• Home
• Editorials
• Columnists
• Way In
• Features
• Faith in Practice
• Commentary
• High Profile
• Icons
• Cartoon
• Reviews
• Events
• Poetry

Commentary

Charging a commission

Joel Edwards and Theo Hobson discuss Matthew 28:16-20

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.'

From the New International Version

THEO HOBSON Baptism began as an act of allegiance to the imminent Kingdom of God. It very soon became a sign of allegiance not so much to the Kingdom as the church - Matthew's Gospel was written at this time, when eschatological hope was on the wane, and the church was seeking institutional stability. Few, if any, scholars suppose that Jesus actually spoke these words: instead they reflect the agenda of the early church; its determination to flourish and spread. Which it did: the church made the transition from counter-culture to official culture. So baptism began to be a sign of allegiance to the Christian state. I was baptized, as a baby, into the national church.

This brief history of baptism shows how problematic it is. What does it mean? Of course churches still insist that it's central, because it's a way of defining the group, a badge of belonging to the 'family' of the church. But I'm wary of churches that want to be sealed-off subcultures - and so I'm wary of baptism.

JOEL EDWARDS I'm with you on the original meaning of baptism. If you were a woman, child or slave in the power-mad first century, baptism was the ultimate egalitarianism.

I'm happy to be one of the 'few, if any' who believe Jesus actually talked about baptism in Matthew's Gospel and I don't think that the idea of the growth and spread of the church was incompatible with anything Jesus said.

And I agree with you too that even in its infancy the church keeled over, exchanging kingdom values for institutional ones. It accelerated with Constantine and went off the moral map by the middle ages: baptism became a kite mark of exclusion and oppression.

Invariably the strength of a prized identity is sometimes abused as exclusion. But it needn't be so. I know lots of Black activists who marry white people.

But surely the church is always juggling with what it means to reflect counter culture and kingdom values? Surely that's precisely what the church is all about? So aren't you in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water or holding on to some kind of utopian view about how the church deals with our corporate humanity?

Like you I have many frustrations with 'church' which so often fails to present a counter cultural Christ in credible ways and Good News as liberating for people needing a sense of belonging. Church really can be a sealed off subculture. But aren't you in danger of making baptism the scapegoat for your frustrations about the church? I was baptised when I was only nine or ten but I still remember the feeling that I was walking into something like liquid life.

So do you think that we should get rid of baptism altogether or ask how the church should better reflect the kingdom?

TH Should we get rid of baptism? Well, yes, we should move away from it. We need a new sort of Christian culture that's not hung up about a division between insiders and outsiders, about belonging to a holy subculture, a righteous club.

I had my daughter baptized, and then changed my mind on the issue when my son was a baby. I wanted to question the idea that real Christian identity is about being signed up to an institution. (We did an alternative ritual for him, in which he was George defeating the dragon.) The problem with baptism is that it says that real Christian identity is about membership of a certain institution.

The issue isn't that churches should be more 'counter-cultural'. Counter-cultural churches are just as dubious as established ones - they are often more moralistic, and more fundamentalist about their idea of 'orthodoxy'. I think our challenge is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ in such a way as to show that it is compatible with freedom.

JE Get rid of baptism? Wow! That really is throwing out babies with bath-water.

Where don't you find insiders and outsiders? Presumably your kids have access to some things you wouldn't let your neighbours have. And you're likely not to get into intimate discussions about the family if I was around the table for a Sunday lunch. The idea of a church without insider knowledge, spiritual and social norms still feels a bit odd. And you shouldn't forget that Jesus didn't always make it easy for people to follow him. There were a lot of people for whom he raised the bar too high.

But none of that has to be cultish. A ring-fenced church is not the same as a fortress. If everyone knows the deal I can't see the problem. Christian faith has a number of generous ring fences: baptism (pick your mode) and Lord's Supper (with or without children). Would you also move away from the latter?

I think the clue is in what you have said about having your daughter baptised and changing your mind about your son. That does feel a bit institutionalised.

What I find so attractive about baptism is that it is such an open agreement between me, God and a lot of people I will never meet around the world. And all because we all agree that we are forgiven without deserving it. And if I had ten quid for every time I have seen someone come to faith in Christ because they saw and heard someone else's baptismal ceremony I could probably buy a portable pool.

I can't think of any ring fencing so liberating.

TH So baptism and the eucharist are the necessary 'ring fences' of authentic Christian identity? Why be so prescriptive? Mightn't the Gospel be free of ring fences altogether? Remember Paul's rejection of circumcision, which most of the first Christians thought was a necessary 'ring fence.'

Yes, I'm sceptical about the eucharist too, because it's so deeply implicated in institutional authority, and building up that barrier between 'in' and 'out'.

As I see it, Christians are simply those who try to serve God, who recognize the authority of Jesus Christ, and who pray for his Kingdom. God alone knows who his faithful are.

I think we need to recover the idea of Pauline freedom: God is not bound by rules, whether moral rules or cultic rules. Every major form of church compromises on this, and says you have to believe this or that, about morality or doctrine, to be a 'real' Christian. And this legalism is presented as tough-talking honesty about the 'challenging' nature of following Jesus.

Anyway, thanks for the chance to debate these important issues.

JE Yes I do think baptism and the Eucharist are marks of authentic Christian faith. How do you do 'authentic' without knowing what's not? And prescriptive is not a word I would use. Descriptive maybe. More like a birth certificate or a passport.

You have invoked Paul but I'm not sure we're talking about the same fellow. Of course Paul rejected circumcision. It's not 'authentic' Christianity. His message was pretty ring fenced: if you have Christ you can keep your foreskin! You just can't validate Paul's views on circumcision in one breath and reject his views on the Supper in the next. You made me dip into Paul again (1 Corinthians 11:17-32) and I reminded myself that the same passage which inaugurates the Eucharist also pushed hard on self-examination with some veiled hints about terminal consequences for cavalier approaches to the Lord's Supper. And let's not forget that 'Pauline freedom' included tough talk about ex-communication (1 Corinthians 5:9-13).

I have been a church boy all my life and in my work across the evangelical tribes these past 20 years I've come across some pretty suffocating forms of church life which really raises my empathy count for your scepticism. But I fear the level of dualism you are describing feels more like a kind of non-Christianity. We all want Christianity without walls but we can't afford Christianity without borders.

It's been a joy to chat. You have helped me on my journey.

© Third Way 2008 • ISSN 0309-3492 • 13-17 Long Lane, London, EC1A 9PN • Telephone: 020 7776 1082 • Fax: 020 7776 1086