Baptism — the Basis of Church Unity?: The Question of Baptism in Faith and Order

Ecumenical Review, The, Oct, 1998 by Dagmar Heller

This is why I want now to look more closely at how far baptism can be a "basic bond of unity" (BEM, para. 6) for the churches. To do so, it seems to me that one must distinguish three different "types" of churches in the present situation. There are, on the one hand, churches which recognize only adult baptism and, on the other, those which accept baptism at any age. Among this second type one must distinguish those which accept any baptism, even if done outside of their own church, from those which in principle accept a baptism only if it is done in their church.

The situation between churches which practise only adult baptism and those which baptize infants is somewhat paradoxical, because unity for the Baptist churches is not so much based on baptism. If one considers eucharistic communion as the sign of unity, Baptists have no problem accepting other Christians at the Lord's table: indeed, it is the baptismal practice of the Baptists which is an obstacle to the other churches' accepting them at communion. Here unity will be attained only by way of a convergence on the question of faith such that the Baptists can recognize the baptism of other churches. Obviously there are different conceptions of baptism, and it is necessary to clarify in what sense faith is necessary for baptism. One must also take account here of the fact that in Baptist churches baptism is often understood more as personal conversion than as entry into the church.(15) At this point, the differences between these two "types" of churches are differences in the understanding of the ecclesiological dimension of baptism.

It would seem easier to see baptism as a basic bond of unity among those churches which practise infant baptism. But here, too, as I have said, there is a distinction. As far as the unity of Orthodox churches with other churches which baptize infants is concerned, for the Orthodox a baptism in another church -- even if it is recognized -- is not complete, because it lacks chrismation. But what is more important is that for the Orthodox, unity in faith and the recognition of the others as "orthodox" churches is a prerequisite. And if one takes this strictly, baptism is a token of unity only after unity is restored. In other words, the differences here too centre on the ecclesiological dimension of baptism.

One way of portraying this situation is to suggest that all the churches can be placed on a spectrum according to their view of the relation between the human person and God and the role of the church in this relation. Those churches baptizing only adults tend to see the human person directly before God without an intermediary. On the other end of the spectrum are the Orthodox (and the Catholics), who tend to see the church as intermediary between the human person and God -- in the sense that this relationship exists only through the church. The churches of the Reformation are then placed somewhere between these two ends of the spectrum.

To return to the Orthodox: it is necessary here also to look at their practice, as I have mentioned. That is, one must ask what it means that it is possible to apply oikonomia in some cases. If, for example, a church (re-)baptizes a Protestant who wishes to join it, it is very clear that this Protestant is considered as a non-Christian. But a Protestant would then want to ask: if an Orthodox church is a member of the World Council of Churches, it accepts that in a certain sense the other WCC member churches are Christian churches. How then can some Orthodox churches treat the members of these other churches as non-Christians?