wasn’t limited to attendance of Sunday Morning services; there were the daily school assemblies with scripture readings, hymns and prayers, Ascension Day service in another CofE church, Cubs, then Scouts, and carol services in Canterbury Cathedral.
One way or another I, along with many of my generation, were soaked in scripture, we knew the major bible characters, Adam and Eve, Moses, David, John the Baptist, Jesus, and the parables. But the connection was mostly surface deep; there was little or no discussion about ‘religion’ at home or at school and certainly no expectation to ‘believe’. What was on offer was more tradition than conviction; th church was there for life’s important milestones, ‘hatch, match, and despatch’ – and hatch meant infant baptism, or ‘Christening’. A good excuse for a family celebration, photos, presents, expensive suits and dresses are bought and, if you’re lucky, a good feast is attached. Life goes on.
Anyone who does not ‘conform’ to this pattern is still included and so, whatever their true beliefs; it is the willingness to go along with tradition that keeps the traditions alive. Many Vicars will baptise the infants of atheists and agnostics as much as the children of the more devout. It says something of the place of the CofE in the life of the nation – it is almost seen as part and parcel of their civic duty, a ‘service’, if you will, to anyone born in the Parish.
Baptism in the New Testament was anything but normal or uncontroversial. Nor was it confined to baptism in water. The term ‘baptism’ was a Greek word used around the Mediterranean for a number of contexts and its use in the New Testament is not restricted to water baptism.
‘Baptizo’, the Greek word for baptism, can have a range of everyday meanings such as sprinkling, dipping, or submerging, or immersion. It is used as the verb to immerse a cloth in a dye, or to wash away or cleanse, or, figuratively, be overwhelmed, or buried. John the Baptist and subsequently the writers of the New Testament, would not have thought of the word ‘baptizo’ as a word exclusively related to spiritual matters. It was a word in common use.
‘Baptizo’ : sprinkling, dipping, or submerging, or immersion
Unlike for us. In Britain and elsewhere, the word baptism is almost exclusively used in connection with either christening or as an initiation into a church. It can be used metaphorically, borrowing from biblical phraseology, for example the phrase ‘baptism of fire’ is used for someone of any age who is joining a team or a business that is known to be a challenging project, either due to controversy or great success.
Throughout church history, since the first century, there have been groups of Christians who have believed that the time to baptise an individual is after they have ‘come to faith’, or ‘believed’, or been ‘born again’, or ‘saved’, or ‘converted’ to Christ i.e. not at birth or shortly afterwards. Famous amongst those groups are the Baptists and Anabaptists who were persecuted and discriminated against for holding such subversive and non-conformist views. It seems odd to us in the 21st Century but until the Toleration Act in England in 1688, holding that view about baptism often resulted in imprisonment and execution. So it has a residual element of controversy to this day.
Churches such as Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist, and Quakers are still referred to as ‘non-conformist’ churches and the divide between ‘church’ and ‘chapel’ persists even if the heat has diminished.
In this sense I am a non-conformist. My reading of the bible is that it is only those that had committed their lives to Christ that were baptised – you will not find an exception to this in the pages of the New Testament. An infant cannot be expected to make such a choice! The term ‘anabaptist’ means to re-baptise. Many who joined the anabaptists had previously been christened but were baptised once they had come to faith in Christ.
An often-quoted phrase that summarises the belief about baptism amongst many non-conformists is that baptism is an ‘outward sign of an inward spiritual reality’. Arguments will continue on whether those who are ‘christened’ in infant baptism, can take that baptism as sufficient once the spiritual reality has become their experience later in life. That is a personal decision.
This article is not about the controversy surrounding ‘infant baptism’ or ‘believers’ baptism, or the method of baptism: sprinkling, full immersion, in a river, the sea, and so on. This article is about the spiritual realities that are at the heart of the references in the New Testament with respect to baptizo, or baptism.
John the Baptist and after John
We know from the gospels that John the Baptist baptised many in the River Jordan. Jesus spoke of John’s baptism as a baptism of repentance:
‘The word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. He went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.’ Luke 3 v 3
Not far from where John was baptised were communities of the ‘Essenes’, Jews who were looking for the kingdom of God to appear. To prepare spiritually for the coming of this new kingdom they baptised themselves daily.
John’s baptism, therefore, was similar in that the forgiveness of sins was not simply about being cleansed from personal guilt but, without forgiveness, they would remain in exile, outside the kingdom of God.
When Jesus’ disciples were baptised, the meaning of baptism had advanced, the kingdom of God had arrived in the person of Jesus the Messiah and so the people were now baptised in the Name of Jesus the Messiah (Messiah is the Aramaic word meaning Anointed One, in Greek: ‘Christ’).
Baptism, then, is a highly symbolic act. It represents a clear dividing line between the past and the future.
Later, after Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, and the coming of the Holy Spirit, we see how baptism had taken on new significance. An important insight is given in the opening verses of chapter 19 of Acts:
‘Paul…came to Ephesus and, finding some disciples, he said to them ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’ They said to him, ‘We haven’t heard whether there is a Holy Spirit’. And Paul said to them ‘Into what then were you baptised?’ They said, ‘John’s baptism’. Paul then said, ‘John indeed baptised for repentance saying to the people they should believe on…Christ Jesus’. When they heard this they were baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.’
Today, if a Gentile wishes to become a Jew, he or she is baptised in a pool with a flow of water, like a river. The river flowing past takes away his or her old identity as a Gentile and he or she is raised out of the water as a member of Israel.
Baptism, then, is a highly symbolic act. It represents a clear dividing line between the past and the future.
In the following posts, which are about references in the New Testament using the word ‘baptizo’ but in a different context to water baptism, it is important to hold onto one thing: baptizo was a common Greek word meaning to plunge into or be submerged into or dipped under to be soaked by.
‘Full immersion’ is a good phrase that gets to the heart of the meaning of the word ‘baptizo’. ‘Sprinkling’ is OK but only in the sense of having a very long shower, so you are completely soaked. The very cursory sprinkling carried out by many priests in the CofE or Catholic Churches and others maybe is sufficient ‘symbolically’ but only if you know the true meaning of the word baptizo. Personally, I prefer a full immersion.
I’ve seen baptisms in church baptistries, in the sea, in large tubs in someone’s back garden. I know someone who was so keen to get baptised but was in a hotel in a non-christian country. He prayed and felt God say go and stand on his hotel balcony. It was a hot, arid country. He obeyed this inner ‘nudge’, went outside. A black cloud came overhead and he was deluged in a sudden storm. He took that to be his baptism!! The method is the least of our worries… it’s what baptism means that matters.
I hope you enjoy reading the next few posts.
***
Please click here for Baptism – getting beyond the controversy Part II