“Subverting
the Culture of Contempt” was the title of my 12/20 blog posting, and I am
pleased that earlier this week EthicsDaily.com (see here) re-posted a slightly
edited version of that article. This article is about a different, even more
important type of subversion.
Common
Views of Baptism
There
are, of course, a wide variety of views about baptism within Christianity. The
most common view is that baptism is a sacrament that seals a recently born baby
into the bonds of the Church.
The
Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, and many mainline Protestant
denominations (such as Lutherans, Presbyterians, and many Methodists) practice
infant baptism. In such cases, baptism is a rite chosen by Christian parents
and the Church, a rite that may or may not later be affirmed by the child through
Confirmation.
Other
Protestant churches, such as all those in the baptist (lower case “b”
intentional) reject what in
theological discussions is sometimes referred to as pedobaptism. The
alternative form of baptism is usually called believer’s baptism, also
known as credobaptism.
Even baptisms of the latter type, however, are
often of elementary or middle school children who are mainly doing what is
expected of them by their parents and Sunday School teachers. Such baptisms are
no more subversive acts than are those who receive infant baptism.
New Testament Views of Baptism
In New Testament times, baptism was of adults
who were confessing their faith in Jesus as Savior and their allegiance to him
as Lord. But the main difference between then and now, especially in Europe and
the Americas, is that the term Lord was problematic.
In the Roman Empire of that time, Caesar wanted/expected
to be called Kurios (Lord), so to confess Jesus as Lord was, well, a
subversive act.
Consequently, for many decades after Jesus’
death and resurrection, the persecution of Christians was not specifically for
their religious beliefs but primarily because of their political stance:
calling Jesus Lord instead of Caesar.
That all changed, of course, after the baptism
of Emperor Constantine in 337 A.D. His baptism was not a subversive act;
rather, it seems to have been based on his earlier decision to embrace
Christianity for military reasons.
The non-subversive form of baptism, then, was
predominant in European Christianity from the fourth century until the sixteenth
century when a small group of Swiss subversives sought to re-institute
believer’s baptism. They came to be called Anabaptists and began the
baptist movement.
And, yes, those Anabaptists were persecuted by both
Roman Catholics and Protestants.
Help from Brian Zahnd
Some of you may remember my 9/5/17 blog article
about Brian Zahnd and his powerful book Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God
(see
here). Brian’s new 2019 book is titled Postcards
from Babylon, and I highly recommend it.
From early in his first chapter, Zahnd stresses that “the
only way to truly follow Jesus is to be countercultural.” Then he begins the
concluding paragraph of that chapter with these powerful words:
It’s not the task of the church to "Make America Great Again." The contemporary task of the church is to make Christianity countercultural again.
That task can be fulfilled, partly, by making
baptism again what it was meant to be in the beginning: commitment to Jesus
Christ above all others.
Zahnd declares, “I am betrothed by faith and
baptism to Christ alone and Christ can have no rivals” (p. 42).
That is the basic reason baptism is subversive:
by the act of baptism the Christ-follower rejects all the isms that demand
allegiance: capitalism, militarism, and primarily nationalism. And that is the
reason Brian also avers that “from the moment we are baptized into the body of
Christ we become expatriates in the land of our birth” (p. 51).
So, I appeal to all you Christians: let’s make
baptism subversive again!
.jpg)
Here are comments from faithful Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy, for your observations about baptism.
"I certainly agree that 'by the act of baptism the Christ-follower rejects all the isms that demand allegiance: capitalism, militarism, and primarily nationalism." Our modern materialistic, consumerist, and tribalist culture is spiritually sick and a countercultural movement enlightened by universal compassion and love is sorely needed. Isn't this what Jesus taught?
"One nit-picking point, and please correct me if I am wrong. The term 'credobaptism' mixes Latin and Greek, although the term 'baptis'' was adopted into Late Latin from the Greek. 'Credo' is Latin for 'I believe" and 'baptism' comes from the Greek term 'baptizein,' to dip. A purer term might be 'pistobaptism' from the Greek word 'pistos' ('believer'). The term 'pedobaptism' actually means 'child baptism' from the Greek term for child, 'paidi.' Infant baptism would be 'nepiobaptism' from the Greek word "'nepio' or 'infant.' It's just academic as it's too late to change these terms now.
Thanks, Eric, for being the first (and to this point the only one) to comment on today's new blog posting.
DeleteEven though you have not been a part of the baptist tradition, I am happy that you understood, and agreed with, the thrust of the article being the need for Christ-followers to be a part of a "countercultural movement enlightened by universal compassion."
You are correct in pointing the linguist irregularity of the terms used. Here is how it is explained in Wikipedia: "In theological discussions, the practice [of infant baptism] is sometimes referred to as paedobaptism, or pedobaptism, from the Greek 'pais" meaning 'child.' This can be contrasted with what is called 'believer's baptism,' or credobaptism, from the Latin word credo meaning 'I believe,' which is the religious practice of baptizing only individuals who personally confess faith in Jesus, therefore excluding underage children."
My guess is that the hybrid word "credobaptism," which is newer and far less common that pedobaptism, started to be used because of the similar sound of the two words.
And while "pais" and the related word "paidi" mean "child" and not "infant" as such, since in practice from fairly early on recently-born children of Christian parents were commonly baptized and since all infants are, indeed, children, 'pedobaptism' became the regularly used term to describe such baptisms and then they were often called "infant baptisms" in English.
The second person sharing comments this morning is local Thinking Friend David Nelson, who like Eric is a Lutheran. David writes,
ReplyDelete"Thanks for your thoughts on Baptism. As a lifelong Lutheran, I appreciate infant baptism as a celebration of two realities at the same time. First, it affirms and celebrates God's unconditional love to all in the human family. Every child, every person, is loved by God. No action or belief is necessary to receive that grace. Second, it is the initiation rite into the earthly Body of Christ, The Church. Infant baptism makes clear it is God's action, not ours. It is God's embrace, not our beliefs or action.
"Living our baptismal ordination in the world is indeed a subversive act in a world obsessed with wealth, power, and destruction."
Thanks, David, for your comments. I was hoping to hear from non-baptists, so I am happy that my first two responses today were from Lutherans. There are issues that are worth discussing in your first paragraph, but I won't go into that now. I am happy that we are in agreement regarding the subversive nature of baptism.
DeleteThe first response from a Baptist is from my esteemed Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky. He writes:
ReplyDelete"A worthy appeals, Leroy. I don’t subscribe to the counter-cultural perspective. I think we want to transform culture, since it is unlikely we can do much by subversion alone. We will never succeed fully in either of these, but the power and consistency of culture will always challenge us. I respect the Mennonites and other Anabaptists, but they don’t do enough to change the society we live in."
Dr. Hinson, I appreciate you commenting on yesterday's blog article, and you bring up a very difficult issue: how can Jesus-followers make the greatest impact for good on the prevailing culture.
DeleteCertainly, historically the Mennonites and other Anabaptists haven't done enough to change the society we live in through direct action in society. But it seems to me that that was also true of the Baptists in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries at least.
And now in the last 40 years we have seen more and more Baptists trying to transform culture by political action--and that effort has been evident in Baptist leaders such as Jerry Falwell (and his son) and by Robert Jeffress, pastor of the historic First Baptist Church of Dallas. I know that that is not the kind of transformative action you favor, but, still, there is a problem in trying to change culture through political action.
So what else can be done? Well, perhaps various action such as seen in the Social Gospel movement that started over a century ago by the Baptist Walter Rauschenbusch. Or maybe the "Christian realism" of Reinhold Niebuhr, whose realism led him to renounce pacifism and become a supporter of war (which is a problem for me).
Or maybe Baptists like Clarence Jordan and Martin Luther King, Jr., are the type of people working to transform culture that you have in mind. And I certainly have nothing but the highest praise for Christians such as that--and to me they are good examples of people following the Anabaptist (or neo-Anabaptist) tradition. And, as you probably know, Mennonite Vincent Harding helped write some of King's most important sermons, including the one he delivered at Riverside Church just a year before his assassination.
A couple of hours ago I received the following response from Dr. Hinson:
Delete"I can see that you have given much more thought to the issue of the church and culture than I have. I certainly share with you a distaste for people like Jerry Falwell and Robert Jeffress and their effort to reestablish a theocracy. But my long years of study of political science have moved me toward efforts to transform culture, eliminating as best we can its worst features, without a great deal of optimism or naivety. Like M. L. King, Jr. I am a debtor to Walter Rauschenbusch (via Henlee Barnette) and those whom he influenced. To this tradition I would add Mahatma Gandhi, who with Rauschenbusch basically shaped King’s outlook. I have framed my outlook in extensive ecumenical contacts, the most important being Thomas Merton. I think Merton and I wrestled with this together during the war in Vietnam and the buildup of nuclear weaponry. Of course, he tried to pull away from the Catholic concept of Christendom, while I tried to escape the Church against culture concept. Gandhi and King had great importance for both of us.
"As a Political Science major at Washington U., I read quite a bit of Reinhold Niebuhr, but I found his 'political realism' a bit disillusioning for a perhaps too idealistic student. King showed me later than we can effect changes in culture if we risk enough to do so, and we can do so nonviolently.
"I’m always glad and proud to read your blogs."
Thank you for sharing this.i am reading Postcards from Babylon now and intend to read Brian's other book soon. It is so affirming to me to be in agreement theologically and spiritually with another.
ReplyDeleteThank you and Brian for the reminders of the importance of our baptism and the importance of being countercultural and subversive. I know that for me personally it was a far easier task to be counterculture in Japan as a missionary than it has been as a nurse in America and within the Church here. Rather than be subversive within the established churches, I realize I have withdrawn myself. It has hurt me spiritually and my faith has weakened.
Thanks for your comments, Jamea.
DeleteI would like to have written some how baptism is clearly countercultural for many Japanese people, especially those who were not born into a Christian home. For that reason, it was sometimes said that a large percentage of Japanese who became Christians were, at least to some extent, "outsiders" before being baptized.
Leroy, thank you for bringing the issue to the fore front in your blog. I have read Streett’s work on Baptism and The Lord’s Supper where he suggests that Baptism and the Supper are both forms of Subversive-ness. He has also affirmed in his work on Baptism and the Lord’s Supper that they are counterculture, non-violent means to protest worldly powers.
ReplyDeleteStreett, R. Alan. Caesar and the Sacrament: Baptism: A Rite of Resistance and Subversive Meals: An Analysis of the Lord's Supper under Roman Domination during the First Century. Pickwick Publications
Streett is very open to feedback and desires dialog about the two ordinances of the church. So, I suggest hm and his work as it is timely.
I have taught Subversive Meals: An Analysis of the Lord's Supper under Roman Domination during the First Century in a small group setting at church. Cognitive dissonance was extremely difficult to overcome. Some participants could not get past the “make America great again” and others saw subversive-ness attached to either Baptism or the Lord’s Supper as being “heresy”. The belief that church and politics should never be intertwined.
To bring new awareness to the role of the church is a tall task but as a Christian I am called to speak in behalf of Jesus and his role as the counterculture God man. In America and Europe Christianity continues to be relegated to a privatized status. So, if Christ be Lord we share in his task of casting light into the dark places of today’s Pharaohs.
I like what John Yoder suggest in The Politics of Jesus when he points out that when Jesus spoke, he spoke to his new followers as well as to Rome.
