Baptism and the Lord's Supper: Naming the Truth

[Don Davis]

Here at TUMI, our express purpose is to to help urban Christians and churches retrieve the Great Tradition, that theology and practice of the first five centuries of the faith that underpins what our fundamental Christian beliefs and practices are. The role of Baptism and the Lord's Supper figure prominently in just how we might learn from the ancient Church's understanding and practice of the presence and grace of God.

When I look at these two significant practices of the Church historically, I like the fact that the early Church emphasized the Christ-centered nature of both. In baptism, we participate in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (cf. Rom. 6; Col. 2), and although we would agree that the spiritual nature of this union occurs at the moment of faith, baptism has historically been dramatically more than a sign or symbol alone. To be baptized is to confess one's union with Christ and solidarity in his Body, our "member"-ship in the faith.

Likewise, for the vast majority of Christians alive today (and who have ever lived), Communion (or the Lord's Supper, or the Eucharist) is the climatic center of our living out of the Christ life, the affirmation of the living Christ present with us until the Second Coming. Notwithstanding the tired dialogues of trans- and con- substantiation theories or memorialist views of the elements, Communion is a vital, life-expressing sign of fellowship, of connection, of intimacy, of grace. For everyone involved in the life of the Church, both Baptism and Communion are central issues, especially so in light of those who are planting new churches among city folk, as well as those pastoring congregations among them.

What's in a name? Christians have historically disagreed about the meaning of these Christian observances, with much of the controversy being rooted in their naming of them, that is, what the events are and what they signify. The unfortunate thing about much evangelical practice of these (whether called Ordinances or Sacraments) is that in our circles they are viewed largely as events about individual Christians, and not simply the most significant practices of our shared spirituality.

For instance, one's entire spiritual connection to the assembly in the early Church was geared to the baptism of new converts. After a three year disciplined preparation that included theological training, moral reform, and spiritual preparation, the new converts fasted for 40 hours prior to Easter, even enduring an exorcism service designed to prepare them for the entrance of the Holy Spirit in their lives at baptism on Easter morning! Baptism was in itself the move from kingdom to Kingdom, from darkness to light, climaxing on the day of the Lord's resurrection after intense fasting and prayer.

You can see what I'm getting at. The difference between this kind of seriousness and the "Baptism Lite" practiced now in many evangelical circles is disheartening for me. This kind of thinking bleeds into our entire understanding of Church, of which Baptism and Communion are merely instances of a church gone far too privatized to understand the power of Christian community.

By the way, the current evangelical lowering of these is not due to the theological position of sign or symbol; in my mind, it is directly linked to the tragic disconnect many in our circles have with a living community of Christians who share deep, fundamental convictions about these "Ordinances" or "Sacraments." (The debate over the name is a time-based Reformational kind of debate, largely having to do with the Roman church's insistence that only ordained clergy could perform these practices).

Whatever one may decide to believe and to do concerning the Ordinances (or Sacraments, if you prefer) because of one's convictions and allegiance to a particular church tradition is one thing; what we train growing Christian and churches to embrace and understand is another. God did not give us these mighty events of grace and remembrance in order for us to fight one another. Rather, the strength and power of them can transform us, enrich us, guide us, and bless us, whether or not we embrace the most memorialist notion or the highest sacramental view of both Baptism and Communion. This is why I focus so much on retrieving the Great Tradition which, in many ways, was not so shaped by the Post-Reformation debates about what these practices meant.

In the ancient Church, baptism was seen as the formal entrance of a new convert in the Church, and the undeniable association of the convert with the Kingdom, the Holy Spirit, and new life in Christ. Communion was the center of the ancient Church's worship, and was done with a sense of God's grace being bestowed in the assembly's gathering and participation. In both instances, the graces and endowments of God and Christ were made available to the Church through the Holy Spirit; their view was more than mere sign, but a true participation in the graces of the Lord. This view, the pre-Roman, Orthodox, or Protestant view, is the kind of practice that is informing our resources and instruction here at TUMI and, I believe, will continue to in such a way as to cloud their salvific and communal power.

All that being said, because of my commitment to the Great Tradition, I Baptism and the Lord's Supper as "Ordinances providing Grace" or "Sacraments ordered by the Lord" (i.e., practices where the grace and presence of God is given and felt) which are the commands of Christ to his people (i.e., Ordinances given by our Lord to his Church). I would have no problem referring to them in either way, but only if I can rescue their practice from the superficiality of hyper-sign folk, on the one hand, and the restricted formalism of the high church folk, on the other.

[Nic Nelson]

In my last intensive summer block at Hope International University, one of the tracks was "The Nature and Sacraments of the Church." We got into the whole debate of "is this an ordinance to obey, or a sacrament to partake? Just a sign, or a mystical metaphysical reality?" etc. etc.

I like your concluding stance: "I would have no problem referring to them in either way, but only if I can rescue their practice from the superficiality of hyper-sign folk, on the one hand, and the restricted formalism of the high church folk, on the other." Me too.

Maybe I'm influenced subconsciously by postmodernity, or maybe I am missing some step of logic in the old debate, but I really don't see a conflict between ordinance and sign and sacrament within a healthy understanding of the specific and unusual acts we do to define ourselves as the Family of God, the Body of Christ, the Tribe in the Spirit: Baptism and Communion.

[Andrew Lee]

Thank you for your input this is very insightful!

I am very challenged by the ancient church's process of discipleship and training leading to baptism. I do have a sense of sadness of what baptism has become compared to the standard of the ancient church. Nowadays, churches seem to baptize anyone who desires to be baptized with the understanding that "only the Lord knows their true heart as to whether they have accepted the Lord or not". Any "pre-baptismal" training has been viewed as a way to assess whether they have truly accepted the Lord or not.

Do you feel that this is a valid concern by the church? Is it up to the church to determine if someone has truly accepted the Lord or is it the Lord's to decide? If someone says that they have accepted the Lord, is the church being judgmental if they were to feel skeptical of the new believer's claim?

Ultimately, what guidelines should churches use today to determine when someone should be baptized (i.e. any stranger who confesses they have accepted and wants to be baptized or after a rigorous training, discipleship season set by the standards of the ancient church)?

[Don Davis]

Do you feel that this is a valid concern by the church? Is it up to the church to determine if someone has truly accepted the Lord or is it the Lord's to decide? If someone says that they have accepted the Lord, is the church being judgmental if they were to feel skeptical of the new believer's claim? Ultimately, what guidelines should churches use today to determine when someone should be baptized (i.e. any stranger who confesses they have accepted and wants to be baptized or after a rigorous training, discipleship season set by the standards of the ancient church)?

Your question, Andrew, is significant. What the ancient church did is illuminating; they were not pretending to be taking over the role of mediator between God and humankind. That belongs to Christ Jesus alone (1 Tim. 2.5,6). Rather, what they are interested in, though, is the authenticity of the profession. Because of susceptibility to betrayal, false claims of profession, infiltration by religious cooks, etc., the ancient church had no problem ensuring that its converts were, as much as lay within their own profession and change of behavior, legitimate.

I believe strongly that issues of candidacy for baptism and initial issues of discipleship in Christ and membership in the body are all the same curriculum. In other words, the ancient church made no distinction between entrance into the Kingdom and membership in the Church. Why shouldn't we simply expect those professing allegiance to Jesus as Lord to simply reflect that, in doctrine, in character, in conduct, in change of life?

This, in my judgment, is the plain-wrapper definition of metanoia, or biblical repentance. Repentance does not constitute a work; we are saved by grace through faith. Yet, saving faith is neither empty nor cheap. New believers ought to be grounded in the basics regarding Christ and his Kingdom, i.e., God's historical work to bring about deliverance, salvation, and restoration in the Christ event: his incarnation, ministry, suffering, death, resurrection, ascension, session, and soon return. This is nothing more than the simple outline of faith articulated in the Nicene Creed. This credal formula was key in the grounding of new believers in the extended pre-baptism process outline by the ancient church.

I do not suggest that we must unthinkingly follow the precise formula that the ancient church used to identify the elect, as they called new candidates for baptism who were successful. What we must follow, though, is their insistence that words and profession alone are not necessarily signs of authentic faith. Profession confirmed by corresponding action, genuine allegiance and connection to the body, and submission to legitimate pastoral care ought to be simple indicators of saving faith. By their fruit you shall know them, our Lord said:

Matthew 7:15-20 (ESV) "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. [16] You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? [17] So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. [18] A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. [19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [20] Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

I give you my critical elements of authentic pre-baptism curriculua:

A clear confession of the Gospel, especially Jesus' lordship
Grounding in the simple truths of the faith (Nicene Creed)
Identification and incorporation within the body of believers
Repentance from dead religious works and immorality
The meaning of baptism: participation in the life of Christ
The importance of the gifts of the Spirit and pastoral care
Living as a witness and living out the Christ life in home, work, and community


This may not be a complete listing, but at the very least it shows that we do not regard easy believism or cheap profession the same as saving faith. We are not in this process seeking to add to the work of salvation by grace through faith, only to identify true saving faith. Not a work, merely the fruits that come from faith.

[Don Allsman]

I love this conversation! It hits a number of items at once. If we can tighten-up/formalize our follow-up and tie it to both church membership and Baptism (or at least Baptism) it makes for a powerful combination for the new believer. They are instantly grounded in the faith so they know "which group I belong to" including the heritage they are part of (The Church and their tradition) and they are immersed into Christ in all that means at baptism in terms of their new identity. The experience, the identity, the cognitive all come together in a process that makes sense and is grounded in the great tradition. This is another reason I'm so pumped about the Koinonia Book idea. We can provide a seamless process to help our church plants ground new believers into the faith that plugs them right into baptism and church membership that should serve to preserve the fruit and protect new believers from harm, not to mention greatly accelerate their growth in Christ.

The initial work I've done on follow-up is precisely based on this idea: follow-up that leads to baptism and church membership.

Don Allsman

[Don Davis]

They are instantly grounded in the faith so they know "which group I belong to" including the heritage they are part of (The Church and their tradition) and they are immersed into Christ in all that means at baptism in terms of their new identity. The experience, the identity, the cognitive all come together in a process that makes sense and is grounded in the great tradition. Don Allsman

Great comments about the necessity of integrated life and belief. It strikes me that our conversation on this matter highlights what I take to be Webber's central idea on the Great Tradition, at least as far as historical theology is concerned. In one of my courses at Wheaton, Webber asserted that the ancient Church discipled through its worship, i.e., that worship was the ground of its theology and the goal of its mission. In our more positivistic settings, which highlight study over the experience of awe, theological speculation over the concrete experience of being in the presence of God. In Baptism, we put on Christ, and in the Lord's Supper we feed on Christ. In both Christ is central, both the start and the finish, and he alone gives meaning to both. The problem with so much follow-up material is that it treats the entire collection of issues as if they were the same as being in and under Christ. A worship-oriented follow-up "forces" (for lack of a better word) the young or immature Christian to learn of Jesus. If Jesus Christ truly is our very life (Col. 3.4), then the integration of follow-up to baptism to membership must necessarily be united and one.

Nothing is more deadening than making a minor thing the main thing, and then pretending it to be more than it is. For us, to live ought to be Christ (in all aspects and every stage of spiritual development), and to die ought to be gain. Christo-centric faith is the only form of authentic faith there is.

[Hank Voss]

Hmmmm.... I seemed to have stumbled onto a goldmine of a discussion. I have been starting to read Ancient Future Evangelism, by Webber. A good primer for those who want to go further into the Christo-centric follow up methodology used by the ancient church with practical applications for our post-modern climate. Thanks for getting these forums going!

[bcully]

My understanding of baptism from the book of Acts was that it was immediate upon repentance. There was no separation between the two commands of "repent" and "be baptized." I do not think this is "easy believism", I think it stresses obedience over simple verbal or mental assent. To come to faith in Christ, "say the prayer", and repent of one's sins, one needed to publicly affirm this conversion from one Kingdom to the Other. This immediate obedience by the act of being baptized did something special for the new believer. To require a long period of study and "proof" of one's faith seems to reinforce and communicate to the new believer that knowledge is more important than obedience. Was this long pre-baptismal period only instituted after the original apostles had died? When did this begin? I am ignorant of the timeline of the different practices of the early church in this matter.

Bryan

[Don Allsman]

I'm informed by a story that Dr. Davis has told me about a Philipine man who received Christ and said to the effect, "what group do I belong to now?" This is the right question to ask when someone receives Christ.

In Gentile cultures (like America's inner cities) that don't have a deep Jewish heritage of understanding, there needs to be some orientation to the group (The Church) that a new believer has now declared allegiance to. We call that follow-up. It makes sense to me that we follow the lessons of the Great Tradition and orient (follow-up) people so they understand the basics well enough to make a public display of allegiance to this group through baptism.

Then, as Dr. Davis said, the process of worship becomes the primary way to disciple and reinforce what is introduced at orientation (follow up).

We could debate how long that follow-up process should be. The Ethiopian eunuch was baptised immediately upon conversion, but it seems clear that he had a Jewish understanding and only needed to put it together through and understanding of Christ being central to the Scriptures.

Someone from a Gentile background who needs a more thorough worldview transformation might require a longer time to understand. That could be done right on the spot of someone's conversion, or could take some period of days or weeks.

A similar argument could be made for those who believe in adult baptism, ie. when is the appropriate age for a young person to be baptized? I would argue that as soon as a young person can understand the basics of what it means to make a commitment to the Church ("which group do I belong to now?") by going through adult follow-up (orientation) is a good indicator of their readiness to be baptized and join the local church as a member. Even traditions that recognize infant baptism follow a similar approach through the rite of confirmation that includes an orientation and testing of understanding of "what they are getting into/making commitment to."

Don Allsman

[bcully]

My understanding though, is that in baptism we are not publicly declaring our allegiance to a group, we are publicly declaring our allegiance to Christ, and to His Kingdom! From whichever group is doing the baptizing is who this new disciple belongs to! It's all very natural and along relational lines, then. Adding unnecessary or arduous hoops to jump through in following the most basic of commands seems to slow a movement down and make it less organic and more institutional. Belonging to a group is important, absolutely, and raising the bar of what it means to be a disciple I am all for. Being a disciple of Christ should be arduous in the sense that we are dying to our old ways. However, making it hard because our systems are hard or our church model is complex is what I want to avoid, and all of the pre-baptism qualifications we make a person go through seems to be counter-effective.

[Don Davis]

Adding unnecessary or arduous hoops to jump through in following the most basic of commands seems to slow a movement down and make it less organic and more institutional. Belonging to a group is important, absolutely, and raising the bar of what it means to be a disciple I am all for. Being a disciple of Christ should be arduous in the sense that we are dying to our old ways. However, making it hard because our systems are hard or our church model is complex is what I want to avoid, and all of the pre-baptism qualifications we make a person go through seems to be counter-effective.

This is an important conversation, and wonderful dialogue. Certainly, all of us would agree that we desire to do nothing extra-biblical or counter-productive to a movement. I, for one, am against vehemently any thought of legalistic additions to faith. Sola gratia and sola fides mean the world to me, as one who barely escaped the human traditions and religious moralism of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

What I find problematic about your idea here, though, is your willingness to think that simple obedience in the midst of the faithful as "making it hard," or creating complex models. Honestly, the ancient Church in every respect of faith, doctrine, leadership development, worship, mission, and church far simpler, cleaner, and more biblical than our over 20,000 denomination Protestant church bureaucracies and systems. What they saw is what I believe we need to see, that authentic faith is a marathon, not a 50 yard dash, that is is something experienced in community among the faithful, not isolated profession which is self-confirmed and validated.

Those of us who are deeply committed to rapid advance of the Kingdom in dozens and dozens of cultures among the poorest of the poor ought to be as critical as possible as to whether or not the isolated, micro-waveable kind of profession we take as saving faith truly reflects the rigorous standards of discipleship welcomed by the hearts of all true believers. While I wholeheartedly endorse your desire for simplicity, biblical ease, immediacy, and thinness in terms of systems, I fear that our quick and easy approaches seem to neglect that saving faith, even for the Reformers, included the doctrine of perseverance. Authentic faith perseveres, and does so as faithful membership in the midst of biblical community.

Models may come and go, but there is truly only one hope, one faith, one calling which all of us are called. The key questions will always hive around how do we ground true believers in the apostolic faith, a faith that they embrace throughout their lives long with compelling testimonies and potent witness. Simplicity does not erase the need for depth and authenticity.

By the way, "making it hard" was not the ancient Church's intent. "Keeping it real" certainly was.

[bcully]

I do not disagree with what you are saying for the most part, but I cannot get away from the example of the same early church to which you refer. The model of repentance and belief followed by an immediate baptism was, to my reading, THE practice of the earliest church. John the Baptist, Peter, Phillip, and Paul all baptized or saw to it that they were baptized immediately upon confession of faith in Jesus. We see this in the Gospels with John the Baptist, and riddled throughout Acts in chapters 2, 8, 9, 10, 16, and 18, if not more. There are examples from all walks of life as well getting baptized--religious Gentiles, orthodox Jews, pagans, etc. The perseverance of the saints was certainly taught and modeled, to be sure, and I do not disagree with the importance of this, but I just am either unaware of or am not understanding the text correctly if there are passages in Scripture which indicate a "trial period" is necessary for baptism.

[Don Allsman]

Don and Bryan - Very helpful to hear your thoughts.

To me, the primary issue is not a trial period but what people are baptized into. People are baptized into Christ and His community. His kingdom cannot be separated from the local church community. Jews understood being a kingdom of royal priests. Baptism is not to be done as an individualistic event as though individuals become agents of the kingdom. Local churches are agents of the kingdom, and our individual repentance and baptism is into that community; that agent of the Kingdom.

I maintain that we misread Acts by overlaying our American individualism if we think the record of baptism as an individual action that is "between me and Jesus."

The fundamental question is "who is the agent of the Kingdom?" Is it the individual believer or the local church? Once we agree on that, then we can talk about these other issues of follow up; how long, etc.

[Nic Nelson]

"To me, the primary issue is not a trial period but what people are baptized into."

I see the same immediacy of baptism that Bryan does in the NT, and I also happen to think that a case might be made, on the basis of cultural contextualization, not for a "trial period" but for a preparation process.

But Bryan's real objection seemed to me to be rooted in institutional complexity, not the high expectations of discipleship. In other words, will we read this discussion thread and return to our congregations to impose a new program to create this rigor externally on our people? Do we lead organizationally or relationally?

I know, we need both-- but Don Davis' opening description of intense baptism preparation could only be "good" if it was both culturally appropriate and driven by grace and relationship. When such a thing becomes boot camp for legalism, then it needs reform or replacement.

"After a three year disciplined preparation that included theological training, moral reform, and spiritual preparation, the new converts fasted for 40 hours prior to Easter, even enduring an exorcism service designed to prepare them for the entrance of the Holy Spirit in their lives at baptism..."

We do need to hash through these things, though, because we live in an age where "superficiality of hyper-sign folk, on the one hand, and the restricted formalism of the high church folk, on the other" are real dangers.

[Don Allsman]

[QUOTE=bcully;75]My understanding though, is that in baptism we are not publicly declaring our allegiance to a group, we are publicly declaring our allegiance to Christ, and to His Kingdom!

