. . . is somewhat inevitable in the customer-driven church. Isn’t it?
This was in a recent email newsletter sent by a church from my past:
“While you only need to be baptized once, if you’d like to reaffirm your commitment to God we encourage you to participate in baptism again.”
This church, which I resigned from several years ago with resolve but regrets, is still near and dear to my heart, but this is, frankly, one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen in an invitation. It doesn’t even make sense. (But you don’t need me to tell you that.) You only need to do it once. But if you want to reaffirm, you should do it again. I was not surprised to read this, but greatly saddened.
Today I saw on Twitter someone announcing that hundreds of requests for baptism were coming in . . . for this Sunday.
I think baptizing hundreds of people is great. What a blessing! God grant me the blessing of baptizing hundreds in my lifetime, let alone one Sunday!
But while I don’t see baptism classes or extensive counseling in the Scriptures precipitating baptism, and while there is much spiritually to admire in so-called “spontaneous baptisms,” I don’t feel it’s being inordinately cynical to wonder how even a megachurch will sort through the hundreds of needs attendant in hundreds of baptism requests. Not all of those people will really need to be baptized. But will the church do its due diligence in figuring that out?
A blogger shared this year that he was baptized for the sixth time. Or maybe it was the seventh. (I forget, but it was more than four.) This time, I remember him saying, it was “for hope.” I wonder if “faith” and “love” were already covered in previous dunkings.
Last year a young man approached me about re-baptism. I knew I was going to have to be tender with him when his reasoning began, “I’ve been listening to a lot of praise and worship music lately . . .”
He was a believer and had been baptized, and I explained to him he did not need to be re-baptized. I love this guy, which was why I wouldn’t baptize him. I didn’t want to reinforce the idea that his faith was contingent upon his feelings. The sacrament of baptism is not seasonal. Christ died and rose once.
I have re-baptized candidates when by conscience and conviction they do not believe their first baptism was valid, typically because they are now credo-baptists but were born into either a paedo-baptizing tradition, whether Catholic or Protestant. But I counsel substantively with them beforehand. I generally try to convince them they don’t need it. Baptism is not “re-dedication,” which my Baptist heritage is very fond of.
This new movement of mass baptisms, if it is a move of the Lord, is wonderful. Time will tell if the number of professing Christians in the West is truly rising, if the fruit of these churches reporting hundreds of baptisms on any given Sunday are producing growing disciples. But it is not out of order to have grave concerns about the way the baptisms are offered, taught, and administered. Precisely because people’s hearts are precious. A lot of the mass baptism hoopla does look like re-dedication turned to eleven. It makes for good press, good buzz. But I don’t know if it makes for good baptisms. Or solid believers.
I think — I think — the good press of hundreds and thousands of baptisms solicited in this manner is part of what makes the un-clued-in think everything’s hunky dory in the evangelical church. I will not rejoice to be right about this.
Related posts:
November 18th, 2009 | 8:47 pm | #1
I am an Orthodox Christian and was baptized as an adult because I came to Christianity as an adult and had never been baptized in my life. I take the Nicene Creed seriously, which states: “I believe in one Baptism for the remission of sins…” I also appreciate the fact that I had a period where I learned about my faith and why I was being baptized before the actual event took place. My baptism had meaning for me, and I see no need to do it again. In addition, the Scriptures never talk about people being baptized twice. So I always wonder why people think they need to have two (or more) baptisms.
November 18th, 2009 | 8:55 pm | #2
“A blogger shared this year that he was baptized for the sixth time.” An ana-ana-ana-ana-ana-ana-baptist perhaps?
November 18th, 2009 | 9:03 pm | #3
Anonymous, I think most of the re-baptisms boil down to the idea that “This time I mean it” or “This time, I know what I’m doing.”
I was baptized twice, once as a six year old after walking an aisle to “ask Jesus into my heart” and a second time at about twelve years of age, after a second conversion experience (precipitated by terror inspired by those pretribulational “Thief in the Night” movies). I know about rebaptism based on “this time really meaning it” from firsthand experience.
