Perplexed
May 19, 2008
There’s a question I’ve had for some time now. I’ve asked this question on other blogs and have never received an answer of any kind. Perhaps you, dear reader, would like to take a stab at it. [By the way, this isn’t one of those “set up” questions. You know, the kind where I already have an answer and I’m just asking you so that I can pounce on your wrong answer if you give one. I hate those kind of questions. This is an honest one.]
It’s specifically a “Baptist” question, but even if you’re not Baptist and you have a perspective I hope you’ll share it. Let me begin with some background.
Baptists recognize two “ordinances” in the church (”ordinance” in this context meaning “a command”): Baptism and Communion. However, we tend to view the significance of those two ordinances very differently.
Baptism is paramount in its observance and its mode (the way it is carried out). Nothing would please a church more than to perform a baptism every Sunday. While we Baptists declare that its meaning is “only symbolic” it is, nevertheless, much like the symbolism of the American flag. It is a symbol, but it is not a “mere” symbol. The American flag is a symbol of the United States, but there is still an appropriate way to display it (and an inappropriate way), there are “rules” about what to do if it touches the ground (”burn it”), but on the other hand, burning the flag is greatly frowned upon and viewed by some as an act of treason - though legally it is not.
So with baptism, while it is a symbol there are certain aspects of baptism that are vitally important and if these aspects are not followed then the baptism is considered to be no baptism at all. These essential elements to baptism are: that is it reserved only for believers (those who have made a personal confession of faith in Jesus for salvation), it does not convey (either in principle or in reality) any measure of grace to the recipient, and it is to be done by immersing the person completely under the water. As one of my seminary professors would say, the Greek word “baptizo” was used for ships going down at sea and that meant more than just a little rain on the deck.
Communion, or the Lord’s Supper, is quite different in the minds of Baptists. About the only thing the two have in common is the sense that they are symbols of our faith. Yet, Communion is not nearly as substantive as a symbol as baptism, either in our formal theological expressions of it nor in our practice. While we would be more than happy to perform a baptism every week and no one would object that the regular observance of baptism made it “common” or “routine” thereby robbing it of its special place in the life of the church, that is often the argument for why we do not observe Communion every week. Of course, we pray every week, we sing every week and we preach every week and we do not argue that those things run the risk of becoming common - even though they often do. Instead we recognize our responsibility in worship to guard our thoughts and our hearts so that we do not allow them to become common or routine. Why we don’t believe we can do that for Communion is uncertain.
In addition, we are not too concerned about the mode of the Lord’s Supper. Some Baptist churches use a common loaf of bread while others use the store-bought crackers. It is typically unleavened bread, though in some cases it is not. Generally Southern Baptists use grape juice for the “wine” of the observance, though there may, in fact, be some who have a more strict interpretation who advocate the use of wine. I imagine in a pinch a church might be permitted to use red cranberry juice rather than grape juice and while it might not be viewed as ideal few, if any, would argue that the cranberry juice invalidated the entire observance. We might argue our own preferences for each and even give theological reasons why these are our preferences, but I can’t imagine that we would hear anyone say that if the Lord’s Supper is not observed with unleavened bread and grape juice only that it is a false practice and is not a true observance of Communion.
So, if both of these ordinances are observed as commands of Jesus to his church then why are we so strict on one and not the other? Yet, in John Dagg’s Treatise on Church Order he doesn’t even devote one sentence to the mode of Communion. Neither does J. M. Pendleton in his well-known Baptist Church Manual. W. A. Criswell, in his Guidebook for Pastors, does slightly better by making reference to unleaven bread that is actually a common loaf which is broken in front of the congregation and to there being “no point” in using the fermented “fruit of the vine,” but he never suggests that to do otherwise is either inherently inappropriate nor that it would invalidate the observance altogether.
So now to the question. Both of these ordinances are observed as commands of Christ. Why is it that the mode of one (baptism) is vital to the authenticity of the ordinance whereas the mode of the other is not? I’m wondering if anyone can help me find an answer to that question.
Great question.
No answer from me but great question.
