Baptism. The initiation rite practiced by most Christian churches, in which water is applied to the participant. The rite is related to certain spiritual truths bound up with one’s new status, including death and new life, cleansing from sin and the presence of the Spirit.
New Testament Background and History. The term “baptism” is a transliteration from the Greek words referring to the action of washing with, or plunging into (literally, “surrounding with”) water. While some scholars have tried to trace the early Christian practice to various sources, including Jewish and pagan rituals, the church has claimed the New Testament precedent of Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist (Mt 3:13) and Jesus’ command to baptize disciples (Mt 28:19) as the origin and authority for the Christian rite.
The practice of both John the Baptist and the early church seems to have included the dipping of the participant in the baptismal water (as in Acts 8:38–39), although it is possible that the practice of pouring water over the participant had already been introduced. In the early church the name of “the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5) or the trinitarian formula (Mt 28:19) was invoked at baptism, for by this rite the participant was symbolically placed “into the Lord.”
The New Testament employs several models from the Old Testament to indicate the meaning of baptism, including the exodus (1 Cor 10:1–2), circumcision (Col 2:11–12) and the flood (1 Pet 3:19–20). But of greater importance than these Old Testament events for Christian baptism are the paradigm of Jesus’ death and resurrection (Rom 6:3–5). The rite of baptism indicates a person’s union with Christ and the spiritual realities of forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 1 Pet 3:21) and the reception of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13).
By extension this union with Christ also includes union with the body of Christ, the church (1 Cor 12:13). And it symbolizes the confirming of a covenant with God, for the rite is an outward pledge of a person to God made possible by the salvation which comes through the resurrection of Jesus (1 Pet 3:21). This baptismal confession is subsequently reaffirmed through participation in the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 10:14–21).
In each of these senses, baptism is a visual word of proclamation, declaring the death and resurrection of Christ on behalf of sinners and the baptized person’s participation in Christ. At the same time, the practice of the rite issues a call for response. The baptizing community is called to nurture its own and to complete the mandate to baptize all nations (Mt 28:19–20). Onlookers are called to make the same confession being declared by the rite. And the participant is called to walk in newness of life, reaffirming in daily living the baptismal vow (Rom 6:3–8).
In linking the participant with Christ’s death and resurrection, baptism carries an eschatological orientation. It points beyond initiation into the Christian life to the process of sanctification and the continual renewal of the believer by the Spirit (2 Cor 3:18; Rom 8:10). This process will one day result in a final, total transformation at the Lord’s return (Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 15:51–57).
Specific instructions for baptism were developed in the patristic era. The Didache, for example, stipulated the type of water to be employed (preferably a running stream of cold water). And later writings reveal the growth of an involved initiation process, as the church sought to incorporate a large number of converts from pagan backgrounds. Sometime after the second century, the baptism of infants and the mode of sprinkling were introduced. However, believer’s baptism (the rite as a profession of the personal faith of the participant) and immersion (placing the participant fully under water) continued in general use up to the Middle Ages. Eventually the sprinkling of infants gained ascendancy throughout the church, a practice which the Protestant Reformers affirmed against the so-called Anabaptists in the sixteenth century. Nevertheless, believer’s baptism and immersion have been seen as valid options by nearly all Christian traditions and are the sole practice of several Protestant groups.
Baptism in Church Traditions. Christian churches have understood the meaning of baptism in various ways. While all declare baptism to be both a divine and a human act, pedobaptist groups (those who practice infant baptism) have tended to emphasize the side of the divine action, whereas believer baptists stress the human response. The divine agency involved in baptism is variously interpreted. According to one view, baptismal regeneration, the rite works regeneration, as God produces through the act what baptism signifies. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches tie the Spirit’s regenerative action closely to the act itself (ex opere operato). Some Episcopalians (See Anglicanism) and confessional Lutherans understand the regenerative nature of baptism more in covenantal terms, as the rite places one within the church covenant (Episcopal) or as it constitutes God’s covenantal promise of life (Lutheran). An understanding akin to baptismal regeneration is also maintained in a believer-baptist context by certain followers of the nineteenth-century American churchman Alexander Campbell.
Traditional Roman Catholic theology speaks of the efficacy of baptism in remitting original sin and the actual guilt brought by sin. At the same time, the virtues of faith, hope and love are poured into the participant. The Orthodox Church, in contrast, speaks of the regeneration worked in baptism in terms of divinization. The participant partakes of the divine nature and from that point on carries the very life of God.
Many Protestants deny any direct correlation between baptism and the regeneration of the participant. For some, including many Lutherans, the rite is rather the sign of God’s claim on an individual prior to personal response. Churches in the Reformed tradition, while accepting this emphasis, tend to see the significance of baptism in terms of covenant theology. Baptism is the sign and seal of the covenant God makes with God’s people or which God’s people make with their Lord. Some (like low church Episcopalians and many Methodists) emphasize the conditional nature of this covenant, requiring future repentance and faith. Other Reformed bodies highlight the permanent nature of the covenant in the case of God’s elect.
The concept of baptism as covenant is present among some believer baptists as well. However, they tend to emphasize the human response to the covenant sealed by the rite. Two alternative but interrelated outlooks on baptism have developed out of this understanding. Some believer’s baptists describe baptism as a significant, divinely given means of responding personally to the gospel. Others view it as a public testimony to an inner spiritual transformation. In either case, baptism is linked to discipleship. It is a public affirmation of one’s conscious decision to place oneself under the lordship of Jesus. For this the baptism of Jesus serves as a model, and the disciple is often said to be “following the Lord in baptism.”
Related to this discussion of the theology of baptism is the question of terminology. The normal word for a sacred rite in the Orthodox church is mystery, emphasizing the mystery of God’s love and grace proclaimed by the church. Most churches in the Western tradition refer to the rite as sacrament. Although there are differences concerning the definition of the term, it is generally meant to suggest a close connection between the sign and the reality it signifies.
Many believer baptists reject sacrament in favor of another term, ordinance. Sacrament, they claim, carries the “magical” understanding of medieval Catholic theology, in which the rites of the church were supposed to infuse divine grace into the recipient. Ordinance avoids this danger. The term is derived from ordain, suggesting that these rites are ordained or commanded by Jesus. Participation in them, therefore, symbolizes the obedience of the disciple to the Lord and corresponds to the personal and voluntary character of the sacred practices emphasized by believer’s baptists.
Some Christian groups focus more on the underlying spiritual reality symbolized by baptism than on the rite itself. In the Holiness and Pentecostal movements the baptism of the Spirit tends to be separated from water baptism entirely and linked with a “second work of grace” experienced subsequent to conversion and initiation. This experience of Spirit baptism is viewed as more significant than human rites, such as water baptism. For the Evangelical Free Church of America, baptism is optional and not required for local church membership. The Salvation Army and the Society of Friends do not practice water baptism at all; the spiritual reality (Spirit baptism) has eliminated the need of its symbol.
Baptism and the American Churches. Baptism has been controversial through much of Christian history. Controversy has been especially acute in America, where Christian groups with widely divergent views have flourished, coexisted and competed. The debate over the role of baptism in the life of American churches goes back to colonial New England.
In the first half of the seventeenth century the Puritan settlers of Massachusetts developed a distinctive form of church life known as the “New England Way.” Full communicant status in the congregations required not only the older requisites (acceptance of the doctrines of the church and baptism) but also verbal evidence of a religious experience which had made the candidate aware of his or her elect status. In this way the Puritans attempted to produce and maintain churches composed of the elect only (regenerate church membership). At the same time the Puritans sought to develop a Christian commonwealth ordered according to divine law, in which civil government acknowledged and protected true religion.
As the seventeenth century unfolded, the New England Way faced dissension and challenge. The first leading dissenter was Roger Williams. Soon after his arrival in Massachusetts, Williams concluded that the principle of regenerate church membership required believer’s baptism. Although he was banished from Massachusetts, his thinking made inroads throughout New England.
The New England Way faced other challenges as church membership declined. The Puritans had simply assumed that most of the children born to the elect, if brought under the covenant through infant baptism, would later experience a confirmation of their own elect status and thereby be eligible for church membership. When the numbers of nominal Christians swelled, however, the problem of the status of the seed of the elect became acute. In response, the Half-Way Covenant was adopted in 1657, whereby those baptized in infancy but who could not give evidence of election could bring their children for baptism, but could not receive communion or vote in congregational meetings.
The face of American religion was radically changed by the Great Awakening of the 1740s and the resultant rise of evangelical fervor. The Awakening led to division in the colonial churches and to the formation of separate congregations by many who were converted during the revival. The renewed commitment to regenerate church membership that characterized the Separates, or revivalists, led to a reopening of the question of baptism. Many adopted believer’s baptism and eventually joined the Baptists.
