Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with practicing baptism and communion (referred to as “the Lord’s Supper” in future posts). In the days which they were initiated and practiced, both were meaningful and helpful for the life and teaching of the apostles and early church. Both practices had deep and rich significance.
The Lord’s Supper
The genius of these ceremonies was that they taught the central beliefs and core doctrines of Christianity in forms that were commonly practiced in the culture of that day. As N. T. Wright has said, “When Jesus wanted to explain to his followers what he thought would be the meaning of his death, he did not give them a theory; he gave them a meal.” Yes, and at that time, the meal He gave them had inherent significance and meaning. He did not create or invent the meal and then explain the meaning to them. Instead, He took a meal that they were already eating on a regular basis, which was already full of symbolism and significance, and then pointed all of the symbols and meaning to Himself.
Baptism
The same is true of baptism. John the Baptist did not invent baptism, nor did Jesus and the early church. It was a practice which was already widely used among numerous groups in that day and culture, and which already had clear symbolism and significance. John the Baptist and the early church simply took a ceremony which was already in use by the culture and pointed the symbols and significance to Jesus.
So when someone who was not a Christian saw a friend or neighbor eating this meal or getting baptized in this way, they did not think that the practice was strange or magical. They did not wonder what it meant. For the most part, they already knew what these ceremonies meant, for they were commonly practiced by all people at that time. But one thing they would not have known is the reason and purpose for these ceremonies. And so they would have asked.
If, for example, they saw a neighbor getting baptized in a river, they would have immediately understood the symbol and significance of this action, but would not have known why the person was undergoing it. So they would have asked, “Why did you get baptized?” and the Christian would then have an opportunity to explain that they were now following Jesus. These ceremonies were natural ways for believers to create conversations with friends and neighbors about following Jesus.
Symbolism for Today
To make this clear, future posts will look at some of the historical meaning and Scriptural passages which indicate the symbolic significance of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and what they would have meant in the days of Jesus and early church.
Only then can we ask whether or not baptism and the Lord’s Supper accomplish the same purpose today, or if we might be wiser to choose some other type of ceremony to accomplish this purpose.
Is this even a question in some churches? I’ve lived my entire life as a “mainline” Protestant, and people in our churches have never complained about practicing the Lord’s Supper or Baptism. I thought that these Sacraments/Ordinances were just a given.
Yes, they are just a given, much like buildings and paid clergy are a given.
But why are they are given? Should they be a given?
So, it sounds like you may be leading to a discussion about the way these two ordinances were performed rather than the necessity of the ordinances in of themselves. But, why take something ancient, mystical, and sacred, and reinvent them for contemporary society?
Because if they meant something important back in the days of the early church, they can mean something today.
You’re a brave man, Jeremy. 😉
There is a lot to the symbolism – from Abraham & Melchizedek on….well, really, I guess we could go all the way back to Genesis 3….looking forward to seeing what you see. 🙂
I don’t think you’re trying to reinvent anything here or in the other things you have talked about in the hundreds of posts that represent parts of your book. The modern church has morphed into something in many of its teachings, forms and practices that a first century Christian would probably barely recognize. The modern church has done the reinventing.
While we don’t need to try to look exactly like the first century church, we do need to understand who they were, what they believed, and how they understood their written documents, forms, practices and so on. What did those things communicate to them? If our modern versions of these things communicate a similar message, good. If not, then we have ended up with a different version of Christianity than the one of those early Christians, which is what some of understand has indeed happened.
Somehow we end up defending how evangelicals in the mid 20th century or perhaps Martin Luther understood Scripture, liturgy or whatever, assuming their understanding was flawless. Undoubtedly it was not, as ours is not.
Sam, I agree. This is a quote from Alan Knox:
“The biggest problem in the modern church is not trying to recreate the first century church today. The biggest problem is projecting the modern church back onto the first century church.” Alan Knox
Sam and Tom,
Yes. I am not interested in recreating the NT church, or even the reformation church, but in trying to help us all be the church TODAY.
yep what Sam said, what Allan Knox said,and what N.T Wright said. good article Jeremy, and great follow up comments, thanks to one and all!
I love the N.T. Wright quote. I wonder if we offer the world too many theories and too few meals.
Thanks. Yes, more meals!
Bring it Jeremy!
I’m trying!
Just the initial thought makes me anxious for this discussion. In Servant Evangelism I find myself constantly seeking new or inventive ways to touch people who don’t have the connection to the Church that others do. Not relavence for relavence’s sake, but seriously examining the method of outreach as it pertains to the culture around us.
Looking forward to more!
Thanks, JW.
There already is more! Check out this page:
Give Up Your Rites