Seriously, i’m sure it’s rooted in baptism helping to define our denomination. We’re not known by our mode of communion but we’ll go after someone in a heartbeat if they try to baptize a child or merely by sprinkling.
Pretty significant inconsistencies.
Very interesting question. The obvious answer is that we were birthed as “baptists” becuase of our radical views about baptism, but the question goes beyond that. The “cup” was fermented wine and the “bread” was a loaf of unleavened bread. If the meaning of the elements is in the symbolism and not connected to the elements themselves, if non-fermented grape juice is also the fruit of the vine and mass produced wafers are also unleavened bread, then why is there so much emphasis on the mode of baptism?
My answer would be in the symbolism expressed in the mode itself. The burial with Christ, the new creation in Christ, and the washing away of sins are all inherently displayed in the immersion of baptism and might not be in other modes.
Of course, you know you are opening pandora’s box. Now, the Baptist Identity folks will write another chapter about the correct observance of the Lord’s Supper and demonstrating once again that I am not as “baptist” as I think I am. Thanks alot.
Todd Pylant
Just a few random thoughts I might add:
I agree–we do tend to emphasize adherence to a literal understanding of baptism, while deviating from that in communion. The unleavened bread of communion–I guess that depends on whether you take the synoptic gospels as normative (the meal was on the passover) and therefore was unleavened, or the implication of John’s chronology, that whatever meal they had was on the Day of Preparation and thus at least could have been leavened. But churches tend not to pay much attention to that anyway. There are persistant rumors of Baptist churches in eastern NC, where there are lots of scuppernongs and muskedines but few grapes, that have “always” used scuppernong wine in place of grape juice. (Probably just an urban legend.)
Part of the question might be a false dichotemy between symbols and power. Just because something is a symbol, does not mean it is void of power. Indeed symbols are very powerful: flags, mottos (as on US coinage, “In God We Trust”) and so on. “The pen is mightier than the sword.”
As to the mode of baptism: even though I agree that the mode should be immersion and would not even consider changing that, I fear we have gotten so wrapped up in the mode that we have forgotten the historic Baptist position: that baptism was for those who have made a conscious decision to follow Christ. I don’t get caught up in all the arguments about why it isn’t baptism if it isn’t immersion (so 19th Century anyway) because the important thing is what it represents anyway: the conscious decision to follow Jesus. Having just wrote that, it occurred to me to phrase it in a way more palatable for Calvinists (I’m not one). I guess you could leave out the “desicion” part, and just say that it represents consciously following Jesus. Buit that leads me to wonder if our wooden adherence is in part attributable to pop-Calvinism (as opposed to scholarly adherrents, such as yourself). It seems to me that pop-calvinism would find it difficult to emphasize any decision, and historically that language became more popular in the 19th Century, with the Arminian revivalist movement associated with Charles Finney. But in any pop-culture, people look for some “hook,” something concrete to identify with, and without feeling comfortable with the “decision” part, perhaps the hook became the “mode.” Granted Baptists have used immersion since all but the first one or two generations, but it was in the 19th century that I seem to recall the most emphasis on it. Records from the Civil War show mass baptisms when the armies were in winter quarters–the same chaplains and ministers sprinkling and pouring converts who united with Methodist and Presbyterian churches (and a few others like Episcopal) by the shores of rivers, then wading out into the icy water to immerse those who wanted to become Baptists. Sourse material, as I recall from studying it 20-25 years ago, does not seem to get all caught up in the differences, other than mention of denominations the converts would (presumably) pursue back home. But in the late 19th and even early 20th centuries, in numerous communities in the South, there were “competitions” between Baptist and Methodist churches at revival-time, with the emphasis in the services being the mode of baptism, how each was superior, appealing to Victorial modesty and everything else except maybe the Gospel. I find myself wondering if possibly our current focus on the mode is a “genetic memory” so to speak of that legacy?
I am not trying to set anyone up about Calvinism. Again, I am speaking of its pop-culture version, not the real thing.
