Who’s all wet?

asks Lieut.-Colonel Maxwell Ryan

O ther Christians may be all wet (sprinkled or immersed by baptism) but Salvationists generally are not. Though the Army’s non-sacramental stance puts it outside the pale for some Christians, Salvationists believe they are living according to the intent of Scripture as they attempt - in the power of the Holy Spirit - to live sacramental lives, without the visible signs.

Salvationists are aware of the deep theological divides in the Church over such a common practise as baptism: to immerse or to sprinkle; believers’ baptism or infant baptism; baptismal regeneration or rebaptism (viz Anabaptists)? They are also aware that the practise had its roots in the Old Testament and pre-Christian Judaism, by which means it made its way into the early Christian church as the rite of initiation.

Evangelicals generally hold that baptism is not salvatory, i.e. it has no saving grace but is, in the words of the old saying, “An outward sign of an inward work of grace.” The function in such ceremonies is to draw attention to the truths they symbolize. Therefore, if baptism is not necessary to salvation, reasoned the early Salvationists, is it necessary at all? Could being baptized give Christians a false sense of security? Indeed, they averred, is it not as scriptural to live and worship relying only on the grace of God, as revealed in Scripture through our Lord Jesus Christ and interpreted by the Holy Spirit, as it is to live according to historically sanctioned rituals?

Of course, there is the vexed question as to whether Scripture requires that all Christians - without exception - use this rite as the entrance into the Kingdom. Salvationists hold that the New Testament declares that a rite is fulfilled only by those in whom its spiritual meaning is effective and active, whether or not they outwardly observe the symbol (Romans 2: 28, 29, Philippians 3:3). And they are aware that Jesus Himself neither introduced nor administered baptism (John 4: 2), and the Apostle Paul made sure that he was not known as a baptizer (1 Corinthians 1: 14 - 17). Salvationists further hold that though baptism by water may be helpful, the one true baptism by the Holy Spirit is essential (Ephesians 4: 5).         

Having said this, there is a lively discussion within the international Salvation Army about its non-sacramental stance. Many shades of opinion are vigorously and at times hotly debated on the Army’s chat pages.

Let’s not major in the non-essentials!

Writer: Lieut.-Colonel Maxwell Ryan is a former Editor in Chief in Canada and the UK. In retirement he is a copy editor of theRubicon and the author of two series on theRubicon - Resurrected Writers and Thinkaloud.

9 Comments to Who’s all wet?

1. Is it possible that form is sometimes not important, and sometimes it is?

   The Army has strong opinions about its own forms such as uniforms. For The Army, this is a form that must never be removed. Why is it that we find it so easy to change biblical forms like baptism as an outward sign and claim new, unchangeable forms like uniforms?

   Although the Scriptures can be manipulated to suit our personal paradigms and desired understandings, I wonder if such ancient church practices like the Lord’s Supper and water baptism are among those which should be understood with such a post-modern and relative view.

   I don’t believe that either of them necessarily makes a person more suitable for the Kingdom, but I do believe that they are rituals which bond communities and congregations, unlike the uniform, which is seen today by some as a form of division (the saints and the not-so-saintly saints). I know that there are those who swear by the evangelistic power of the uniform, and I agree that it is a powerful tool, I just wonder if the formal rituals of the Eucharist and baptism should be dealt with so lightly.

   For example, the uniform began as a way of making people a part of the movement of The Salvation Army; it was inexpensive and practical. The meaning was clear and the form was obvious. But the church culture seems to have a way of changing the meaning of forms in order to preserve the forms that it loves. So, when the uniform is no longer inexpensive and practical, we change the meaning from cheap and practical way of forming our movement to “it’s a form of sacrament.” At least some call it that.

   But, when it comes to biblical forms like baptism, we are easily moved to continue recognizing the meaning, but happy and willing to change the form. Jesus gives us a form and we read into its meaning and change the form. William Booth gives us a form and we read into its meaning and change the meaning to keep the form.

   I just find that interesting.

   In His dust,
   Johnny
Johnny Gainey on August 5th, 2009

2. I wonder if calling Baptism a non-essential is entirely right though. There are many parts of being a Christian that are “non-essential” to salvation, but unequivocally part of being a Christian. A person’s salvation is based on faith in Christ, but part of being a Christian is meeting with other believers, Bible study, prayer, Christian service/ministry, etc. While those things besides faith may be non-essentials to salvation, they are not insignificant to Christian living. In the same way, baptism may not be essential, but it cannot be dismissed as if it doesn’t matter. Would it be OK if a group of Christians stopped serving each other, praying, reading scripture, etc.? But aren’t those non-essentials?

   David
David Witthoff on August 5th, 2009

3. I cannot speak or write so smoothly, and I always appreciate when people can. So I am sorry if my thoughts here are a bit , well … jumpy.

   I became a Christian in the Salvation Army and was brought up without The Sacraments. But from the day one I was taught this:

   My life must be Christ’s broken bread,
   My love his outpoured wine,
   A cup o’erfilled, a table spread
   Beneath his name and sign.
   That other souls, refreshed and fed,
   May share his life through mine.

   My all is in the Master’s hands
   For him to bless and break;
   Beyond the brook his winepress stands
   And thence my way I take,
   Resolved the whole of love’s demands
   To give, for his dear sake.

   Lord, let me share that grace of thine
   Wherewith thou didst sustain
   The burden of the fruitful vine,
   The gift of buried grain.
   Who dies with thee, O Word divine,
   Shall rise and live again.

   Albert Orsborn (1886-1967)

   I do not believe that there is (or I did not experience) a ceremony that can be as meaningful as sacramental living.
   I was wondering in which part of the world do you, Johnny, live. I had no idea that the uniform became impractical! When you wear it - it isn’t. But we don’t feel comfortable when people point their finger at us and when we stick out from the crowd like a sore thumb, do we?
   Isn’t it a true reason why there are so many discussions about the uniform wearing these days? It is very hard to be uncompromising in our over-the-head liberal society which denies absolute statements. And the uniform is an absolute statement of a sacramental living. Well it is in our part of the world and I pray it will continue to be that way.

   As to essential/non-essential things, we understand salvation as a point in time and a process where you hold on to salvation until your journey is over. Now, although scripture reading, daily praying (if that is what you, David, meant by prayer, because it is obvious that prayer is, since it is the only way we communicate to the Savior) and service are not essential for salvation as for that moment in time when we repent, they ARE crucial for that continues process. Otherwise we easily turned to the dark side, so to speak. But the Sacraments are not from the same bunch of essentials, the sacramental life IS.
Yuri Zelentsov on August 6th, 2009

4. I wonder if we are supposed to defend the forms of sacramental practices that are laid out by Jesus with such passion as we defend “sacramental living” and the “uniform,” which have been laid out by The Salvation Army.

   Have we replaced the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John on these subjects with the new prophets, Orsborn and Booth?

   Would Jesus or the writers of the Gospels place the same passion, Yuri, and even the same phrases that you have written, only with the Lord’s Supper and Baptism in place of your quotes of sacramental life and the uniform?

   I am from the U.S. and as for the uniform being impractical, maybe you are fine with the $250.00 to $350.00 cost in an organization that boasts about reaching the poorest of society. Not to mention the fact that the material with which it is made must be dry cleaned, which is an additional cost. It is not impractical “when I wear it.” It is impractical, if it is used for the reason it was initially used, which was a cheap way to allow the outcasts of society to feel welcome and allow them to be a part of something.

   It’s impractical, if it supposed to be a way of making people feel that they belong, because it is no longer used as such in some places, but as a way of allowing some to stand out as truly devoted.

   Again, I wonder if Jesus would share the same passsions as you about holding on to the forms of baptism and the Eucharist.

   In His dust,
   Johnny
Johnny Gainey on August 6th, 2009

5. Johnny, first of all - thank you for your reasoning.

   I am sure that you know better than I do that baptism was not Jesus’ idea, he picked up a tradition that was in existence a long time before he came. In the same way, sacramental living is not the Salvation Army’s idea. The Bible calls us to be fully immersed in Jesus and strive to “be Holy as He is Holy”. Nothing new.

   More than anything else Jesus wanted people to have an understanding of God’s ways and not just follow blindly after one or another tradition.

   I am 100% sure that Jesus was passionate during the last supper and about people repenting and joining the church and so are we, every single day. For me, living from the Sacrament to the Sacrament is not enough and never was. I want to be a part of Him.

   Now, are you trying to say that I can only be a part of Him once a month, on Sunday morning from 11 to 12?

   I am not here to defend the uniform. I know I would not be able to. I kind of knew, though, that it would come to the money matters, it always does. But you don’t buy it (the uniform) every month, do we? And what about the second hand uniform? I can find you one with no problem. I wore my first uniform for 15 years, until it fell apart, and it was already a second hand.
   I find it quite irrelevant really, as we can choose to wear just a t-shirt with the shield and short or a full uniform, depending where I am and what I do.

   As for bursting, I am on my way to the prison, where I spend most of my working hours, in full uniform of course, and the boys there really appreciate me “bursting” around, as they know very well what this uniform stands for.

   Have a great day!
Yuri Zelentsov on August 7th, 2009

6. Interesting points on all sides - a couple of questions: What drove John to baptize? If it is a non-essential, why was John so insistent to his audience that it be completed? Why did John relinquish the comforts of ‘normal’ life to live in the wild, by the water, so that he could accomplish this non-essential task? And why did Jesus bother?

   I have always supported TSA’s “super-sacramental” stance and known the blessing of His presence over a muffin at a cafe as well as during a church-administered communion, but these questions have always haunted me. Any thoughts?
Gordy on August 7th, 2009

7. Many religions of Jesus’ day used a “ritual bath” as part of initiating someone into that religion. The Jews were definitely using such in the first century A.D. although we cannot (as far as I know) trace it farther back among the Jews. Several Old Testament texts (in the Greek LXX translation) use “baptize” as the word for “to wet”, such as the finger of the aaronic priest. The fact that baptism has come to mean “the” ceremony we all know is perhaps a hindrance to seeing the word as describing a simple action, not a ritual.

   When John the baptizer came telling the crowd (of Jews) to repent and be baptized, surely they knew what he was asking them to do? It was a public and perfectly understood symbol of “changing one’s religion.”

   If a - or even “the” - symbol of one’s yielding oneself to be a follower of Jesus becomes something no longer understood as such, but comes to mean a “magic” ritual which changes a baby in God’s sight or a “certificate” of an adult convert being in good standing with the church, etc., then, just as the NT tosses circumcision (for the same reason), why can we not put baptism aside in favor of some other - or any other - way of giving public testimony to our new faith? If this principle is accepted [and there are lengthy studies showing that in a number of instances this is what the NT does; beginning even in the OT when the prophets call for “circumcision of the heart.”

   The Bible text nowhere indicates that Jesus “instituted” a Eucharist or baptism. That or a similar word usually appears as a heading of the paragraph in the gospel where the Lord spoke of His body and blood at the last supper with His disciples. In fact, on that same occasion He gave a more emphatic “order” to them to “. . . wash one another’s feet,” but few Churches see that as the institution of a binding ritual. Most in fact see it as to be fulfilled in any kind of even menial service one to another.

   I recall a Bible teacher (sacramentalist) who taught that when Jesus said “This do in rememberance of me” He did not mean only that ‘body and blood’ part but “this” referred to the whole occasion: whenever you believers eat together. Some of us actually say graces at meals which remind us that Christ is our spiritual bread.

   Booth was adamant that his soldiers never criticize those who partake in the traditional ceremonies. Many find them helpful. Still, the Church Universal needs such emphases as the Army gives - and there are a few other groups who do as well - because it can help others to remember that the ceremonies in themselves have no magic or power, but are merely expressions of an inward experience or they have no spiritual meaning.

   Peace, Larry
Larry Repass on August 9th, 2009

8. Another discussion on the sacraments and I can’t help myself - I just have to join in….

   Firstly, I abhor the term “non-sacramental”. It’s a misnomer. The simplest way to refute the use of this term is to refer to Appendix 9 of “Salvation Story”. Reading that it clearly states “we are sacramental”. Please stop using this misleading term…

   Secondly, discussions on the sacraments tend to always head straight for the “forms”. Water, bread and wine on the one hand, and uniforms, flags and mercy seats on the other. Didn’t take long for this discussion to go down the same path.

   I would like to ask a different question. One which I think is much more pertinent than whether or not the uniform is sacramental or not. Here it is… “Why do you think Jesus chose a meal (Eucharist as it is understood now)?” Before answering that have a look at the way Jesus constantly used meals within his ministry and in particular the way it caused uproar amongst the religious elite of his day. (consider Luke 15:2 as an example - “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them”).

   Any other thoughts?
Adam Couchman on August 9th, 2009

9. There is a deep-rooted purpose for baptism that has nothing to do with entering a particular religion. For the Jews of Jesus’ day, even the wealthy had immersion baths in the basements of their homes. The purpose of immersion was to purify one’s self for entrance into the Temple. Ritual purity was most important for the priests who were diligent in trying to remain ritually pure. However, by the First-century, the importance of this kind of purity (nearness to God) was considered important to most Jews.

   Even more interesting was their association with the symbol of moving water that represented chaos. To be immersed in the chaos (water of a moving river) was a representation that the person had turned back to God (these were people who were not new to the knowledge and practices of faith, but sinners who had strayed) and were recommitting themselves to a life of righteousness (helping the poor), which was the way a person “entered eternal life” or “living for the Eternal One.” This particular act of baptism was, in effect, a visual entrance into the chaos of their world and a commitment to enter the chaos of their world and do what they could to fix it. This ancient teaching is called “Tikkun Olam (Eng. “To fix everything that is broken).” You can even google this term and get lots of information.

   As for the purposes of ritual immersion, there are many recorded in the 6th Division of the Mishnah, Tohorot, Mikva’ot as well as the first century, historical writings of Philo and others.

   The point of Jesus being baptized had to do with his mission to “repair the world by bringing in the Kingdom.” Although he was not turning back to God, he was sharing in this baptism of John that was symbolic of being a “world fixer.”

   If our uniform serves as a sign of our service, then that is a fine and wonderful form. I don’t disregard the value or the effectiveness of this form. I only ask if we should consider the forms that Jesus used as temporary or cultural for his time alone. And I wonder if we should fight so hard for our own forms, when we are so quick to change the forms used by Jesus. I really don’t want to argue about uniforms and sacraments; that is not my intent in bringing this up.
   My true goal is simply to find out why Christians are so quick to change biblical forms and will consider a fellow-Salvationist to be a heretic for questioning our own.

   After all, even William Booth was troubled by his decision to remove at least the sacrament of the Eucharist. “…to the end of his days there were moments when he [William Booth] looked almost wistfully to the Sacrament of the Supper, and there were moments when he appears to have doubted, if only transiently, the wisdom of his decision” (The Life of General William Booth, Harold Bergbie, page 428).
   And in an interview in 1895 given by Sir Henry Lunn the end of the dialogue was:

   “Would you [General Booth] be willing to sanction your Soldiers being baptized and partaking of the Lord’s Supper if they desired?” To this the General gave an unqualified answer in the affirmative” (Bergie, 433).

   You can read this for yourslef at this link:

   http://books.google.com/books?id=gZZk9ZGyA7cC&pg=PA423&lpg=PA423&dq=William+Booth+and+Communion&source=bl&ots=Ypd9dbnKx7&sig=KF8vLqlfsU-ntZ9sAK1HhCB0Kvc&hl=en&ei=Pn6BSt-jBoGRtgeO0enMCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false

   Johnny
Johnny Gainey on August 11th, 2009

Leave a comment