But Does it DO Anything??

I entered the Presbyterian church nearly 2 decades ago, and it has taken nearly all of that time for me to begin to grasp a Biblical theology of baptism.

Having been trained in the "proof-text" mentality, I long believed that major doctrines could be both established and proven by a couple of verses here and there. Throughout the years, I have become convinced that this mentality has led to grave theological distortions, errors and heresies within The Church, many of which have resulted in dire consequences for the people of God.

This proof-text approach resulted in more than a little frustration when I first encountered differing views on baptism because it defies that sort of explanation. A decade of whole-Bible instruction, including countless sermons which never even mentioned the word "baptism" (but had everything to do with it!), has shaped my thinking on the issue.

Baptismal controversies abound in Christendom. Answers to even the most basic "historical questions" (who? what? when? where? how? why?) are not agreed upon by Christians who otherwise find a great deal of common ground on foundational doctrines. Even, or should I say especially, this is true within the narrow sect known as "Reformed Presbyterians," who engage in extended, heated and - dare we admit it! - even ungracious debates over baptism.

Peter Leithart, a pastor in the PCA, is one voice attempting to bring truth to the forefront on this issue. I recently read his The Baptized Body in which he answers one seemingly simple, yet highly-charged, question: What does baptism DO to the baptized?

He only briefly, though skillfully, addresses the issue of adult "believers" baptism as a self-initiated act of obedience, vs. infant baptism as a God-initiated act of grace. He focuses instead on defining terms such as "sign" "symbol" "efficacy" "means of grace" "Body of Christ," and the ways in which this terminology helps or hinders our understanding (i.e. whether or not it conforms to Biblical teaching).

I am incapable of concisely summarizing all Leithart's helpful exposition in this book, so I will limit my comments to one argument which I found particularly insightful. And this is it:

Baptism is not merely a sign, a symbol, or a means of grace, but is also a ritual.

Do you find yourself saying, "So what?" I'll try to explain.

SIGN: For many, signs function...mainly to teach us something...or as a memorial to call things to mind. On these assumptions, [baptism] does nothing but provoke pious thoughts. Leithart demonstrates that, throughout Scripture, signs do teach and bring to remembrance, but are also actions performed at God's command by the church and mighty acts of God for the redemption of His people and the world. So baptism is a redemptive act of God. It does something!

SYMBOL: Here he illustrates that the common practices of verbal greetings, handshakes, hugs, and kisses - while symbolic - actually establish and maintain personal relationships. They aren't simply visible manifestations of some invisible reality, but the symbolic acts themselves create the reality. In the same way, the symbolic act of baptism establishes a personal relationship. It does something!

MEANS OF GRACE: Leithart suggests that to speak of baptism as a "means" implies that it is simply a delivery mechanism, rather than the source, thus severing any meaningful connection between the sign and the thing signified. Think of it this way: What is the difference between the statement "Food is a means of nourishment" and "Food nourishes"? Nothing...really...except the first implies that the result (nourishment) exists apart from the means (food) and so obscures the inescapable connection between the two. So instead of "Baptism is a means of grace" we should think, "Baptism graces." And remember, grace is not some force or energy that is intangibly transmitted to us, but it is an ACT (favors, benefits, gifts, etc.) bestowed on us by God. So, baptism bestows the benefits of Christ upon us. It does something!

After correcting and sharpening our understanding of baptism as sign, symbol, and means - Leithart emphasizes the importance of baptism as ritual. Ritual necessarily implies action. Rites are not mere window dressings...but accomplish what they signify. What?! Then to say that baptism is a ritual is to say that it DOES something!!? Yep.

Think about it this way. We have no difficulty thinking this way in other realms of life, do we? When a man and a woman exchange wedding vows, we acknowledge that, at the beginning of the ritual, they are not husband and wife, but by the end of it, a new reality has been created. Right?

Before Mr. Obama's inauguration, he was not the President, but after the initiating rite, he was!

Ordination turns the candidate into a minister.

Each of these new realities was not created because of some internal, invisible transformation, but by means of a ritual! Rites do not recognize a status that already exists; they place a person in a new status. To call [baptism] a "rite," therefore, is to emphasize that it actually accomplishes and does things, changing status, altering personal identity, and expressing God's favor.

This line of reasoning is only one among many that Mr. Leithart uses to persuade us that baptism does indeed DO something to the baptized!! Of course, once you buy into that premise, you enter the larger debate on what that "something" actually is! For his view on that, which I happen to believe is in accordance with Scripture, you'll have to read the book for yourself!