John Fariss
Paul,
Perhaps the reason lies in the vagueries of the words “cup” and “bread.” On the other hand the greek word for baptism clearly means immersion. I really have no idea, but I have another question since you went this direction. If baptism and the Lord’s Supper are both ordinances why is one (baptism) and prerequisite for the other (Lord’s Supper). And why is baptism called an ordinance and the Lord’s Supper just “a symbolic act of obedience?” (BFM 2000) Please skim the moss from my mental pond.
@ Todd Pylant:
I believe there may well be as much Scriptural/theological support for using a common loaf of bread in communion as there is for immersion in baptism, and I believe the symbolism of each is equally significant. Maybe I should post something about that, but I believe David Rogers has done that in the past. Perhaps I should just find what he wrote and link to it. I’ve also read some pretty strong arguments (not Baptists, of course) for the meaning of fermented wine in Communion which, again, give it as much weight as we Baptists give to immersion in baptism.
This is for Camel Rider as well, but I think you are both right about the historical influences on the debate. But doesn’t that say something about our claim to be primarily concerned with being Scriptural? I’ve heard many say that to be Baptist is to be Scriptural, but it really does seem to me that this boils down to history (Baptist history) as much as it does Scripture. What’s surprising to me is that common discussions of Communion mention absolutely nothing about the mode. You would think that there might be something to say about it. Even one measly paragraph. But that discussion isn’t even on the Baptist radar. Even the comments Dr. Criswell made were simple descriptions of what he did. They were not arguments for that particular way being the New Testament way.
Oh, and Todd, I suspect that you are only “not as ‘baptist’” as you think you are if you let others define that for you. Personally, I’m not much buying their definitions.
@ John Fariss:
Are you speaking in tongues? This Okie has never heard the words “scuppernongs” and “muskedines.” Methinks you just violated IMB policy.
Well…I just checked Wikipedia, and sure enough, there it was. I suppose you are OK after all - unless you have partaken of either in Communion, in which case you are in violation of Resolution #5.
@ Jim Stratton:
That’s interesting. I never noticed that in the BFM.
As I read Dagg and Pendleton on this issue it is interesting that when the wrote on Communion that they wrote almost exclusively on the reason why baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper and why it should, therefore, be “closed.” Here’s basically what they said:
Baptist is the first act of obedience for the Christian. Therefore, one who has not been baptized is in disobedience to Christ and would, therefore, be taking the Lord’s Supper unworthily.
I trust you know that my “baptist identity” comment was tongue in cheek, as I am sure your response was too. I don’t worry about another’s definition of being baptist until their definition hinders our partnership in Kingdom building.
Beyond the committement ot the mode of baptism, another interesting thing about baptism (and communion) would be the connection (or lack thereof) to its observance in a “church.” Some are telling us that one is baptized into a local church and not into the body of Christ and that only a local church is authorized to baptize. Is the same true for communion? Can I share the Lord’s Supper with a group of my friends at my house and it still be the Lord’s Supper? Does it have to be on church property during an official worship service? Can a small group celebrate the Supper at their home? Can a para-church organization celebrate the Supper together? Can the Supper be shared where two or more are gathered in His name?
Just wondering…
Todd Pylant
Todd,
When I was doing my class work on my doctorate in the early 1990s (through a Methodist-affiliated university), I was in one class which had 5 each Southern Baptists and United Methodists, plus one AME Zion and one Church of Christ pastor. One of the Baptists, whom I considered a good friend, was a DOM in a metropolitian area Association in NC. At the conclusion of the class, the (Methodist) professor wanted us to celebrate communion, and asked my DOM friend to read some Scripture. He promptly refused, and further stated he could not be involved at all in the service–not because there were other denominations involved, but because, he said, “Communion is a church ordinance, and therefore only a church can administer it. This is a class and not a church, so it is not valid and I cannot and will not participate in it.” The professor came to me later and asked if this was Southern Baptist doctrine, actually because if it were, he would not attempt to conclude any classes which had Baptists in it, with communion. I told him that, as I understood it, it was a vestage or remnant of the Landmark movement in Baptist history, and that I had no problem with participating. Neither, it turned out, did the other Baptists there. Just my DOM friend and the COC pastor, together shaking their heads over us heretics. Strange bedfellows indeed.