November 18th, 2009 | 9:12 pm | #4
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by imonk and John ZuHone, Chris Canuel. Chris Canuel said: RT @imonk: Jared Wilson on the Cheapening of Baptism http://bit.ly/1jUw7i [...]
November 18th, 2009 | 10:34 pm | #5
Yeah, I see it a lot at forums I visit… people asking if they should or the fact that they have been Baptized more than once. Just to either drive the nail further with regards to their faith or the first time they didn’t really mean it and the 2nd time meant it more.
I, personally, have never been baptized. Yet, my family are Baptist (Southern). I remember posting this in a forum and a guy thought I was a lesser Christian and said is this what Christianity passes for these days. We were debating something else and I’m sure it was the heat of the debate that made him say such. It happens, just that shows people have strong views about Baptism.
I’m not a big church goer and do not feel the need to be baptized, as of now. Some would say, “How could you go against a clear command of your Lord and Savior?” IMO, being baptized by the Holy Spirit is more important than water immersion. Though, I do understand it’s symbolism.
November 18th, 2009 | 11:25 pm | #6
1. I was baptized when I was six. I don’t believe I was regenerated until I was eleven. I’ve never been rebaptized–which is just as well, I guess, considering now I’m in a paedobaptist tradition.
2. “A sinner”: Not only do you need to get baptized, you need to commit to a church community. We were not called to be loner Christians, even if we can’t find a “perfect” church.
Think of baptism like a wedding ring: The ring itself isn’t the same as your being married, but it is a public sign of your being married–and thus making the commitment to and covenant with that person. Same goes with us and Jesus, and the Church, and baptism.
November 19th, 2009 | 9:17 am | #7
I was baptized as an infant in the Roman Catholic church to cleanse me from original sin. I was baptized as an adult in a Baptist church to affirm publicly my commitment to Jesus as my Lord and Savior (and because adult baptism by immersion is required by my church for membership). Two different baptisms for two different purposes.
I’ve been married twice, too, so maybe there is a pattern here.
November 19th, 2009 | 10:53 am | #8
Heavens to betsy.
I don’t fault people for wanting to be re-baptized.
But come on, pastors! Is there any warrant at all for this?
November 19th, 2009 | 11:30 am | #9
Jared:
I know those Thief in the Night movies. My parents’ denomination was involved in the production. In fact, the one actor in the first movie who was trying to lead people to Christ was actually the son of our former pastor.
As for baptism, I really have no problem with doing it more than once, as long as they aren’t thinking that it’s something they have to do every time they backslide to be forgiven. I guess I would compare it to a married couple renewing their vows. It doesn’t invalidate the original vow; it just drives the point home that you mean it.
November 19th, 2009 | 1:17 pm | #10
I myself am not in favour of rebaptism of any kind. If the sacrament of baptism is a sign of God’s electing grace, then undergoing the rite a second time would appear to represent doubt in the firmness of God’s promise of salvation.
That said, I understand that the use of holy water in the Catholic Church is intended as a reminder of one’s baptism. Is it possible to reinterpret these protestant “rebaptisms” as, if not genuine baptisms, reminders of one’s earlier once-for-all baptism? Just a thought.
November 19th, 2009 | 2:01 pm | #11
It’s possible to believe anything or reinterpret anything.
I don’t see re-baptism in the Bible at all, much less see baptism described as renewal or re-commitment.
I’m not a fan of marriage vow renewals either, though. When I made mine, I did it with no expiration date. :-)
November 19th, 2009 | 3:17 pm | #12
Renewing vows:
In traditional churches every baptism, especially the night before Easter, is the chance to renew baptismal vows. It’s a part of the liturgy. God bless those who have good hearts but wrong ideas; having said that-please understand that I’m not tying to be rude in any way-it needs to be made clear that there’s no need to reinvent the wheel. The Church has this part of the Christian life settled. It’s not guesswork.