The nineteenth century was characterized by lively debates between believer’s baptists and pedobaptists and by the birth of new developments that affected the older denominations. One such development, the Restoration Movement, arose in western Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky. At the turn of the century Thomas Campbell was instrumental in forming the Christian Association of Washington with the watchword “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where they are silent, we are silent.” He and his son, Alexander, broke with Presbyterianism and became convinced that believer’s baptism by immersion was the only scriptural initiation rite. After joining the Baptists in 1813 Alexander became a controversial leader in the region. He and his followers saw themselves as “Reformers,” desiring “the restoration of the ancient order of things.” Baptist leaders, however, accused Campbell of teaching baptismal regeneration. Certain churches and associations withdrew fellowship from the Campbellites and separate Campbellite churches were organized, generally known as the Disciples of Christ or the Christian Church.
A second development, the Landmark movement, nearly divided the Southern Baptist Convention. In an essay James M. Pendleton raised the issue of the status of non-Baptist clergy. The Big Hatchie Association, meeting at Cotton Grove, Tennessee, in 1851, declared all non-Baptist churches to be religious societies, whose clergy should not be recognized and whose members should not be addressed as “brethren.” The term “Landmarkism” was derived from the republication of Pendleton’s essay by James R. Graves in 1854 under the title An Old Landmark Reset. The movement focused on five major doctrines: an unbroken succession of true churches from the Jerusalem Church to the Baptists, no church apart from local churches, the rejection of alien immersion (baptism administered in any church except a Baptist congregation), closed Communion (only the faithful members of the celebrating local congregation are admitted to the Lord’s Supper) and a rejection of cooperative mission programs.
Although the tide in the Southern Baptist Convention had turned against the Landmarkers by 1862, the controversy simmered for many years until a separate Landmark denomination was formed early in the twentieth century. Landmarkers continue to maintain that the divine pattern for baptism includes a proper candidate (a believer), mode (immersion), design (a picture showing forth the gospel) and administrator (one whose authority is derived from a scriptural church).
As the nineteenth century drew to a close, the debates of the earlier era began to subside. The rise of Protestant theological liberalism led to a de-emphasis on traditional doctrine and a reduction of the role of the sacraments. In liberal theology baptism lost its stature as a regenerative rite or as a sign of the covenant. Instead it was viewed as a formality for church membership or, in the case of infant baptism, a dedicatory rite for parents. Likewise the nondenominationalism of liberalism called into question the importance of church divisions based on theology or polity.
Although many of the older questions persist into the twentieth century, the outlook toward baptismal controversies has been reshaped by anew interest in ecumenism. The establishment of the Faith and Order Commission in 1927 is a striking example of this shift in outlook. The work of the Commission came to a climax in a widely disseminated document, Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, which seeks to articulate a basic agreement among the churches on these three topics. The understanding of baptism reflected in the document is inclusive. The act is seen as both a divine gift and a human response. Churches are invited to see believer’s baptism and infant baptism as “equivalent alternatives.” At the same time, faith is declared to be necessary for the reception of the salvation set forth in baptism. In the case of infants, this personal response, which is integral to baptism, is to be offered later in the person’s life.
Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry holds forth the hope that the divisions produced or enhanced by divergent understandings of baptism can be overcome. The current cooperative mood, whether among churches committed to future organizational union or among those loosely allied in evangelical organizations, calls on all traditions to learn from each other, while offering one’s own tradition as a contribution to the whole church.
Bibliography. Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (Faith and Order Paper No. 111) (1982); G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (1981); C. E. Braaten and R. W. Jenson, eds., Christian Dogmatics, 2 vols. (1984); D. Bridge and D. Phypers, The Water that Divides (1977); G. W. Bromiley, Children of Promise (1979); A. M. Coniaris, Introducing the Orthodox Church: Its Faith and Life (1982); M. J. Erickson, Christian Theology, vol. 3 (1985); J. D. C. Fisher, et. al., “Baptism,” The New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship, ed. J. G. Davies (1986); S. J. Grenz, Isaac Backus—Puritan and Baptist (1983); J. A. Hardon, The Catholic Catechism (1966); P. K. Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (1978); D. Moody, Baptism: Foundation for Christian Unity (1967); W. M. Nevins, Alien Baptism and the Baptists (1951); L. H. Stookey, Baptism: Christ’s Act in the Church (1982).
Grenz, Stanley J., D.Theol., University of Munich. Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics, North American Baptist Seminary, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar