Baptism and the process of Christian initiation

Ecumenical Review, The, Jan-June, 2002 by Paul S. Fiddes

2. The neglected heritage of BEM

In the context of what I have called a "new Western pattern of initiation", there is a confusion in ecumenical discussions of baptism which is usually scarcely noticed. Due respect is paid to the ecumenical convergence text Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, with its portrayal of a process of initiation, but at the same time the argument is developed for a compression in time of the sequential moments of becoming a Christian. The heritage of BEM, its actual method of approaching the problem, thus needs to be recovered.

It has been generally recognized that the section on "Baptism" in BEM falls into two parts: theological or theoretical (the institution of baptism; the meaning of baptism; baptism and faith) and applied (baptismal practice; the celebration of baptism). Most respondent churches were satisfied by the first part, commending the way that it sets out the nature of baptism as participation in the death and resurrection of Christ and as an interplay between divine grace and human faith; there was general approval for the setting of the individual's response of faith within the believing community, stress on the priority of God's initiative, and reflection on the ethical implications of the act. Where questions were raised about the article, they tended to cluster around the second half of the section.

However well the authors achieved the movement from theory to application, it is important to recognize that there is a shift, since it is significant for the view of BEM on "common baptism". This term has come to be equivalent in ecumenical conversation to "mutually recognized baptism", but mutual recognition is, in fact, a theme of the second part of the section on baptism. It is a matter of practical application. That is, the first part sets out a theology of baptism, in which baptism is "a sign and seal of our common discipleship". We have a common baptism in the sense that all who are baptized are incorporated into the same Christ. The goal is then set out that baptismal unity should be "realized in one holy, catholic, apostolic church" as a means of witness in the world to the healing and reconciling love of God. The second part begins to work out how this can actually happen in the face of different baptismal practices, and notably in the difference between the baptism of believers and of infants. The question, then, is how we can reach a mutual recognition of each other's baptism as the one baptism into Christ, and here the article makes a crucial statement:

   Churches are increasingly recognizing one another's baptism as the one
   baptism into Christ when Jesus Christ has been confessed as Lord by the
   candidate or, in the case of infant baptism, when confession has been made
   by the church (parents, guardians, godparents and congregation) and
   affirmed later by personal faith and commitment. (10)

The phrase "and affirmed later" is attached clearly to the clause beginning "when". This is how, it suggests, mutual recognition is possible--when baptism is part of a whole journey into faith. What can be recognized by those practising believer's baptism, it suggests, is infant baptism plus a confession of personal faith. The commentary to paragraph 12 also spells out this mutual recognition of whole patterns or processes of initiation, stressing that both forms of baptism (infant and believer's) require to be set in the context of Christian nurture, in which the baptized person--at any age--needs to grow in an understanding of faith.