November 19th, 2009 | 3:19 pm | #13
“I’m not a fan of marriage vow renewals either, though. When I made mine, I did it with no expiration date. :-)”
I’ve often thought that the next step in the legal redefinition of marriage is the adoption of renewable term marriages with a sunset clause.
November 19th, 2009 | 3:38 pm | #14
I don’t agree that everything that isn’t mentioned in the Bible is inherently wrong. It’s ok to practice new traditions, so long as they do not take the place of the old or work against the mission of the church.
November 19th, 2009 | 4:06 pm | #15
“I’ve often thought that the next step in the legal redefinition of marriage is the adoption of renewable term marriages with a sunset clause.”
I’m stealing this line. I’m just going to be up front about this, as I’m sure I’ll forget where I got it from eventually. : )
November 19th, 2009 | 4:31 pm | #16
Matthew, feel free to use it. And, no, don’t feel obligated to mention my name.
November 19th, 2009 | 5:09 pm | #17
It’s ok to practice new traditions, so long as they do not take the place of the old or work against the mission of the church.
Anthony, I think re-baptisms as they are most commonly practiced in evangelical churches do both of those things. They reinterpret the biblical meaning of baptism and they work against real gospel mission and the baptism of converts by turning baptism into a rededication ceremony by which we “inspire” the already convinced, etc. A lot of the hoopla around these mass spontaneous baptism ceremonies can distract from the reality that megachurches are largely succeeding by sucking up Christians from smaller churches or trading Christians between mega-congregations.
Sally Morgenthaler’s research into the “fruit basket turnover” type of “growth” is eye opening.
November 19th, 2009 | 8:44 pm | #18
Jared,
When you wrote:
I was baptized twice, once as a six year old after walking an aisle to “ask Jesus into my heart” and a second time at about twelve years of age, after a second conversion experience (precipitated by terror inspired by those pretribulational “Thief in the Night” movies). I know about rebaptism based on “this time really meaning it” from firsthand experience.
Earlier I wrote a post (Holy God …. ) trying to explore the difference in which the Catholic/Orthodox view of Holiness differs from the Protestant. And in part that has to do with an interior-only view of Holiness. This carries over in your post above. From my point of view, getting re-Baptised makes as much sense as “having your 14th birthday” repeated or getting your drivers license re-issued over again because you didn’t have the right frame of mind the first time.
If Baptism is not primarily about what happens “inside” the Baptised emotionally, personally and spiritually, but an ontological reconfiguration of your relationship between yourself and the Creator. Re-doing it makes no sense. There is no un-Baptism sacrament.
November 19th, 2009 | 9:54 pm | #19
What about when your church makes you do it – i.e. the SBC
Believers Baptism, but you were sprinked – not good enough
November 19th, 2009 | 10:01 pm | #20
Personally? I think it’s wrongheaded.
I’m a fan of Piper’s proposed approach to mode-of-baptism accommodation, despite being a credo/immersion guy.
November 19th, 2009 | 10:08 pm | #21
Seems to me that believer’s baptism is more the thing, than mode.
I don’t like sprinkling adults, but I’ll take it as valid.
However, I don’t think one can be a credo-baptizer, and accept an infant baptism as legitimate.
Not trying to start a debate on THAT…but if you believe that baptism is for a believer, then it behooves a pastor to counsel an infant “baptised” believer, to get baptised for real, and to just plain not allow those who were baptised as believers to get in the tank again.
November 20th, 2009 | 5:05 am | #22
David Koyzis said: “I’ve often thought that the next step in the legal redefinition of marriage is the adoption of renewable term marriages with a sunset clause.”
Did you know that a German politician actually proposed this? She was then expelled from the CSU party (Christian Social Union) of Bavaria.
November 20th, 2009 | 10:37 am | #23
She was with the CSU? Franz Josef Strauss’ party? I could more easily see an SPD deputy embracing such a proposal.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact