Believers' baptism among churches of Christ and Christian churches.

Hicks, John Mark ; Weedman, Mark

Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) and Barton W. Stone (1772-1844) were the acknowledged leaders of the Stone-Campbell (or American Restoration) Movement during its first years of expansion across the American frontier. It was their leadership and writings that gave the movement its impetus in the first four decades of the 19th century. However, it was Campbell's baptismal theology that practically dominated the movement in its early years.

After almost 30 years of controversial discussion of baptism with his theological neighbours, Campbell insisted that baptism was the one institution that could signal the union of all Christians in the visible church. I say, then, that in order to the union of Christians, we must have a definite and unmistakable term indicating one and the same conception to every mind. If, then, the Christian Church ever become really and visibly one, she must have one immersion, or one baptism. (1)

The correlation between unity and baptism, rooted in the "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" of Ephesians 4:5, was programmatic for Campbell. The visible union of Christians, according to Campbell, begins with two realities: a mutual confession of faith in the Lord Jesus and a mutual submission to the ordinance of baptism. The "grandeur, sublimity, and beauty of hope, of ecclesiastical or social union," Campbell wrote, "is this: that the belief of one fact... is all that is requisite, as far as faith goes, to salvation" and "submission to one institution expressive of it, is all that is required of Heaven to admission into the church." (2)

That theological vision has remained a constant within the Stone-Campbell Movement, and the hope for the visible union of all Christians has also remained. W. T. Moore addressed this point in 1898. In his closing remarks, he suggested that representatives of "evangelical churches" should meet to find a mediating position on baptism. I am not without hope that an irenicon could be found which would be acceptable to all parties on the vexed and vital questions which I have discussed in this article. Would it not be a wise conclusion of the nineteenth century if a representative convention could be called to meet somewhere within the next year or two in order to consider the whole matter of peace with respect to the baptismal controversy? If peace could be declared at this point Christian Union would then be more than a probability within the near future. (3)

Moore anticipated something like Faith and Order, and even Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry: that is, an ecumenical meeting where common baptismal ground might emerge that would unite Christians.

John Mark Hicks and Mark Weedman minister among the more conservative, even broadly evangelical, wing of the Stone-Campbell Movement. John Mark ministers among the Churches of Christ, which are primarily located in the upper southern United States (Tennessee to Texas), though they are national and international in their presence. This branch of the Stone-Campbell Movement emerged as a distinct faith community in the late 19th century (1880s-1890s). Mark ministers among what are known as the Independents or Churches of Christ/Christian Churches, which are primarily located in the Midwestern United States (Ohio-Iowa), though they are also national and international in their presence. This branch of the Stone-Campbell Movement emerged as a distinct faith community in the mid-20th century (1920s-1960s).

One of the hallmarks of both these bodies is that they are strongly congregational in polity. Each congregation is independent. They choose their own ministers, practice the ordinances (or sacraments) as they decide, and conduct the affairs of their congregation without oversight from any extra-congregational organization. As a result, their baptismal practices may vary considerably, though there is, quite remarkably, a common theological vision, and they share many communal practices.

Historical Origins

Both Stone and Campbell despaired over their search for an authentic conversion experience, which their Great Awakening and Puritan backgrounds encouraged. Conversion narratives included an account of God's work in the heart through various stages (e.g., sorrow for sin to peace in the heart) and through various means (e.g., prayer, Bible reading, hearing sermons) over an extended period of time. Eventually, the seeker would come to an awareness of their forgiveness through some kind of experience. (4)

Both Stone and Campbell pursued such a narrative, but neither found much comfort. (5) While both would enjoy peace through embracing the love of God for sinners, Campbell came to see baptism (immersion in water upon a confession of faith) as God's "sensible pledge" of forgiveness. (6) Consequently, for Campbell, assurance was not based upon subjective feelings, but upon objective divine testimony. But our consciousness of forgiveness is not made to proceed from any inward impulses, voices, or operations, either instantaneous or gradual, but from a sure and more certain foundation--the testimony of God addressed to our ears. If operations, impulses or feelings, were to be the basis of our conviction, it would be founding the most important of all knowledge upon the most uncertain of all foundations. "The heart of man is deceitful above all things," and "He that trusts in his own heart, is a fool." (7)

Campbell rejected the search for assurance through subjective, internal signs of regeneration. The problem, according to Campbell, was that such an inward approach tended to toss people "to and fro in awful uncertainties." If there are no "infallible signs" of regeneration, then the believer despairs, is tormented, and "concludes he is one of the reprobates." The effect of this search, according to Campbell, was the shipwreck of the faith of thousands. (8)

Campbell approached the moment of baptism as an objective divine gift of assurance because the gospel promises attached to baptism are received by faith. I believe the testimony concerning Jesus of Nazareth in the apostolic import of it. I then feel myself commanded to be immersed for the forgiveness of sins. I arise and obey. I then receive it, and am assured of it, because God cannot deceive. Thus I walk by faith--not by feeling. (9)

During the Second Great Awakening, new measures arose to facilitate conversion. Charles G. Finney, of course, popularized many of these, but he did not originate most of them. One of the more popular new measures was the mourning bench in the altar call. (10)

In the late 1820s, Alexander Campbell developed a baptismal theology which substituted baptism for the mourner's bench. In contrast to seeking a saving experience through the mourner's bench, Campbell proclaimed baptism as God's objective offer of assurance to the believer. Instead of seeking assurance in an individualist subjective experience, Campbell argued that God offered assurance in a sensible (empirical) pledge through which one entered the community of faith. (11) Baptism, then, became the empirical seal of assurance for the believer based upon God's promises. Campbell's call was not to pray through, but to be baptized. This form of the altar call became an identifying mark of the Stone-Campbell tradition.

Sacramental Theology

One of the hallmarks of the Stone-Campbell Movement's theology and practice of baptism has been our emphasis on the transformative dimension of that experience. One of the most frequent criticisms of the Movement, especially from other conservative free-church traditions, has been to charge Churches of Christ/Christian Churches with sacramentalism, a belief that the act of baptism is what brings about the grace of forgiveness and cleansing in the baptized believer. Indeed, a prominent church historian recently suggested that current tensions within the American Southern Baptists reflect that group's contact with Stone-Campbell sacramentalism many generations ago--that the Campbellites injected a sacramental virus into the Baptists for which they have not yet developed an immunity!

Whether that charge is true or not, it is certainly true that Stone-Campbell churches have typically affirmed that baptism is for the remission of sins and that it is effective in some way towards the believer's salvation. This emphasis on the efficacy of baptism arises out of the movement's attempt to restore the true church by locating its pattern and form within the New Testament. Early leaders of the Stone-Campbell Movement quickly came to the conclusion that adult believer immersion was the proper form for baptism, and in this conclusion, Stone-Campbell churches found common cause with a number of other churches, including Baptists. However, those Stone-Campbell churches also found much significance in the biblical language that connects baptism with regeneration. For many Stone-Campbell theologians, the practice of adult believer baptism requires an affirmation of baptismal regeneration (where God acts through baptism as a means of renewing life and forgiving sin) if we are to affirm the full range of biblical language about baptism. The logic here is straightforward enough: following Acts 2:38 and other passages, the command is to "repent" and "be baptized" "for the remission of sins." Baptism is thus a significant component in the salvific experience of coming to faith and receiving divine forgiveness and cleansing.

Although this emphasis on the necessity of baptism has led some groups to accuse Campbellites of works righteousness, Stone-Campbell theologians have maintained that the entire salvific process is the result of an act of divine grace. In this context, Stone-Campbell theologians have emphasized the concept of appropriation to describe how baptism is a divine act. Baptism is the means by which the believer acts on their newfound belief and so appropriates God's offer of forgiveness, claims it for his or her own, and receives cleansing and regeneration. (12) Stone-Campbell people would not consider baptism a work in the sense that it is somehow earned or merited by the believer, and in classic Stone-Campbell theology, baptism must be preceded by a change of heart, which includes repentance, and which is offered to humanity as an unmerited act of grace. It is worth noting here that the Stone-Campbell Movement has deep roots in revivalism; our churches are comfortable with the language of warmed hearts! Likewise, there exists within some Stone-Campbell theologies an affirmation that God can forgive and give the Holy Spirit anytime God desires. However, the believer receives the full assurance of those promises in baptism, so that the normative response to God's gift is immersion for the remission of sins. Thus, Stone-Campbell theologians also affirm that this gift of forgiveness must be freely received to be a true gift, and that an experience of the gift without the moment of appropriation in baptism does not make enough sense of the full range of the salvific experience.

One of the surprising aspects of the Stone-Campbell theology of baptism is that our emphasis on regeneration is much closer to the theologies of sacramental churches such as the Catholic and Orthodox churches than it is to churches such as the Baptists --despite being much closer in form and practice to the Baptists and other Evangelical groups. So it is also important to ask how our theology of practice has differed from the Catholic traditions, and here we can identify two key points of difference. The first is in our insistence on believers' baptism, which has led Stone-Campbell theologians to connect the gift of the Holy Spirit directly with baptism, so that the reception of the gift becomes a direct and immediate consequence of baptism. Stone-Campbell believers have rejected the Catholic belief that baptism and reception of the Spirit via confirmation can be separated. Not only does this separation not maintain the proper biblical pattern for baptism, they argue, it denies the fullness of the experience. The logic here is similar to how Stone-Campbell theologians have critiqued Baptist theologies: in order to be a full experience of baptism, that experience must include both free assent and regeneration as part of the immediate experience. Any attempt to separate them falls short of the full baptismal experience. Thus, just as Stone-Campbell theologians have rejected an experience of baptism that does not include a moment of free appropriation of the gift, they have also rejected an experience of baptism that separates the moment of baptismal regeneration from the act of assent and reception of the Holy Spirit.

A second difference between traditional Stone-Campbell theologies and Catholic approaches to baptism is worth noting. Catholic churches almost always require ordination in order to administer the sacrament of baptism, an insistence that connects the practice of baptism with a much wider ecclesiology. To be baptized in this tradition is to be incorporated into the body of Christ. We might argue, in fact, that the salvific concerns that are so important to Stone-Campbell theologians are secondary to these ecclesial concerns: salvation and incorporation are nearly indistinguishable for these Catholic traditions. (Similarly, as recently as a generation ago, it was common for Stone-Campbell theologians to criticize Baptists for baptizing "into the church" instead of "into Christ.") By contrast, in the Stone-Campbell tradition, the soteriological concerns are primary, and the Movement's traditional practice of baptism does not necessarily require a theology of incorporation or even the presence of a body of believers to be effective. One can be saved by being baptized by immersion in the name of the Trinity. Yet, through immersion, believers are incorporated into the universal body of Christ and then seek union with a visible body. One implication of this is that any baptized believer can administer baptism so long as the biblical form can be maintained. No Stone-Campbell theologian would assert that the body of believers is unimportant to the experience of baptism, but there is almost never a sense in which an institutionalized body of believers is necessary to the experience.

These ecclesiastical concerns are important because they touch on questions of church unity. Yet, Stone-Campbell churches are changing on this question, and it is no longer clear that what we are calling Stone-Campbell sacramentalism is as widespread as it was a generation ago. Partly in response to the influence of the American mega-church movement, a number of Stone-Campbell churches have de-emphasized the practice of baptism and backed away from the traditional insistence on the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins, especially in Christian churches. It is not uncommon, for example, for larger (and newer) Stone-Campbell churches to hold yearly mass baptism services--and to describe that experience as an outward sign of the already present transformation.

The Practice of Baptism

For the sake of convenience and clarity, in this section we will identify John Mark's community as "Churches of Christ" and Mark's community as "Christian Churches," though neither community believes these are exclusive or institutional names.

Mode

The full immersion of a believer in water is the normative practice among Churches of Christ and Christian Churches. We typically immerse a single time as we dip the candidate in water backwards to symbolize a burial in water.

These immersions take place in various places, usually in a church baptistery, but swimming pools and natural bodies of water are not uncommon. Though any other mode would be highly unusual, exceptions are known, especially in clinical or arid contexts.

Subject

Churches of Christ and Christian Churches, obviously, only baptize believers, and historically the simple confession that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, is sufficient faith to qualify a candidate.

Everyone who practices believer's baptism must engage the question about the age of believing children who come to baptism. Among us, there is no uniform practice. While middle-school age is the apparent norm (10 to 12 years old), children much younger (7 to 9) are sometimes baptized. Much of the time, the impetus is on the subject to initiate the process, which becomes one way that we allow for accountability: if the subject is aware enough to know that they want to be baptized and has a sufficient reason or understanding of the meaning of baptism or faith, then they are accountable. Questions arise when families push young children towards this process rather than allowing it to arise organically from the interest of the believing children. This may become particularly alarming when parents fear their children are outside the grace of God until they are baptized.

Catechism

Historically, this has never been emphasized, because the ideal was that candidates would spontaneously come forward. However, it has become common for young people within the congregation who desire baptism to meet with the youth minister prior to baptism.

In recent years--perhaps the past 30 or 40--pre-baptism classes have become more common, especially in light of the trend towards baptismal services among Christian Churches. Among Churches of Christ, special classes for middle-school children are common as a way of preparing them for making a decision about baptism. Unfortunately, however, there is no standard or generally accepted curriculum for such classes.

Also in recent years, it has become increasingly common for young believers to receive baptism at church camps or retreats. Many parents discourage this, as do ministers, but youth workers often encourage it.

Administrators

The Stone-Campbell Movement has been a strong witness for the sacramental function of the priesthood of believers. A significant example of this is the Campbell-Rice debate in 1844. One of the propositions Campbell denied was "Baptism is to be administered only by a bishop or ordained presbyter." (13) Nevertheless, even Campbell distributed the ordinary administration of the sacraments in a duly ordered congregation to ordained presbyters or elders.

Churches of Christ and Christian Churches, however, have applied the priesthood of all believers by giving everyone the privilege of baptizing (though some deny this privilege to women). The administration of baptism does not belong solely to a class of ordained ministers or pastors, because baptism is rooted in the charismatic act of God who gives meaning to baptism by word and promise. Thus, administrators are charismatically equipped rather than institutionally ordained. This means that often parents will baptize their own children, and disciplers will baptize those whom they led to faith and a decision to be baptized.

This speaks to the nature of sacramentality within Churches of Christ and Christian Churches. We look more to the charismata of God rather than the episcope, because the episcope, in our congregational polity, arises out of the charismata within the local body of believers, in contrast to an episcope funnelled through previous regional or historic authorities. The baptismal event, including its administrator, depends upon the presence of Christ through the Spirit rather upon an episcopal historical succession. Baptism is constituted by the word of God and God's act through the water.

Liturgy

Baptismal liturgy within Churches of Christ and Christian Churches is in flux. We see lots of changes in our churches.

Historically, baptisms most often happened after the invitation near the end of the service. As a kind of altar call, any who desired to be baptized would be invited to the front. Their response may have been spontaneous or planned. After repeating Peter's confession, they would be baptized in the presence of the whole congregation. The congregation would affirm that baptism, usually by singing a song ("Now I Belong to Jesus") or by filing up to the front to receive the new believer through hugs, greetings, and sometimes (at least in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) by the extension of the "right hand of fellowship." These processes were fairly ritualized even if there was no formal liturgy.

While among Christian Churches it was rare to have a baptism without a significant gathering of believers (either in church, at a retreat, or at a church camp), among Churches of Christ the circumstances of baptism are more varied. While Churches of Christ typically still invite people to come forward for baptism at the end of the sermon, it is fairly common to baptize people the "same hour of the night" when they come to faith. Whether to wait for Sunday or to immediately proceed to baptism is often left to the candidate. Some ministers encourage believers to be baptized immediately or as soon as possible, since they believe there is some soteriological urgency at stake, but other ministers encourage believers to be baptized in a communal setting during the assembly.

Two other trends are significant. A growing number of larger congregations, especially the mega-churches, within both Churches of Christ and Christian Churches (but more so among Christian Churches), gather for mass baptisms at pre-planned baptismal services. Some hold these annually; others, monthly or quarterly. Nevertheless, the invitation to baptism is still part of practically every Sunday assembly.

Another trend, especially among Churches of Christ, is to practice baptism as independent, stand-alone events. They are often private moments in a gathering of family and intimate friends. It is rather surprising that some within Churches of Christ, who have such a high view of baptism, functionally reduce baptism to a private, brief, and isolated act of obedience. The roots of this inclination are too complicated to explore here, though the individualistic heritage of Churches of Christ and the contemporary privatization of faith contribute to the process. We would like to see this trend reversed so that baptism is more integrated into the assembly itself and becomes part of the liturgical life of the church as it gathers weekly.

Soteriological Meaning

Everyone within Churches of Christ and Christian Churches invests baptism with tremendous significance, but the import of that significance varies considerably. At least four perspectives are present.

A significant number of congregations within Churches of Christ require a baptism that is explicitly "for the remission of sins" for admission to membership in the church. In other words, one must understand that baptism is the line where one crosses from unsaved to saved in order for effectual baptism; one must understand that God actually remits the sins of believers through the obedient act of baptism when one is baptized. In these Churches of Christ, believers immersed for other reasons or immersed explicitly rejecting this perspective are required to be re-immersed before they are considered members of the congregation. This is practically unknown among Christian Churches.

A significant number of congregations within Churches of Christ and most Christian Churches regard baptism as necessary to salvation. It is the final act in the conversion narrative. However, in these congregations, specific knowledge that baptism is for the remission of sins is not necessary for an effective baptism.

A significant number of congregations within Churches of Christ and a growing number of Christian Churches no longer stress the absolute necessity or essentiality of baptism. In other words, these congregations would not view unimmersed believers as non-Christians. They recognize that faith is the essential instrument by which God saves humans, even though they still stress the sacramental nature of baptism itself as a divine-human encounter. God acts through baptism, and it is part of the conversion narrative as a whole, but it is not an absolute requirement. John Mark and Mark both locate themselves in this category.

A few, especially among younger members and ministers, show a decreasing interest in the soteriological significance of baptism. This is especially true of those who see baptism as a work, and works--as a category--are excluded from the conversion narrative or the means of salvation.

Ecumenicity

Typically, the unimmersed are not considered members of the local church, and often (as noted in the previous section) they are not even considered part of the body of Christ universal. For most Churches of Christ and Christian Churches, immersion is necessary for salvation, and church membership is a consequence of immersion.

There are many congregations, however, that functionally include the unimmersed in many ways, and a growing number of congregations that ecumenically embrace the unimmersed as fellow Christians.

Nevertheless, the eucharistic practice of most Churches of Christ and Christian Churches is to neither invite nor debar. Each individual decides whether to participate in the eucharist. Congregations do not restrict access to the table. For some, this is a recognition that believers can unite at the table even where they disagree about baptism, but for others it is an expression of their individualism (and, consequently, does not involve any sense of mutual recognition as members of the body of Christ).

Conclusion

Theologically, a significant point at stake is the nature of the Spirit's witness as communal and objective as well as individual and subjective. These perspectives are not severed in Stone-Campbell theology. The communal and objective character of assurance has been overshadowed by American individualism and the overriding desire for the personal, self-interpreting experience of God. In Stone-Campbell theology, the subjective witness of the Spirit is not severed from the objectivity of God's promises in the word and the visible community of faith in which the Spirit offers his witness. The baptism of believers is the sensible (empirical) moment that unites all three: community, God's promises, and the Spirit's witness.

Ecclesiologically, most Churches of Christ and Christian Churches welcome a mutual recognition of the Christian faith among immersed believers. Such believers participate together in the one body of Christ, and we share some common practices with its attendant common problems and questions.

DOI: 10.1111/erev.12171

(1) Alexander Campbell, "An Address to the Bible Union Convention, held at Memphis, Tenn.," Millennial Harbinger, 4th series, 2.4 (April 1852), 210.

(2) Alexander Campbell, "Foundation of Christian Union," in Christian System (Cincinnati: Bosworth, Chase, & Hall, 1839), 101.

(3) W. T. Moore, "Baptismal Regeneration: The Fundamental Error of Christendom," The Christian Quarterly 4ns January 1898), 1-31.

(4) Patricia Caldwell, The Puritan Conversion Narrative: The Beginnings of American Expression, Cambridge Studies in American Literature and Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 45f, 163ff. Jerald C. Brauer, "Conversion: From Puritanism to Revivalism," Journal of Religion 58 (1978), 227-43, traces the development of these conversion narratives from early Puritanism to the revivalism of the Great Awakening. See also Bill T. Leonard, "Getting Saved in America: Conversion Event in a Pluralistic Culture," Review and Expositor 82 (1985), 111-27.

(5) For Stone, see Barton W. Stone and John Rogers, The Biography of Eld. Barton Warren Stone, written by himself with additions and reflections (Cincinnati: J. A. & U. P. James, 1847; reprint by Joplin: College Press, 1986), 5, and, for Campbell, see Alexander Campbell, "Letter to R. B. Semple-No. II," Millennial Harbinger 1 (April 1830), 179, and "Conscience," Christian Baptist 3 (6 February 1826), 150-51.

(6) Alexander Campbell, "Ancient Gospel-No. VII," Christian Baptists (7 July 1828), 279.

(7) Alexander Campbell, "A Catalogue of Queries--Answered," Christian Baptist 6 (2 February 1829), 166.

(8) Campbell, "Conscience," 150.

(9) Campbell, "Catalogue," 165-66.

(10) See, for example, the tract by R. Weiser, The Mourner's Bench: or, An Humble Attempt to Vindicate New Measures (no publication data, 1844). Cf. Iain H. Murray, Revival & Revivalism: The Making and Marring of American Evangelicalism, 1750-1858 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994).

(11) John Mark Hicks, '"God's Sensible Pledge': The Witness of the Spirit in the Early Baptismal Theology of Alexander Campbell," Stone-Campbell Journal (1998), 5-26.

(12) Isaac Errett, "Our Position," III.3, in Historical Documents Advocating Christian Union, ed. C. A. Young (reprint; Joplin, MO: College Press, 1985), 308-10.

(13) Alexander Campbell and N. L. Rice, A Debate Between Rev. A. Campbell and Rev. N. L. Rice, on the Action, Subject, Design and Administrator of Christian Baptism (Lexington, KY: A. T. Skillman & Son, 1844), 567.

John Mark Hicks is professor of theology in the Harelip School of Theology at Lipscomb University, Nashville, Tennessee (USA).

Mark Weedman is professor of philosophy and ethics at Johnson University, Knoxville, Tennessee (USA).