Archive: “By Water and the Spirit”—Understanding Baptism
The new baptism statement needs further study before it becomes the doctrine and practice of the church. At this point in time too many questions remain unanswered. The church should avoid the disaster of 1972 when the General Conference made a hasty decision on church structure and prepared a doctrinal statement.
The new structure gave us unwieldy boards and agencies and an unworkable “Council on Ministries.” The doctrinal statement imposed upon the church theological “pluralism,” the conciliar principle, the doctrinal standards as “landmark” (and thus not fully authoritative) statements, and the quadrilateral (a four-legged stool with uneven legs). We are still burdened with the structure, though a later General Conference was able finally to undo the damage of a doctrinal statement that was passed without careful examination.
The church ought not change its theology and way of doing things without a much more careful consideration of the implications of what is being proposed. That’s why the baptism statement needs more time.
Specifically, the General Conference should raise questions about:
1. The amount of time required between distribution of the final draft of the baptism statement and the beginning of General Conference. The baptism statement has undergone at least four revisions. After the last meeting of the study committee, the chairperson said that the final paper is “significantly different” from earlier drafts. There is enough difference between the revisions that one should legitimately ask, “What is it, really, that is being presented?” A major revision was made, with a new writer, since the document was presented to the General Conference in 1992 and presumably studied by the churches. It would be a travesty if the final document did not reach the delegates until after the deadline to submit petitions for amendment (December 15, 1995). One would wonder if the last-minute presentation of the document is a strategy to inhibit debate. Despite claims to the contrary, this statement has not yet been studied or understood by the church.
2. The Disciplinary changes that will be required since our understandings of baptism, church membership, and salvation are being radically revised. For example, one consistent theme throughout the statement’s revisions is its clearly stated objective that the basis of church membership is to be changed. According to the new baptism statement, persons will no longer be made church members by profession of faith in Jesus Christ, but by baptism. Is the church so quickly willing to jettison 200 years of American church belief and practice without carefully considering how this changes the nature of United Methodism?
Since the teaching that salvation and church membership is dependent not upon baptism but upon faith in Christ, and since this teaching is reflected in a number of places in our present Book of Discipline, should we not know exactly how radically our Discipline will need to be changed? It is certain, for example, that paragraphs 208 through 243 will need major revision.
3. How this fits into the beliefs and practices of United Methodists in central conferences and other Methodist bodies around the world. Discussions on the baptism statement to this point have been embarrassingly parochial. None of the previous drafts were translated into Spanish, or Korean, or any other language. The final draft has not even been seen by Americans, let alone any of the central conferences. Is it fair to impose on the church in Zaire this American parochialism? The baptism beliefs and practices in our world-wide denomination vary greatly. Those variations need to be treated with sensitivity. Do we leave ourselves open to the charge of cultural and theological imperialism?
4. Practical and logistics problems. Treating baptized persons as church members, which is without precedent in American Methodism, can lead only to confusion. What about infants baptized in one church whose parents attend elsewhere? What about persons baptized away from the church setting, at camps or retreats, for example?
If there is another category of membership (such as professed/confirmed members) in addition to baptized members, and if apportionments are based not on “members” but on “professed/confirmed members” can we believe that the “baptized members” roll will be kept with any seriousness? Since rebaptism is being disallowed, what will constitute a valid baptism in the first place (what about baptism in the name of a different god, such as Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer)? How will baptized, but inactive, members be removed from the roll?
General Conference delegates have not distinguished themselves for their careful theological reflection. It would be a shame if the baptism statement is passed without a great deal more serious consideration.
0 Comments