We are declaring allegiance to His Kingdom. But much of my thoughts about this are in reaction to Barna's book "Revolution" where he makes the case that the individual is the agent of the kingdom and that the local church is really of no relevance to kingdom life. We need to make sure that new believers are brought into a clear understanding that doesn't take them down Barna's road. Baptism is an excellent opportunity to be clear about the commitments they are making to kingdom life that is community life, not individual commitments that are about "just me and Jesus."

[Don Davis]

Brian's read of the Acts situation is correct on its face, and an important contribution to our discussion. Frankly, anyone who reads the apostolic practice in Acts in juxtaposition to the ancient Church will be struck by the time gap, and the nearly obsession the early Church had with conformity to the apostolic tradition.

This is not hard to understand. In light of the Apostles' constant warning to the fledgling Christian communities of soon-coming infiltration in their midst of ravening wolves, false teachers, psuedo-prophets, and downright liars, the ancient Church responded with an insistence on testing those who claimed allegiance to the risen Christ. Legitimate profession lies at the heart of early Church reflection. Nic's repeated emphasis on the mutually exclusive positions I mentioned earlier in our dialogue (i.e., living in an age where "superficiality of hyper-sign folk, on the one hand, and the restricted formalism of the high church folk, on the other" are real dangers) is important. Don's insight into the agency of the Church is just as critical. Our discussion thrills my heart!

In considering this part of the Great Tradition, we must not strip the ancient Church's practice from their counter-cultural impulse and their residence in a dangerous anti-Christian environment. In a real sense, you could say that most of the activity of the early Church was defending the faith from enemies internal, external and infernal: fighting off heresy, schism, rival religious ideologies, and misguided imperial cruelty was to make plain the apostolic doctrine and practice. (If you read the Fathers, this is their constant concern--who is it that truly represents the apostolic tradition. Rightly or wrongly, their efforts sought to make that tradition plain, and identify those who truly represented it.)

I think the emphasis on preparation and depth as a part of the entire life of discipleship of a believer is key here. Unfortunately, in our quest to be biblical, we do not emphasize everything the Acts experience did. If, for instance, we want to emphasize the immediacy of Baptism, we ought also to emphasize the public discipline of false professors, the support of widows, and the confirmation of apostolic authority through signs and wonders. We simply very often tend to pick and choose which "biblical" practices we assert we ought to follow, and ignore others.

On the issue of Baptism, (which I am arguing is an issue of churchmanship and discipleship), I prefer to look at this as the Fathers did. Their focus was on the transformation of the believer in the midst of the people of God; confession of Jesus as Lord was no private matter, but the entire life of the confessor was changed, in the wake of Christian assembly. To be Christian, in their minds, was to change governments, allegiances, calendars, and communities. Baptism was the entrance point of a new way of identification with the risen Christ and his body, the initial step in a spiritual journey of obedience under the lordship of Christ and membership in his body.

I cited the ancient Church's focus on extended preparation was not given as the only valid yardstick to measure what we today in our evangelical congregations should do for candidates of Baptism today. Rather, I cited their "thick" understanding of faith to highlight just how "thin" our settings have become. Indeed, one can easily make a point regarding the stark difference between what Christian faith meant to their generation over against what it has come to mean to us. Honestly, what I hope we can through dialogue and reflection is to rediscover what it means to view all of life under the lordship of Christ, starting at baptism and ending at death, an entire life of discipleship and faith, grounded in Christ, rooted in Scripture, and fleshed out in community, the literal communion of the saints. For them, faith was transference into another realm of authority, from Baptism till the throne room of God.

In my view, recapturing this flavor is what is what is at stake in our discussion of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. In one sense, all our lives, from first confession to last breath, is a kind of preparation for the Age to come. I am convinced for urban disciples, we need to transcend greatly what has become common practice of baptism, membership, and body life in many of our common evangelical circles.

[Andrew Lee]

If we were to look at Baptism as part of discipleship, then any training done pre-baptism would be part of their discipleship experience.

Having just mentored Module 1 Conversion and Calling, I want to quote a paragraph in the Mentor's Manual for that course (page M24),

"... it is one thing to claim that you belong to God in Christ, it is entirely another to actually belong to him. A major responsibility of spiritual leadership in the Church is the responsibility to identify and discern authentic spiritual profession from false confession of faith. The Apostles warned that after their death the Church would be infiltrated with those claiming to belong to Christ, but who in fact did not belong to him at all (cf. Acts 20.29ff.; 2 Pet. 2.1ff). For many claiming Christian identity in the city, their faith may not be based on transformation and conversion, but on doctrinal belief, social affiliation, or cultural association...."

I don't think we can ignore the fact that there are still people everywhere who believe that baptism is what brings about salvation. Although, it's clear to us that salvation is by faith and grace alone (sola fides and sola gratia), it's not so clear to others who are not part of a church body.

