This past fall on campus we brought in former UNC basketball star Eric Montross to share about his own experience with faith. In the course of talking about his beliefs, Montross asserted that baptism was essential to becoming a Christian. This caused quite a bit of rancor in parts of our fellowship--wasn't baptism a 'work?' Aren't we saved by faith alone? I agreed with their dissent (albeit not quite as vehemently as some), citing the thief on the cross as a clear example that baptism wasn't essential to salvation.
But in the course of studying for a class I'm taking next week called "Conversion and Transformation" I just finished a book that's challenged me to re-think some of that. Gordon Smith in his book Beginning Well argues that Protestant Christianity, particularly the evangelical flavor, has lost the significance of baptism in our historical over-reaction to historical Catholic church abuses.
He cites much Biblical support. In Jesus' final words to his disciples, making disciples of all nations is linked explicitly to baptism--in fact, it is the only descriptor of what that command means. Every evangelistic sermon in Acts includes the call to be baptized. Every conversion in Acts is marked by baptism.
Smith suggests that baptism is a symbol and is not in and of itself transformational. We don't automatically come to faith just because we're baptized. But symbol is not unimportant. He makes the analogy of a wedding ring. It is only a symbol of marriage, but should one react violently against wearing a wedding ring, one's spouse would rightly wonder about the level of commitment to the marriage. Symbols are not empty: swastikas, burning crosses, the Washington Monument, the Stanley Cup (go 'Canes) are all powerful symbols, freighted with meaning and significance.
To my thief on the cross objection, Smith replies that we seem to have two options: be baptized or be crucified! Clearly in drastic circumstances where baptism isn't possible, it's not make-or-break. But realistically that is not the case for the vast majority of conversions. And if we make baptism optional, Smith argues, we give up a powerful symbol that Jesus instituted for our long-term walking-with-him good.
2 comments:
So maybe Montross was right and baptism is essential to becoming a Christian. Worded that way I wouldn't have a problem with his statement. If he's claiming that it's necessary for salvation, I'd probably disagree. Thief story plus I'm sure there are Christian groups in places that under-emphasize baptism and that's probably not good but we would not say these people aren't Christians, we'd just say they should be baptized, right? That's probably an extra-Biblical answer, I probably give way to many of those. Maybe I'd have to read the book. I'd encourage anyone who became a Christian to be baptized because it seems like the Biblical response to becoming a Christian. I will agree that when it comes to what is necessary for salvation Paul seems pretty adamant about faith...
Shane, you're turning into such a Reformed guy! Just kidding, and of course your point is well-taken. I think the helpful corrective for me in this is the re-elevating (in to an appropriate place) of baptism in my understanding of coming to Christ. Baptism is normative and powerfully symbolic, not optional and unnecessary.
On the flip side, there's the Church of Christ folks who so elevate baptism that it gets a little cultish (depending on which specific church you're talking about) and I certainly don't want to go that route. But honestly, most of my portion of the Christian sub-culture isn't anywhere near that place.
Post a Comment