Frank
Frank, thanks so much for introducing R. Alan Streett's important books. I have not read either, but last year reading a review of the one on baptism spurred me to plan for the writing of this blog article.
DeleteI didn't expect to find such powerful statements about baptism as a subversive act by an author on the faculty of Criswell College, as Streett is.
Just this afternoon I was able to obtain a library copy of Streett's book, and I wish I could have read it before writing my article--not that it would have been much different and I didn't want it any longer.
I have just read Brueggemann's fine Foreword and Streett's first chapter. Because of the desire to keep my articles around 600 words, I did not write, as I wanted to, about Jesus' subversive baptism. But as Brueggemann states, "John's act of baptism was a perfect subversion of imperial authority that earned him execution by Herod, a toady of Rome" (p. xii).
Then, I was impressed with this statement by the author: "The first Christ-followers were not culture warriors as many are in the twenty-first century. They did not seek or expect to transform the City of Man into the City of God. Rather, they lived in the midst of society, and embraced an alternative lifestyle based on kingdom of God ethics.
"Christ-followers often used imperial language and adopted familiar Roman rituals to express their faithfulness to Jesus. By "Christianizing' Roman language and customs intended to promote loyalty to Caesar and Jupiter, they subverted the culture" (p. 6).
And then in his important subsection titled "Resistance," Streett makes the important point that "baptism was a political act of subversion or a rite of resistance against the prevailing power structures of the day. Is there any wonder that the early believers were challenged to count the cost before taking the plunge?" (p. 10).
Thanks for bringing my book to the attention of your readers.
DeleteI was pleased to receive the following comments from local Thinking Friend Temp Sparkman yesterday:
ReplyDelete"What a challenge you present to us. I first heard about the church as counter culture at professional society meetings in the sixties. I listened and read, but can’t remember that it changed anything in my Christian living. So, I hear your present challenge and hope it makes a difference in our lives in a most perilous time."
About 15 minutes ago I received these comments from Thinking Friend Michael Olmsted in Springfield, Mo.:
ReplyDelete"Excellent insight into the meaning of baptism. The concept of baptism and
joining an organization is trivial. I preached a sermon while interim at 2BC
Liberty titled 'Baptism is Dangerous.' It was a new concept for several
and elicited a positive response."
Michael, thanks for sharing this. I heard many of your sermons at 2BC, but I don't remember hearing that one and think I must have been elsewhere that particular Sunday.
DeleteJust before noon the following comments came from Thinking Truett Baker in ArizonaL:
ReplyDelete"I learned and appreciated your blog on baptism. If you will forgive me, I want to address another issue you recently brought up regarding Brian Zahand and his books, namely, 'Postcards From Babylon.' I purchased a copy and have been reading it. It certainly raises some troubling issues. I can buy (if I even don't clearly understand it) the notion of Christianity being a counterculture faith. I remember a man at Castle Hills BC in San Antonio, when we lived there years ago, who after becoming a Christian literally sold all his assets, and he had much, and gave the money to the poor. It is a dim memory so details are missing. He literally took the message Jesus gave to the rich young ruler, to sell everything. I have trouble separating out the culture from the faith and the symbolism from literal ism. I have always believed Jesus' statement to the rich ruler was a principle. The Jesus People of the 1970s were certainly weird and counterculture, but is that what committing to Christ in the 21st Century is all about? It almost seems that poverty is a blessing and suffering and martyrdom are to be sought as an act of glorifying God. That mentality certainly appeals to the Roman Catholic tradition in history.
"Baptist history is one of my interest and hobbies and there is no question that Baptist; have always been of the counter-culture variety, at least since the Reformation, when anyone who 'walked to a different drummer' was called an Anabaptist; for being out of step with the state church of the day. It has always amazed me that Christianity flourished during persecution but was sadly diminished by government favor and protection. I don't think I have presented my concerns very clearly but I would value your thoughts on the role of culture in Christian faith. It troubles me to think that truth faith has to be a odds with the world that God made."
Truett, thanks for your comments--but I disagree with your final sentence. I don't think that true faith "has to be at odds with the world that God made." Rather, I believe that true faith often has to be at odds with the world/culture that humans have often made in opposition to the world that God intended--and still intends: God's kingdom coming on earth as it is in heaven.
DeleteMy church recently studied the Smyth&Helwys book "Baptism: We've Got It Right. . .and Wrong: What Baptists Must Keep, What We Must Change and Why" by John R. Tyler. We cannot claim any great virtue in this process, since the book was originally copyrighted in 1993. The goal was to lead our former-SBC church to drop traditional baptism requirements for new members from other faiths. Practicing Christians with alternate baptismal experiences could join by statement of faith if they so desired. After a couple of years we changed. I was relieved, because I had developed a very awkward relationship with the "Methodist problem." We still only perform believers baptism, but we accept all believers who move to our church without getting picky about prior baptismal history.
ReplyDeleteI was born across the river, one of the Saints in (the Center Stake of) Zion. Now the Saints have deep Baptist roots, among other sources, and practice believers baptism by total emersion. They even had a rule defining the age of accountability as eight, so you had to be eight to be baptized, as I was. Still, as a teenager I started outgrowing my RLDS parochialism, and ended up marrying an SBC minister's daughter. In 1977 we moved to Liberty, where my wife joined her prior college-town church (Second Baptist), and I became something of a 2BC inlaw-outlaw. In 1986 we were persuaded to teach the kindergarten Sunday School class, which got the minister of education fired up normalize this situation. Well, after a few months of intense discussion, it was agreed that I would join by my statement of faith and prior baptism. I must say, looking back, every year since I walked the aisle and laid the heavy burden of Joseph Smith, Jr. and the golden plates on the Lord it has looked better. And that statement of faith, symbolizing my leaving the heavy burden of Rev. Criswell and the original autographs laying on the altar, has looked better, too. So in 1987 I became an official Baptist.
Then one day I heard about the Methodist problem. Now Baptists and Methodists are quite similar on issues in the modern world, but have quite different baptism traditions. So Methodists could not join by statement of faith, something this former Mormon had done years before! There were some awkward situations in the church where active participants had never joined because of that barrier. I felt personal relief once I knew that Methodists now had the same privilege as Mormons joining my church.
Now as it happens, the United Methodist Church is negotiating a schism as we speak. It is not about the baptism questions that divided Christianity centuries ago. It is not related to the nineteenth-century issues that divided Mormons and Old Landmark Baptists (although both agreed they were the one true church). No, they are splitting over the very twentyfirst-century issues of gay rights and female ministers. Indeed, the baptism issue has come full circle for me as not too long ago we attended the infant baptism of our grandson by the female pastor of a Minnesota Methodist church. Love is bigger than doctrine. As the large rainbow banner outside that Methodist Church proclaims, "ALL means ALL."
Thanks for your comments--and personal testimony--Craig.
DeleteI think the movement of Second Baptist to accept Christians of other denominations without re-baptism was admirable. This was the practice of the Baptist churches I belonged to in Japan. Especially there, baptism is understood by those who are not Christians as the rite by which one becomes a Christian. So for a person to be re-baptized was saying to the non-Christian Japanese that that person had not been a Christian in the past. But, clearly, there were some various pious Japanese Methodists, among others, who were clearly Christians; their re-baptism would have been a most regretful denial of their past life as a faithful Christian.
It seems that I forgot to post earlier these brief but significant comments by Thinking Friend Andrew Bolton in England:
ReplyDelete"Great blog Leroy. I am preaching on Matthew 3:13-17 Sunday. Your blog helps remind me of the essentials of this passage. Adult baptism is subversive! This is why early Baptists had to baptise in secret here in England and why today in China, for example, baptism has to be hidden from the sight of officials."