A Response to “Pagan Christianity?”
3.10 Chapter 9 Review – Baptism and the Lord’s Supper: Diluting the Sacraments
Not content to leave any good thing in the church uncontested, Viola and Barna next seek to attack the sacraments,[1] meaning baptism and the Lord’s supper. On the matter of baptism, I have grave concerns concerning their preference for spontaneous baptism. Even worse, as regards the Lord’s supper, I believe their proposals constitute an utter perversion of the sacrament, to the endangerment of the souls who would partake with them. We will consider both sacraments in turn.
On the matter of baptism, their main objection is that in modern churches, baptism tends to be separated from the moment of conversion by a lengthy period of time. They understand that baptism should be immediate and spontaneous. Theologically, they emphasise that baptism is closely tied with salvation in the New Testament, and used as a sign of initiation into the covenant. I don’t fundamentally disagree with this point. The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith describes baptism in this way:
“Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.”[2]
So, yes, baptism is closely tied to regeneration and union with Christ and should shortly follow conversion in normal circumstances. I particularly appreciate the way the Confession emphasises baptism being a sign from the Lord Jesus to the individual being baptised: signifying and confirming the promises of the gospel to the believer. Modern Baptists tend to emphasise baptism as a means of self-expression: making it merely an outward testimony of faith from the believer to the world. That may indeed be one function of baptism, but it is not the whole story.
Turning again to the views of Viola and Barna, we find they take this in an unusual direction. They say, “water baptism is the believer’s initial confession of faith before men, demons, angels and God.” Again, it is true that baptism can act as a public profession of faith. My understanding, however, is that repentance and profession of faith should precede baptism, and thus baptism cannot serve as the initial profession of faith. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine the baptism of adults working in any other way. No one would present themselves for baptism without having first believed, and it would certainly be inappropriate to try to baptise those who did not yet profess faith. Once a credible profession of faith has been made, however, I do agree that baptism should be performed as soon as it can be arranged. However, instruction and examination beforehand will be necessary. In Scripture, the pattern is that instruction comes before baptism (Acts 2:41; Acts 16:14-15, Acts 16:32-33). Jesus’ warning to “count the cost” (Luke 14:25-33) of discipleship also comes to mind. It would be an abuse of baptism to be hasty in driving people into it before they are fully cognisant of its significance and implications. Thus, it seems to me that the practice of spontaneous baptisms is badly flawed.[3]
Coming to the Lord’s supper, Viola and Barna make more bizarre claims. They complain that the supper “has become an empty ritual” and a “morbid religious exercise”. I object! This is verifiably not the experience of a great many Christians, who find great value and spiritual nourishment by means of regular participation in the Supper, in the traditional way. Viola and Barna’s habit of over-generalising their own subjective experiences to the entire Christian church is both irrational and offensive. It is difficult to take such arguments seriously.
Further, Viola and Barna think the Lord’s supper must be a “festive communal meal” with “no clergyman to officiate”. Originally, they say, the Supper was practiced in the “joyful, down-to-earth, nonreligious atmosphere of a meal in someone’s living room.” They even criticize the use of the words of institution! According to them, there should be no self-examination, no remembrance of “the horrors of our Lord’s death”, no reflection on our sins, and no solemnity. Thus, they reduce the Supper to nothing more than an informal fellowship meal. One could hardly imagine a more thorough repudiation of the traditional practice of the Lord’s supper!
Regarding the matter of holding the Lord’s supper in the context of a communal meal, I am willing to grant that this was likely common in the first century. At least, the abuses described in 1 Corinthians 11 would not have been possible if this were not so in Corinth. I think it would have been very natural for the first believers, knowing the story of the last supper and its context in the Passover meal, to try to replicate something of that setting in their own practice of the Supper. But this being so, there is nothing in the idea of holding the Supper as part of a full meal that would preclude a reverent, reflective, and indeed “religious” observance. The Passover itself would be a perfect example of a sacred, religious meal. However, it would be a stretch to say that the context of a full meal is a necessary element of the Lord’s supper, just as it would be wrong to claim that using a natural, running body of water is necessary to baptism (even if that is usually the case in the New Testament). Once again, we distinguish between the necessary elements of worship and the flexible circumstances in which those elements are practiced. We should also pay attention to Paul’s admonition of the Corinthians. He says they had abused the practice of the Supper in such a fundamental way, that it did not actually count as the Lord’s supper (1 Corinthians 11:20). Some people were rushing ahead, some ate and drank too much, and some missed out. This should obviously not be our exemplar for the modern church’s practice of the Supper! Paul asks, “Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?” (1 Corinthians 11:22). This simple question has crucial implications. The Corinthians who were hungry or thirsty should satisfy their desires at home, before coming to the gathering of the church. The Lord’s Supper, therefore, is not primarily, or essentially, a meal for satisfying bodily hunger. Paul is clear that the Supper is a spiritual participation or communion in the body and blood of the Lord (1 Corinthians 10:16). It is a symbolic, or even sacramental meal, in which the believer feeds on Christ and his benefits by faith.[4] Thus, the physical quantity of bread and wine that is consumed has no bearing on the right practice of the Supper.
We could also address the attitude in which the Lord’s Supper was to be celebrated. It should indeed be joyous, because in the Supper the joyful message of the gospel is proclaimed. But not all joy is the happy-clappy kind that Viola and Barna evidently prefer. Real Christian joy is perfectly compatible with sober-minded reflection on one’s sins and the death of the Lord. That Viola and Barna would see a conflict here is a sure sign of profound spiritual immaturity at best, or sheer unbelief at worst. Furthermore, the Lord’s Supper should certainly involve remembrance of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:24). It should also be practiced with great care and reverence. Those who partake unworthily, incur the judgement of God. This is what Paul says:
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
Viola and Barna try to limit this warning to Paul’s immediate concerns with the Corinthian church: failing to wait for the poor and getting drunk. Certainly, this is one example of how a person could partake of the Supper in an unworthy manner, but this is surely not the only possible way to abuse the Supper. Paul’s words in this passage are general, not specific. He takes the opportunity of the Corinthians’ specific sin to teach a more general lesson. Notice that the “therefore” in verse 27 follows Paul’s recital of institution of the Lord’s Supper. His warning follows from the nature of the Supper itself, and thus can be applied to any perversion of it. Anything that would constitute an “unworthy manner” is included. Thus, each of us is under the necessity of examining ourselves each time we partake. The threat of judgement, even of imminent temporal consequences, for abuse of the Supper should remind us to approach the Table of the Lord with utmost seriousness, reverence, and carefulness.
In sum, then, Viola and Barna fail to do justice to Scriptural teaching on baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Far from representing a return to first century practice, their radical revisions ultimately undermine and overthrow the practice of both sacraments. In being over-hasty to baptise, they risk improperly placing the covenant sign on unbelievers, who neither understand the significance of the ordinance, nor are prepared to live in light of it. In reducing the Lord’s Supper to a casual and irreligious community meal, they ignore its profound spiritual function, fail to heed Paul’s warnings to the Corinthian church, and thereby imitate the irreverent and careless attitude of the Corinthians themselves. To Viola’s and Barna’s counterfeit Supper, we can justly apply Paul’s words: “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.”
[1] I would urge the reader not to be bothered by my use of the word “sacrament”. Reformed churches and early Particular Baptists used the word freely and frequently. With the 17th century Particular Baptists, my sacramentology would be “higher” than you would find amongst most Baptists today.
[2] Quoted from the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, 29.1.
[3] For further considerations against spontaneous baptisms, see: Morell, C. (2020). Does the Book of Acts Teach Spontaneous Baptisms? 9Marks. https://www.9marks.org/article/does-the-book-of-acts-teach-spontaneous-baptisms/
[4] See the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, 30.7.
Next Section: 3.11 Chapter 10 Review – Christian Education: Swelling the Cranium
0 Comments