Baptism and Communion

This Sunday we have the joy of witnessing a baptism and also, on the brink of a new year, celebrating communion.

As I was working on this message I was reminded of how difficult it often is to hold a balance between two extremes when both hold elements of truth. For me, such is the case with these two ordinances, or sacraments, of the church. And right there you have it, should we call these ordinances or sacraments?

Much of the church at large calls them sacraments. A "sacrament" is often defined, as one dictionary does, as "a rite that is considered to have been established by Jesus Christ to bring grace to those participating in or receiving it." Sounds good enough, but the difficulty comes in when one asks, "just how does it bring grace?" The struggle to answer that questions has at times split the church. The segments of the church that speak of sacraments, tend to see the acts themselves as conveying grace in some form are another. The role of the participant's faith is more or or less significant, depending on how one views the efficacious nature of the sacrament. These churches tend to baptize infants and to hold communion often.

Another wing of the church calls baptism and communion "ordinances." An ordinance in this sense is "something regularly done because it is formally prescribed, especially a religious ceremony." These churches agree that since Jesus commanded these things, we do them, but rather than the acts bringing grace, they are viewed as symbols which remind us of what Jesus did for us and what he calls us to. The extreme of this view believes there is no spiritual value in the ordinance itself, but what a person receives by way of spiritual benefit is totally linked to the faith of the participant. These churches often withhold baptism until a person is old enough to make their own decision and to have communion less frequently. On the one extreme, baptism is not even a requirement for salvation and communion is not stressed as necessary.

Brethren have not been immune from this struggle. We have adamantly declared that baptism and communion are ordinances. We are not sacramental in our understanding of these elements--in other words, they do not convey grace in some automatic sense. And yet, we have always said they are important as a part of our discipleship. So much so that our actions have sometimes communicated that we actually do think there is some magical merit in simply doing the ordinances. For example, if you grew up Brethren and are my age, you know the pressure that adolescents felt to be baptized as we hit that magical age of 12. And communion, celebrated in the Love Feast, was so important that we would take a registration of everyone to was there (this long before any kind of Sunday morning worship attendance tracking was being done). If you made it to Love Feast, then your membership in the church was in good standing, no matter what else was, or was not, in place. So in theology we said one thing but in practice another. This suggests that we were trying in some way to hold a balance between the two positions outlined above.

So for me, I understand baptism does not save us; if it did, it would be a work we do to be saved and the Bible is clear (Eph 2) that we are saved by grace through faith, and not of works. However, it is hard for me to conceive of a person who seriously wanted to follow Jesus who would not desire baptism, in obedience to Jesus' command. Baptism, when entered into by ones own choice, is a first-step kind of thing in our obedience to Jesus. No act of obedience goes unnoticed by God.

Likewise, I do not believe the bread and cup of communion is, or becomes, anything other than bread and juice, but I acknowledge the mystery of Jesus saying, "This is my body" and understand that when a person takes communion, exercising personal faith in Jesus, something mystical does happen. Faith is strengthened and obedience is rewarded.

Thanks for thinking through this with me, and digging deeper.