plumbing the depths of baptism

Simon Jones has started a conversation on baptism here and continues you here and here. Baptists can't stop talking and thinking about baptism, but I don't think that is a bad thing. I commented on Simon's blog saying this:

.... I'm interested in what Alan Kreider has been saying. His chapter in Remembering Our Future basically says we've lost the importance of baptism and we need to recover it. Likewise John Colwell in Promise and Presence points out that despite being called baptists we are extremely lax in our baptismal practice.

I think we need to recover the importance of baptism. I liked what Stuart Blythe said a while back about baptism being an act of civil disobedience. We need to recover a deeper understanding of baptism, drawing out its different theological, political, sacramental, ecclesiological and missiological meanings (Sean Winters does something towards this in his reading of Gal 3.26-28).

I think we need to recognise the validity of different forms of baptism, while suggesting believer's baptism is regular. (Steve Holmes also makes an interesting case for this from the early church fathers in chapter 7 of Listening to the Past). Sean Winter in his 2007 Whitely Lecture said that this must mean reading, and listening to, those baptismal passages with those who hold to infant baptism.

We must link baptism more clearly with membership - membership as an outworking of baptism (here I think we need a more theological understanding of membership). My personal view is that open membership makes no theological sense. I world argue for baptism as a prerequisite to membership, but (as above) I would recognise infant baptism and confirmation as valid form of baptism.

We need to celebrate baptism more, like we celebrate birthdays and anniversaries. Kreider suggests in churches first sunday of each month we invite all those who have birthdays, anniversaries and baptismal birthdays to come forward for a blessing and thanksgiving. This says something about baptism, that it has continuing meaning; not something we do to cross a boundary, but as Simon argues with regard to Paul's letters, Paul is forever drawing his churches back to their baptism (Rom 6.1-11, 1 Cor 6.11, 12.13, Gal 3.27, Eph 4.4-5) - as a reminder of their identity.

Simon asks me to unpack what I mean by a more theological understanding of membership. I think a theology of covenant is where I would want to go (so the arguments of Paul Fiddes in Tracks and Traces and the essays in Bound for  Glory? God, Church and  World in Covenant). My concern is that too often membership is about being allowed to attend church meetings and have a vote. I've blogged on church membership before, a few years ago, but having re-read what I've wrote, I think its still what I'd want to say. There I suggest its a particular baptist gift. As those who gather together, we are those who covenant together: gathering and covenanting go together. This is outworking of baptism, which says I am baptised into a body; membership identifies the body in a local, physical and real way (as well as acknowledging our belonging to the universal body. (For language for a covenanting service see Gathering for Worship). 

Comments

[Stuart]

Andy I find myself much in agreement with you - I wonder though re the statement - 'I would recognise infant baptism and confirmation as valid form of baptism', would you say - valid but not preffered? Me, I would.

[graham]

Andy, I don't think that your desire for a more theological understanding of membership can stand up to theological or biblical scrutiny. But I'll make that point over at Simon's blog. :-)

[andy goodliff]

Stuart I like Colwell's way of putting it - infant baptism is valid but irregular.

Graham I'll reply to your comment on simon's blog.

[andy goodliff]

i'll post my new comment on simon's blog here too:

Graham - I'm going to try this out here. If baptism means we become an ecclesial being (I'm using John Zizioulas here), then does membership identify which particular local ecclesia that discipleship is work out at. I wonder whether a doctrine of the Spirit who calls us (elects us) to belong to gathered people. Membership is the Spirit calling and us responding. I have in mind a Colin Gunton quote: 'The Spirit liberates us, that is to say, by bringing us into community: by enabling us to be with and for the brothers and sisters whom we do not ourselves choose'. Membership helps us overcome the view that 'I'll belong to this church until the point it doesn't suit me' as if it were our choice. I want to say 'we don't choose a church', but the Spirit calls us and brings us into community.

[graham]

Andy, I always thought that John was quoting Barth when he made that statement? Perhaps I should graciously apply it to membership and concede that it is valid but irregular? ;-)

With your final sentance I would want to say yes, but insist that that has nothing to do with a formal concept of church membership. I think that the Vineyard folk have it better when they argue that membership consists of 'time, energy and money'. (Have I got those three right?) So, if one is commiting what they can of those three elements then they are a member.

I just don't get the assumption that membership entails one being brought into community. I don't think that's how community exists, or functions, at all.

'Membership helps us overcome the view that 'I'll belong to this church until the point it doesn't suit me' as if it were our choice.'

No, it doesn't. Unless you never let members leave! :-)

[Tim]

I think it was Barth too, and I seem to remember it as 'ireggular but not invalid'.