I can recall meeting many people in the city who when asked about their faith, they respond, "Yea, I'm a Christian, I was baptized at 'such and such church'...". Looking at the lives of these people, they no longer attend that church, nor are a part of another body of believers, nor do they show any real fruit that Christ speaks of in being a Christian. In their mind, baptism is as far as they need to go to be saved and a Christian.

We would all agree that this is very dangerous (and a deceitful act by the Devil to lead others astray). It's not hard to come to the conclusion why this thinking may have come about.

Any "pre-baptism" training that anyone goes through should be no different than any "follow-up" or early discipleship training. If someone proclaims to be a Christian, their training before or after baptism should generally not be very different. It's not like someone who is baptized shouldn't go through any initial follow-up, discipleship, etc after their baptism. So, why not making it a part of their "pre-baptism" training? If someone is hesitant to go through this training, would they automatically feel any different post baptism?

Again, I think it's important to emphasize to that person that baptism is not about salvation through this work, but rather a true outward sign of fruit in their faith in Christ. If this is clear, I would think that a true believer would be accepting of it.

I think Christ makes it clear that fruit is the true sign of a believer and that there are false teachings who would argue otherwise. And I believe that as the local body of Christ, we should take steps to ensure that 1) the person in question clearly understands what baptism is and is not, 2) they understand what being a part of a church community means and the importance of it and 3) the church taking precaution to ensure that any false teachings and that "men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. (Acts 20:30) are kept out of the church.

I also look at the church's responsibility in baptism. During the ceremony, the person baptizing, would ask the congregation if they vow, before God, to keep the person being baptized in accountability in their faith through encouragement and loving rebuke. Would God ask the church to make that vow to Him if the church itself is not sure whether they are a true believer? In other words, if a stranger walked in to a church, proclaimed that they are a Christian and desired to be baptized, should not any member of the congregation be hesitant to raising their hand when that vow is asked of the congregation? What happens if that person never returns to that church?

In all things as a Christian,the Holy Spirit has to lead. No matter how practical, long lasting or refined a program or method may be, I don't think that it should ever replace our seeking the Holy Spirit's direction in each and every case. I feel there's a danger relying upon only experiences and "formula". Even our service and ministry to Him is meant to build relationship with Him, therefore, I believe that He would desire us to seek Him in all things. I won't argue that God could call someone to be baptized immediately after profession of their faith. However, there is definite value to what the early church did and why. And I personally believe that the church today can learn a lot from the ancient church and their practices. I do agree that baptism in the modern church has been "watered down" (no pun intended :) )

[Nic Nelson]

Mmm, good point Don A. Individualism is definitely a challenge to Kingdom thinking. In fact, every baptism I can remember including my own involved a pretty clear affirmation that the baptizee was being formally included in a group identity. I guess the challenge is to move beyond a verbal affirmation at the event, and craft ways to make that change of identity/loyalty more real, so that it becomes a shift in a person's spiritual center of gravity.

[Nic Nelson]

Is it baptism that has been watered down, in particular? Or the whole experience of "churchmanship and discipleship"?

Don D. said that after baptism, "the entire life of the confessor was changed, in the wake of Christian assembly. To be Christian, in their minds, was to change governments, allegiances, calendars, and communities." But I think that change began well in advance: to begin the three year baptism-prep process Don D. cited earlier was to begin that change of governments, allegiances, calendars and communities... baptism was the formal affirmation of that change and its authenticity. As Don D. also noted, then as now, authenticity may be the most highly valued virtue.

Authenticity carries different connotations now than it did then. Perhaps exploring the contours of authenticity then and now will give us some guide as to how our modern/postmodern baptism preparation process should look, compared to how their concern for authenticity shaped their preparation process?

[bcully]

Hi Bryan,

What you wrote clearly communicated the Biblical response to the original question posed in the forum. The Apostle Paul taught his converts after baptism and not before. Or, if there was some teaching, we are not sure of what that entailed. It seems as though very little knowledge of Christian truth was required. What was necessary was repentance and profession of faith.

Personally, I see a difference with the Ancient Church(modality) and the Apostolic/missionary(sodality) call. The Ancient Church (modality) did and must set up their own standards for entry into the Body of Christ. Through a variety of circumstance - infiltration of "wolves" among the flock, persecution, culture, etc - the Ancient Church, in time and history, felt it a necessity to have a long training process before baptism and entry into the Family of God. And might I add, not wrong. This allows the Church to be Church in it's culture and in time as we can attest to this fact in our present day.

The Apostolic/Missionary Band (sodality) has great freedom and without the loss of a strong conviction for foundations. It is foundational that we baptize, which none of us deny. But as apostolic people, we plant the church (modality), and let them take the foundation (this case baptism but could be Lords supper, children's ministry, taking care of needs, etc) and form structure around the foundation according to culture, history, outside and inside dynamics. The Church is "built upon" the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. We lay the foundation and the Church (modality) builds upon it. That seems to me what Paul fought for (Acts 15).

The question again for us, in my opinion, is, are we going to function as a Modality or as a Sodality? Can we function as both? Maybe so. Our sodalities that are sent out from us, though, should be "rock solid" in their conviction of baptism as a must for converts but simple in their application so that the receiving culture can take the foundation (in this case baptism) and form their structures and requirements around it. To me that is apostolic. It is missiionary.

"..not of those who shrink back..." Hebrews 10:39

Bob

[Don Davis]

Written by Bob Engel Hi Bryan,

What you wrote clearly communicated the Biblical response to the original question posed in the forum. . . . The Apostolic/Missionary Band (sodality) has great freedom and without the loss of a strong conviction for foundations. It is foundational that we baptize, which none of us deny. But as apostolic people, we plant the church (modality), and let them take the foundation (this case baptism but could be Lords supper, children's ministry, taking care of needs, etc) and form structure around the foundation according to culture, history, outside and inside dynamics. The Church is "built upon" the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. We lay the foundation and the Church (modality) builds upon it. That seems to me what Paul fought for (Acts 15).

The question again for us, in my opinion, is, are we going to function as a Modality or as a Sodality? Can we function as both? Maybe so. Our sodalities that are sent out from us, though, should be "rock solid" in their conviction of baptism as a must for converts but simple in their application so that the receiving culture can take the foundation (in this case baptism) and form their structures and requirements around it. To me that is apostolic. It is missiionary.

"..not of those who shrink back..." Hebrews 10:39

Bob

Wonderful points, Bob. These comments are so important to be discussed that I created a new thread to explore your ideas in Urban Church Planting entitled "Relationship of Modality to Sodality in Church Planting." I look forward to us discussing this fully.

To draw to sharp a line between modality and sodality is dangerous, and frankly, one of the problems I have had from the beginning with Ralph Winters description of a kind of home versus missional dimensions of church. We have to remember that Paul considered himself the father of his converts and their churches:

1 Cor. 4:14-16 (ESV) I do not write these things to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. [15] For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. [16] I urge you, then, be imitators of me.

As their father in the Lord, (which sodalities are in a real sense), we cannot abandon our spiritual children to raise themselves, and this highlights the problem that Winter's analysis failed to address. Honestly, we would have no NT without sodality's complete involvement in the life and spirituality of the modalities they planted. The sodalities sent personal representatives to edifiy and protect them, wrote epistles to them, rebuked them for moral backsliding, ordained leaders among them, prayed fervently for them, visited them constantly, and shepherded them.

From a biblical perspective, to be apostolic is far more than simply starting converts off well. In a very real sense, the apostles were concerned with the ongoing life of the churches, their leaders, and their testimonies in the surrounding cultures. Paul could say that he was burdened daily with anxiety and care for the ongoing condition of the churches (2 Cor. 11.28). The second and third tours of his missionary journeys was to establish the churches planted, to edify them. It is clear, then, that to be apostolic is not to be concerned merely to get things going (well, at least not in a NT sense). While we must allow churches to develop under the watchful care of their pastors and deacons, it is not accurate to say that the churches they planted were utterly autonomous.

Apostolic mission includes apostolic oversight of the churches that have been planted. How then, could the Jerusalem Council have given a binding encyclical for the entire church (cf. Acts 15)? How then, could their epistles be swapped among churches with binding apostolic authority (cf. Col. 4.16)? Paul did not hope to merely get things started, he sought to bring the churches to maturity in Christ through the appointment and training of qualified elders who would continue the oversight, in his stead (cf. Titus 1.3ff.).

What we need to see, in my mind, is that the spiritual power of the early church during the time of the Apostles and thereafter was from a common stream. Modality and sodality are not two different species of spiritual life; they share life from the same table, Word, confession, authority, and hope. Rethinking the foundations of this common, shared spirituality may help us break the endless cycle of fragmentation and isolation that is so common among suburban evangelical churches, a kind of fragmentation that ought not be reproduced in urban church plants.

[Don Allsman]

We've had some interesting discussion with the CPteam in San Diego in recent days. To me they touch on many of these same questions; of what I would characterize as "identity" questions.

As we talked about how to move the CPT through its current season and into the next phase, it appeared to me that the church plant was lacking in a clear sense of identity. Again, the "what group do I belong to now" question is central.

What I love about Don Davis' recent post is the clear connection of identity: God to Israel; Israel to Christ; Christ to the Apostles; Apostles to the Church. Each modality or sodality received its authority from a single source. The missionary band was originally sent from Antioch. It was not sent from "nowhere." There was real authority, identity, and accountability to the apostles and the Jerusalem Church.

Our protestant theology and American individualism have blended in such a way to allow us to live separate from this sense of strong identity. We can be without denominational structure or even local church authority. I can testity (to my embarrassment) that I once baptized a guy in college on my own authority as a believer, without any connection to a local church. I also conducted many Bible studies on my own, without any sense of being "part of" anything beyond my individual calling as a disciple of Jesus.

Whether a sodality or modality, the same sense of connection back to an identity is what is key to me in this discussion. Questions about the length of time before baptism are important, but not as much as what we are baptizing them into. When I baptized the guy in college, my intent was to baptize him into relationship with Jesus--personally. How odd that would have been to the apostles. I should have helped him understand that batpism is into a long flow of history that didn't start or end with him; that he was committing himself to be "in" the Church universal and the church local, and all that he was committing himself (the details we have already discussed).

You guys have provoked me to look more carefully at Acts to get insight.

[Andrew Lee]

As I read the story of John the Baptist baptizing Christ, it occurred to me that he freely used the word "baptism" with the understand that everyone knew what he was talking about. Nor did he teach anything about it before baptizing. In other words, the idea of "baptizing" didn't seem like a new concept to those who witnessed this event. I'm guessing the the most novel thing about this event was the declaration from John that although he baptized with water, Christ will baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8).

This seems to support the theory that Don Allsman brings up that the concept of baptism was not a foreign concept to the Jews.

My question is, how was it used before this event? Was baptism a spiritual discipline in Judaism, or was it a cultural tradition that Christ first used in a spiritual sense? And along with that, was it used as a way to bring about some sort of identity and belonging to a body. Perhaps if we were to understand better how the Jews viewed baptism before Christ, we may have a better understanding of why God chose this as a way to be both an outward sign of our belonging and commitment to Him and our identity with a body.

I have heard some stories in the past, but nothing I know for sure.

Also, going back to Don Davis' original post regarding the Lord's Supper:


Likewise, for the vast majority of Christians alive today (and who have ever lived), Communion (or the Lord's Supper, or the Eucharist) is the climatic center of our living out of the Christ life, the affirmation of the living Christ present with us until the Second Coming. Notwithstanding the tired dialogues of trans- and con- substantiation theories or memorialist views of the elements, Communion is a vital, life-expressing sign of fellowship, of connection, of intimacy, of grace.

...Communion was the center of the ancient Church's worship, and was done with a sense of God's grace being bestowed in the assembly's gathering and participation. In both instances, the graces and endowments of God and Christ were made available to the Church through the Holy Spirit; their view was more than mere sign, but a true participation in the graces of the Lord.

How was communion served and how often to make it a "vital, life-expressing sign of fellowship, of connection, of intimacy, of grace"? What did the ancient church do differently (if anything) than what is done today? Is communion today what it was meant to be, or are we losing something?

And if so, we can see why the sacrament/ordinance of baptism is what it is today what caused the church today to lose this focus in communion?

Merry Christmas Everyone!

[Terry Cornett]

As I read the story of John the Baptist baptizing Christ, it occurred to me that he freely used the word "baptism" with the understand that everyone knew what he was talking about. Nor did he teach anything about it before baptizing. In other words, the idea of "baptizing" didn't seem like a new concept to those who witnessed this event. I'm guessing the the most novel thing about this event was the declaration from John that although he baptized with water, Christ will baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8).

This seems to support the theory that Don Allsman brings up that the concept of baptism was not a foreign concept to the Jews.

My question is, how was it used before this event? Was baptism a spiritual discipline in Judaism, or was it a cultural tradition that Christ first used in a spiritual sense? And along with that, was it used as a way to bring about some sort of identity and belonging to a body. Perhaps if we were to understand better how the Jews viewed baptism before Christ, we may have a better understanding of why God chose this as a way to be both an outward sign of our belonging and commitment to Him and our identity with a body.

I have heard some stories in the past, but nothing I know for sure.



Andrew, you might check out this link to the on-line version of the Jewish encyclopedia. It contains the following article on Jewish baptism:

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=222&letter=B&search=baptism

[Terry Cornett]

. . . .Likewise, for the vast majority of Christians alive today (and who have ever lived), Communion (or the Lord's Supper, or the Eucharist) is the climatic center of our living out of the Christ life, the affirmation of the living Christ present with us until the Second Coming. Notwithstanding the tired dialogues of trans- and con- substantiation theories or memorialist views of the elements, Communion is a vital, life-expressing sign of fellowship, of connection, of intimacy, of grace. . . .

Here is one attempt at moving past old debates and finding common language about Eucharist:

http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/arcic/doc/e_arcic_eucharist.html#txt2

[Don Davis]

Very interesting joint statement by the Anglican/Catholic dialogue. I do agree, that their joint statement is a movement away from the old, tired linguistic squabbles of the past. Do not take my judgment, however, as a underestimation of the importance of this dialogue. This shows that those deeply involved in tradition-centered interpretation can provide deeper, more helpful views of the dramatically important practice of the Eucharist/Lord's Supper through mutual consideration.

I believe that our reconsideration of these issues can enrich the spiritual experience and formation of urban congregations and their leaders. Excellent resource.

Don