Membership and Baptism...the new circumcision?

[Barry Mast]

As a lifetime resident of the Anabaptist tradition (born and raised in the Mennonite Church) and a 20 year resident of the Mennonite Brethren church, I have constantly been unsettled about the role of "membership" in the North American context. It seems that baptism is intimately connected with membership in the local church and that membership is required if one wishes to exercise democratic voting rights (a whole other level of discomfort for me) and engage in leadership positions. Additionally, baptism is often required to be in certain ways (dunking vs sprinkling, adult vs infant, prerequisite for membership vs aside from membership, etc.).

My understanding of baptism in the Anabaptist context is primarily one of symbolism and voluntary association. My question is thus... Should baptism be a requirement for inclusion in Christian community guidance and discernment (aka "membership")? If so, why? If not, is it possible to provide symbolic recognition of a person's commitment to Jesus in ways other than baptism?

When I think of all this, I am reminded of Paul's letter to the Romans. If Paul had written Romans 2.28-29 to me, he might have said something like this:

"A person is not a Christian who is one only outwardly, nor is baptism merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Christian who is one inwardly; and baptism is baptism of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code [of membership]. Such a person's praise is not from other people, but from God."

Have we re-constructed a barrier to community by requiring baptism along the same lines as Paul's confrontation of Jews who wish to exclude Gentiles over the issue of circumcision?

[Nathanael Snow]

Water-dunking baptism may have been adopted because it was very public, very inexpensive, and nicely symbolic. Otherwise I don't see a need to practice baptism in any particular way.
What seems important to me is the voluntary identification with an openly persecuted group.
That said, I like to apply my reading of Ayn Rand when thinking about the sacraments.
Rand detested any human making a claim on the life of another. If a person could not survive on their own labor and voluntary exchange with others they should have the dignity to get out of the way. It would require a humility unthinkable to beg for help from another, and a sense of entitlement which despises both self and other to make a claim on the life of another.
Yet, we recognize our need for Christ the moment we encounter Him honestly. And we recognize that He who had every right to make a claim on our lives gave Himself for us. So we give Him total claim on our lives in gratitude. This is communion.
Then we extend the claim Christ has on our lives to those He came to save. First to the world. Then more specifically to the church. These two are demonstrated in baptism. Which is why it is the one Christian demonstration which really ought to be done in public.
Finally, many of us have the opportunity to extend ourselves in particular to our spouses, giving them the right to make claims upon our lives, and in particular, upon our bodies.
Within this context baptism finds its rightful place. Anyone not willing to give themselves to the church, that the church might make a claim on them, is not really committed. They don't really belong. They don't really have an interest in the decisions the church makes together.
This does not mean that they don't belong at church, just that the church is not making a claim on them, and will not do so until they volunteer themselves unto such claims.
Water baptism may work as a way of marking the establishment of the covenant between the particular believer and the church. Signing our names to paper is too legal, and kingdom of this world. Cutting of a covenant is inappropriate since Christ has shed His blood once and for all. Water is publicly memorable, making it easy for the congregation to remember who has given themselves to the church and who has not, and easy for the world to remember as well.

[Andrew Cornelius]

Yes, an unnecessary barrier has been constructed. I'm with you regarding your concerns, Barry.

[Scott Peterson]

Part of joining into a Christ centered community is submitting ourselves to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not a barrier, it is a matter of denying oneself.

[Alan Stucky]

My first reaction to this question was a very strong "HOLY CRAP WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?!' After my gut reaction I took a step back to analyze both my problems with what you have proposed and why I might have reacted so strongly.

Personally, I am deeply rooted in my Anabaptist heritage. Part of that is an understanding that baptism, specifically, is at the core of why we even exist as a sect/denomination. (We're called "re-baptizers" for crying out loud) Many Anabaptists died for this issue specifically and to so simply dismiss the practice seems trite, disrespectful, and incredibly ignorant of our tradition. But....even as I write this I recognize that this line of logic might be the same as the hard line Jews in the circumcision debate, which gives me some indegestion. So, upfront let me name my emotional and personal investment....but don't discount what I say next because of that.