Paul,
Although I was raised in Alabama, my grandparents had a large scuppernong arbor–somewhere between a half and a full acre, which was started with a cutting from the Great Scuppernong Vine on Roanoke Island. Every year, my wonderful Baptist grandmother made a church-full of, uh, juice to put on her fruit cakes. I miss that, uh, juice!
Uh, that should be a “CHURN FULL,” not a “CHURCH full.” Gee, you’d think I had had some. Or maybe it was just a freudian slip?
@ Todd Pylant:
Yes, it was tongue-in-cheek.
I don’t remember if it was Dagg, Pendleton, Criswell or all three who argued that the Lord’s Supper, being a church ordinance, was not valid when practiced outside of the local church. I guess that means what I and a couple of deacons celebrated with a shut-in a while back was just a snack of crackers and juice.
At first I expected that they would have made a provision for the “two or three gathered in my name,” but it really did come across as an objection to any observance outside of a regular “church service.” I’m out of the office today, but I’ll try to look that up again and be more specific. It was, however, in line with the DOM John referenced.
Maybe if we actually used wine people would want to do communion more!
I’ve asked this question before, and many others besides about baptism. I think we have missed what it really is. Baptism, or immersion, into Jesus is so much more than a dunking. Baptism, or immersion, in the Holy Spirit, is so much more than a feeling or an emotionally hyper experience. When we are immersed in the name of the Triune God we are so soaked with His glory, reputation, and Person that we will be dripping and flowing with those very things.
Now, as to Baptists preoccupation with specific modes of baptism, I completely believe it is much ado about nothing and ironic given our strong beliefs that it is a symbol in nature only.
Paul, on what biblical basis do we teach that baptism is the first act of obedience for a Christian?
Yes, the Greek word means immersion, but we use that same word, just as the Greeks did, to mean immerse onself into one’s studies or to immerse oneself into a person.
Hi Paul and fellow Believers,
I was raised Southern Baptist, but I soon began asking questions. I was 19 when I went up front, and told somebody that I wanted to be saved. I think he ask me if I thought that Jesus was the Son of God. I said yes,and so he said I was saved. I wanted to believe it, but it just seemed too simple for lack of better words.
Six months later I attended a Bible Church and was asked that same question in the parking lot by an older woman in front of many people. I said I was saved, but down deep I didn’t know for sure. I determined right then that I would spend the rest of my life trying to find out everything I could about the truth of God’s Word.
Years later I finally began putting it all together. Yes we are saved by Grace through Faith. No doubt about it. It is a gift, and we don’t earn it. So, don’t get me wrong. But then I found out about Mark 16:16 which says He who believes and is baptized shall be saved…a parallel would be…He who eats and digests will live. If you eat but don’t digest you will die…If you believe but aren’t baptized you will be condemned…simple and as hard for some as that.
For Us there is one Lord, one Faith, and one baptism…we know from Acts 2:38 that baptism is for the remission of sins, and after that you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. So how does one come to be scripturally saved?…1.) You hear the Word 2.) You believe the Word 3.) You Repent 4.) You Confess that Jesus is the Son of God 5.) You are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. This will add you to the body of Christ.
Jesus said as often as you partake of the Lord’s Supper you will remember Him until He comes again…I think you should take it every week on the 1st Day of the Week. Some take it twice a year…some more…You figure out what Jesus would be pleased with…that is up to you.
Please read trulysaved.blogspot.com to find out more about the early church.
Blessings to all,
Brother Paul
This is an interesting thread. As part of a community that holds Baptism and Communion both in very high regard, this topic has always held attention to me.
We rarely Baptize outside the major holidays of the Church (Easter, Pentecost, All Saints, etc) but will if there is a pressing need. We spend several months, sometimes more than a single year preparing an adult for Baptism, and the vows they will take when they are Baptized.
Communion, is of course, for us weekly and the major part of our worship. We use wine and unleavened bread. For us, we typically do not say ‘partake’ of communion, we say we ‘commune’ with God. An interesting semantic difference.
May God bless His divided Church, and illuminate our way.