On the current practice of Baptism: some problems.
Anabaptists, while they challenged this key practice of the church, wanted to get it right, not to do away with it. Part of the motivation for early Anabaptists to get Baptism right was a sense that Baptism was equated with salvation. Currently we have, at least intellectually and theologically, divorced Baptism from salvation in favor of the understanding that salvation is tied to an inner commitment or change. (which, as a side note, is something that is heavily influenced by the individualism of Western Modernity. This is also problematic, especially compared with the way Christianity functions in the majority of the world). On some level the Anabaptists held up the need for inner change but they also held that those inner changes could be marked by external changes and signs as well. One of the specific problems with Baptism today is that there still is a lot of confusion as to it's meaning and purpose. (Here I will speak from a a specific Anabaptist-Mennonite persuasion, as opposed to other versions of Anabaptism or Christianity) As a pastor who has worked a lot with youth, I'm amazed at the number of parents who feel a real anxiety to get their kids baptized before they leave for college and "loose their faith". This is a very real, and sometimes very strong, remnant of the old idea that Baptism is tied to salvation. Even in a tradition and culture that flat our rejects this idea, it still exists on a primal level. This has also led to Anabaptists pushing Baptism younger and younger. When we have churches who are Baptising 6 year olds, we can hardly call ourselves "Adult Baptizers".

This is also a significant problem because in the Anabaptist tradition, Baptism is rightly tied with Membership. We explicitly believe that the Christian life is most fully lived within specific groups of committed followers of Jesus. There are many aspects to the implications of this theology. Yes, you can get in touch with God hiking or riding a horse, but there are many things that are critical to the Christian life that you can't do without other people. One of the Baptismal vows is to give and receive counsel (accountability). You have to have others to do that. You have to have others to do communal discernment of scripture, or spiritual gifts, or interpretation of prophecy and the list goes on. All of this assumes a full, adult participation in the life of the church. Most people don't want to let a 6 year old be on the trustees committee, but if we really believe in Adult Baptism then we need to see them as capable of those positions. In my view, the correction to this is not actually to let 6 year olds on the building committee, but rather to start baptizing adults again and quit baptizing children.

Part of what I'm really saying is that we need to get back to a better understanding of what Baptism really is, rather than the misunderstood, lax practice that currently exists. So, if you mean "baptism" in that distorted sense, I would probably be willing to say it's an artificial barrier. Baptism rightly understood in an Anabaptist sense is primarily about common commitment to Christ and to a particular church, not about arbitrarily excluding outsiders. There is, however, a place for being clear about who is, and who is not a part of the group. The Early Church closed their worship services to non-members. The Early Anabaptists were always on guard for those who were trying to infiltrate and destroy their gatherings. There are still people who wish to do damage to the church. Asking people not only to commit to a group of of Christians but also to submit to the authority of the church before exerting influence within that church is not too much to ask. The distinction between member and non-member is not only acceptable but in some situations it is absolutely critical. Currently, in some churches, this has expressed itself in "democratic" methods of voting or church governance. I would, however, seriously challenge the assumption that churches are simply reflections of the democratic process. Some are, many are not. The core of the membership question is not about "rights" (that's a western notion), it's about commitment and submission. Baptism and Membership should be rightly seen as together. Baptism symbolizes commitment to Christ. Membership symbolizes commitment to the Body of Christ, which is the church. They're not separable.

Water Baptism is a symbol. If you really want to break it down, you're just getting wet. The power comes in what it symbolizes. I think that it's incredibly important to have public, outward symbols that mark us as different from others. (John Howard Yoder's "Body Politics" is a great resource on this) Part of being a Christian means commitment to others, simply saying that you want to hang out with a group of Christians for a while isn't good enough. I believe the term you used was "voluntary association". Association is a different thing than commitment. On some level, Baptism and Membership are simply symbols, but as the early Anabaptists understood, there is a connection between the inner and the outer that shouldn't be understated. I also think that it's incredibly important that whatever that symbol is be universally shared among Christians. Yes we're connected to our specific group but it's also important that we share practices and symbols universally. (I also recognize that baptism is not universally understood but it is universally practiced in various ways) If you are willing to discard Baptism are you then willing do discard Eucharist/Communion as well? I would hope not. We need big, universally practiced symbols. They bind us together. They mark us as different from the world around us. Baptism currently functions as a symbol on this level.


Some question for Barry and others:
Why is this an issue for you? I don't want to discount your experience but rather I want to understand. Are there certain people or situations that you're thinking of? What's the real question that you're asking?

What other large symbols would you suggest in place of Baptism?

What are the possible consequences of dropping this practice/symbol? There were groups of Anabaptists that were highly individualistic and didn't see any need for outward symbols/practices/gatherings/etc... It's worth noting that they have faded into history.

Barry and Andrew: build a better case for rejecting Baptism. You might not be wrong, but one line simply saying it's a problem isn't good enough. You're better than that. And what you're suggesting is serious enough that you had better back it up. (I also recognize that I'm probably not the one you really need to justify your beliefs to, nor is an online post the best place to make decisions for the church. Nevertheless, you need to offer more of a clear critique)




Maybe I'm taking the side of the Pharisees. But this practice is something that is defining of Christianity. It is worth noting that yes, the early church ultimately said that circumcision was no longer the defining symbol. Instead, they held up Baptism as the defining symbol of commitment and covenant. It is also worth noting that we are now no longer Jewish. The first Christians saw themselves as a Jewish sect. Circumcision was/is the primary mark of Judaism. By rejecting that, they changed the church into something that was not Judaism. In this sense, history has ultimately shown that the hard line Jewish Christians may have actually been right. Considering that Jesus himself wasn't particularly interested in leaving Judaism, I wonder if the early Christians actually made the right choice. They weren't wrong that circumcision was primarily about an inner commitment, but their decision to do away with it meant that they took the church in a direction that meant they left the faith that birthed them. Let's say that some people who currently call themselves Christians may do away with Baptism as a symbol of commitment. History tells us that over time what the group turns into may no longer be Christianity but something new. That decision must be weight with grave seriousness.

[Barry Mast]

I would imagine that the church at large during the Radical Reformation would also have thought "Holy Crap! What are you thinking?!" when the Anabaptists stopped baptizing infants and starting re-baptizing adults. In my understanding, the Anabaptist "switch" included deep theological and symbolic shifts. Not only were early Anabaptists ready to die for this new shift but others were equally as ready to kill them for it.

I am certainly not advocating for an abandonment of Christian baptism. I think it is a beautiful symbol and a deep Christian tradition. I'm just seeking a bit of clarity in a world peppered with strong yet differing opinions as to the "proper" meaning and method. I totally agree that a covenant relationship in a faith community is essential for Christian discipleship. I am just not so sure that we have the wisdom to be quite so definitive as to who is in and who is out; who is committed and who is just along for the ride; at least not based on the one time (or in my case, two time) event of baptism. As important (and biblical) as I think baptism is, I do not think that it is THE boundary marker. Spiritual gifts and "fruit" are cited more often than baptism in scripture as visible, tangible, and discernible evidence of one's true commitment to Jesus and rebirth in the spirit.

I am a bit surprised to hear that the early church may have gotten it wrong by doing away with the circumcision requirement. This seems to pit tradition against the scriptural text. In view of scripture, baptism (in the case of John) was a water baptism of confession and repentance (not necessarily of incorporation). Additionally, John recognized that, while his was a water baptism, someone was to come after him that would baptize with Spirit and with fire (Matt 3.11). Does that mean we, as a faith community, can also baptize with fire instead of water? If, for example, the symbolism of water baptism points to "purification", fire could serve to point to refining and testing of true commitment (cf. 1 Cor 3.10ff). Granted, I'm not advocating something painful as an initiation rite but the symbolism does seem pretty powerful (albeit destructive).

Some other random scriptural thoughts...

In Mark 10, Jesus seems to be using the image of baptism as an allusion to his impending crucifixion. Is this meant to say to his disciples... "Are you ready to follow me even in the face of baptism by death?" Is baptism in this case meant to be a test of commitment to the Way?

Acts 2.38 seems to suggest that baptism is the precursor to indwelling by the Holy Spirit. Acts 10.47, on the other hand, suggests that baptism is a response to an already existing indwelling of the Spirit.

The mass baptism of Acts 2.41 makes it a little hard for me to believe there was a 7 week membership course followed by a public baptism (something I went through at the age of 13 in the Mennonite Church). Does this, in any way, provide scriptural impetus to loosen our connection between baptism and membership-as-a-covenant-commitment-to-a-local-community?

A bit of background... As I mentioned before I was baptized by sprinkling in the Mennonite Church when I was 13. During college I had nothing to do with any particular Christian community. I essentially checked out. When I got married at 21, my wife and I went back to the church but this time to a Southern Baptist one that required I be baptized by immersion (with which I complied in order to be accepted as a member). Now that I have been baptized in both modes, no one has every requested I renew my commitment to Jesus or to a local faith community. My "membership" now transfers rather easily when I move. If one aspect of baptism is a sign of covenant commitment to a local community, shouldn't we do it each time we move to another community? This seems to take into account the reality of the mobile society in which we live. It is far too easy to move to a community where no one knows me from Adam.

One last random comment... baptism seems to be in a different category than the Lord's supper. Communion is repeated and quite often. Baptism is normally a one time event. Maybe, to reinvest it with seriousness and meaning we should baptize as often as we take the Eucharist. Does that suggestion also elicit a "Holy Crap!" ?

[Alan Stucky]

Barry,

First let me say thank you for the vigorous and thoughtful response. You definitely have provided more food, and scripture for thought and the discussion.

So, looking back on what I wrote about the pro-circumcision Christians, I'm not totally sure that I agree with my own statement....but maybe I do. It's at least provocative. It's worth noting that the records of the circumcision discussion that we have are from the side that was against circumcision being mandatory, who also happened to win. That doesn't mean that I ultimately agree with the pro-circumcision group, but it's worth noting the textual bias. Also, I didn't mean to say that the church made the wrong decision regarding circumcision. What I was trying to say is that that decision fundamentally changed the practices of the church and made it no longer Jewish. Granted, that symbol is tied to other shifts in self-understanding by the early Christians, but the loss of that symbol happened alongside and partly facilitated other changes.

Scripturally, the "baptism as test of commitment" point is very interesting. It brings to mind early Anabaptists who referred to being put to death in final baptismal terms. Drowning, specifically, was often referred to as their 3rd baptism. I'm fairly sure that "baptism by fire" (in a very literal sense) is also referred to by the Anabaptists.

Your use of Acts 2 feels a bit problematic and proof texty to me. Here's what I mean. You site 2:38 and 2:41 seemingly as unrelated and making two different points. Rather the whole chapter needs to be taken together. In 2:41, don't discount acts 2:1-36. This group of 3,000 has just witnessed the Holy Spirit poured out on the disciples, and has had Peter give them a rather long explanation of what that meant and who Jesus was. Here, teaching (or catechism) comes before baptism. It is in response to that event and teaching that the crowd asks what they must do, and the response from the disciples is to repent and be baptized. In addition, vs 43-47 shows that it was their commitment to Jesus symbolized by baptism that then formed them into the church. If anything, Act 2:41 strengthens the connection between baptism, commitment to Christ, and formation into the Body of Christ which is the church. In terms of the dichotomy between 2:38 and 10:47.....well......sometimes things conflict. It's pretty hard to say that they easily fit together. Which, I might add, is probably part of the message to Peter. God works in multiple ways....deal with it, Peter (and that probably means me too). Nevertheless, In 2:38 and 10:47, baptism and the Holy Spirit are still inseparably linked.

Being of a tradition that is called the re-baptizers, I probably shouldn't be freaked out by your suggestion of repeated baptism similar to communion. I have a couple of disjointed thoughts.
- since, I think, both you and I would point to baptism as a symbol of an inner change/state, the idea of repeating that act seems unnecessary and somewhat problematic. I bristled strongly and the Baptist requirement of baptism in the correct mode. Not that Mennonites are above that or haven't done it, it just still bothers me in general that any church would focus on how you get wet as opposed to how your heart is.
- on the other hand, the social pressure to baptize teens in the Mennonite church is enormous. My sister went through catechism and decided not to get baptized, unlike all of her peers. She eventually did decide to get baptized, but at the time that she did it, the only people who ever rejected baptism were usually considered on the fringes and "going to hell" anyways. (I characterize that group somewhat sarcastically. I have since come to see those stereotypes as unhelpful.) For her, a member of a core church family, to reject it, at least momentarily, brought massive scorn and misunderstanding. Now, I would be most critical of the church for not recognizing someone who was actually being true to the spirit of baptism being tied to an owned faith, something they would have all professed. That's all to say that, being as though you left the faith after your first baptism, would you consider it a valid baptism or one of social constraint/convenience? If so, then what is the meaning of that baptism? (for the record, when I was baptized, it was what i call a "cattle trough" baptism. Everyone was doing it. I have since reclaimed meaning in that event that I was not aware of or did not feel at the time. It has been my only baptism to date.)

You are right that Baptism is a one time ritual and communion is repeated....kind of. In many Baptismal services the witnessing congregation is invited to renew their own Baptismal vows as the new candidates are Baptized. The Church of the Brethren Ministers Manual offers these words " After the Last Baptism the minister may turn to the congregation and say Relive the time when you promised to be a disciple of Jesus Christ and vowed your faithfulness to the church. Let this time of baptism mark the renewal of your baptismal vows. Then the minister lifts water in her or his cupped hands and lets it fall back again while saying: Sisters and brother, the water is for us all. Remember your baptism and be thankful." (Italics and bold theirs) In some sense we do repeat the practice, or at least we repeat the commitment to Christ repeatedly.

That being said, I did have a bit of "holy crap" reaction to intentionally repeating it over and over. I'm not totally sure why though. The Anabaptists would have seen their infant baptism as invalid, therefore needing a valid one. If we are to assume that the baptism that one receives as an adult is valid, then theologically, there isn't a need for a second one. Unless there is a stark rejection of faith and then reclamation later, or something of that nature. I'll have to give that more thought as to exactly why it bothers me.

In anycase, I thank you for this meaningful discussion. In my work as a pastor I don't often come across many church members who are able to push me on my growing edges. Even at the young age of 28, because I have been forced to think through faith and other issues to a high degree in my seminary training, I often find myself miles beyond (or at least in a different direction) than most of the people I work with. It's not a criticism on them, but rather you all (whether you know it or not) are an integral part of my self-care as a pastor out here on the prairies.

Peace,
alan