Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.
RECOVERING SACRAMENTAL THEOLOGY IN BAPTIST WORSHIP PRACTICE
In areas of theological discourse between various Christian
traditions, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper perhaps hold some of the most
disparate approaches. While non-Baptist traditions frequently utilize the term,
“sacrament,’ to refer to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, contemporary Baptist
traditions usually employ ordinance. Differences of view regularly regard what is
believed to occur during the sacred acts: either the impartation of grace or an
act of cognitive remembrance. Few would likely disagree with the truth that the
acts are ordinances in that they were ordained and instituted by Jesus Christ
himself (Mark 14:22-24, 1 Cor 11:23-26, Matt 26:26-30, Luke 22:14-23); yet, the
notion that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are sacraments leads to disagreement
between contemporary Baptist and non-Baptist traditions. Nonetheless, a careful
survey of the meaning of sacrament and its implications can bring greater
compatibility between Baptists and non-Baptists.[1]
Baptist teaching and worship practice often prides itself on the
doctrine of grace alone. Often unrealized in Baptist teaching, however, is the
fact that sacrament is also built upon grace alone. In fact, sacramental
theology is founded upon the work of God rather than the work of humankind. The
word, “sacrament,” is derived from the church’s union and participation with
Christ. The church’s present union and participation with Christ necessitates a
recovery of sacramental theology in Baptist worship practice. This paper defends
the need for the recovery of sacramental theology in Baptist worship practice
on a fourfold basis:
1) an explanation of sacrament’s essence,
2) the foundation of sacramental theology in church
history,
3) the awareness of God’s place as subject over
object in worship, and
4) the groundwork of grace alone upon which
sacramental theology subsists.
Rediscovering the Definition of
Sacrament
To
separate itself from Roman Catholicism, contemporary Baptist theology has
departed severely from early church doctrine regarding the sacraments. Gregg
Allison explains that a primary reason for such a departure is that the term, “sacrament,” “had too many connotations associated with Catholic theology
and practice of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.”[2]
Nonetheless, while the term, “sacrament,” did not appear in the writings of
theologians and canonists until the twelfth century,[3]
the explicit designation of sacred action in liturgical contexts certainly
subsisted long before the usage of the word. “The triple immersion or affusion
at baptism and the marking with the sign of the cross together with the kiss of
peace at the Eucharist… – these are sacramentals.”[4]
A common Roman Catholic understanding of sacrament is that it is a sacred and
visible sign instituted by Jesus to give us grace, “by which divine life is
dispensed to us.”[5][6]
Even so, a sacrament, in its simplest form, is a sacred act; thus, the attempt
to bring separation between ordinal theology and sacramental theology in
Baptist worship practice is unnecessary.
While the Greek New
Testament employs the word, μυστήριον (mystērion = mystery) (Rom
16:25-26, Eph 3:3-13, Col 1:24-27); the early church applied this term to
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper because the acts were considered to reveal “a
mystery of divine grace.”[7][8]
As the Bible was translated into Latin, the word, sacramentum, was
utilized instead of mystery.[9]
By the fifth century, Augustine’s definition of sacrament as an outward sign of
an inward and invisible grace became prevalent.[10]
Although the word was not used by theologians until later, the concept of
sacrament was assuredly present in the early church and the centuries
following. Little evidence suggests that the concept of ordinances ever
superseded that of sacraments when applied to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Today, the term sacrament often seems to cause discomfort among Baptists. A
common assumption appears to be that sacrament implies a means of imparting
grace; thus, Baptists frequently avoid the term. A differentiation, however,
should be made between general grace (non-salvific or gifts God grants to his
people each day) and salvific grace (that which specifically relates to one’s
spiritual salvation), for many believers from sacramental traditions do not
believe in the sacraments as a means of salvation but rather as a means for God’s
people to participate with him. When such a characteristic is considered, the
discomfort in using the term becomes less likely.
Sacramentalism holds
manifold implications in the church, especially as it is stalwartly connected
to the church’s union with Christ. John
Frame highlights that the people who make up the church are
“the people in covenant with God through Jesus Christ.”[11]
To understand sacrament then, it is imperative to understand the nature of the
church, for the essence of sacrament is derived from the church’s union with
Christ.[12]
In Baptist history, the term, ordinance, is most-frequently used to refer to
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; nevertheless, sacrament is not totally absent.
William Kiffen (1616 – 1701 AD) signed both the First London Confession
(1644/1646 AD) and the Second London Confession (1677/1688) and has been noted
to use the term, “sacrament,” describing Baptism as “the Sacrament of the
Spiritual Birth.”[13]
Moreover, early Baptists most assuredly coupled ordinance with Spirit, as was
ubiquitous among Puritans of the time (e.g. the London confessions). Particular
Baptist, Benajamin Keach (1640 – 1704 AD), stated, “Some Men boast of the
Spirit, and conclude they have the Spirit, and none but they, and yet at the
same time cry down and vilify his blessed Ordinances and Institutions, which he
hath left in his Word, carefully to be observed and kept, till he comes the
second time without Sin unto Salvation.…”[14]
Baptist theology is surely compatible with the church’s union with Christ and
his presence on earth through his body, the church. Thus, while idiosyncrasies exist between ordinal and sacramental
perspectives, the two are not incompatible.
In the sense that Christ
has commanded his people to partake in the Eucharist and Baptism, the two acts
are ordinances; yet, because the church is firmly one with her Lord and Savior,
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not inconsequential acts (i.e. Christ is not
only present in the acts but also works through them). Therefore, Baptism and
Communion, by their simplest and most basic definitions, are also sacraments. Stripped
to its essentials, it is evident that sacramental theology does not oppose
Baptist doctrine. In fact, to remove themselves from the likes of Roman Catholicism,
Baptists have inadvertently detached themselves from a necessary Christian
doctrine: the church’s oneness with Christ and his presence and work through
the sacraments.
The definition of
sacrament centers around a sacred act; yet, the sacred act involves not only
the church’s action but also that of Jesus Christ. There surely subsists a
mystery in the sacraments, for Christ’s presence and work through Baptism and
the Lord’s Table is evident.[15]
Baptist theology does not, by nature, oppose sacramental theology; therefore,
such a concept should be embraced and a sacramental theology recovered in
Baptist worship practice, for surely, a better understanding of the church’s
union with Christ will aid in a better participation through the sacraments.
Sacrament in
the Early Church
In believing
that a sacrament is an outward sign of an inward reality, there is but one
sacrament (Jesus Christ) and two manifestations (incorporation in Christ in
Baptism and participation with Christ in the Lord’s Table). The church
possesses an eternal and present union with Christ: such a truth is compatible
with Baptist doctrine and worship practice and offers the foundation of
sacramental theology, for the sacred acts of worship proceed from the
overarching union with the Lord. The early church would have broadly considered
the Sacraments in such a manner; as such, Baptist doctrine should be thought to
oppose that of the early church. As stated earlier, the term, “sacrament,” was
not used by theologians until centuries after the early church era; yet, the
concept was assuredly present in the teachings and practices of the church.
Instructions
found in the first-century Christian work called The Didache are based
upon a forward-looking truth: “those whose lives were nourished on the broken
loaf were earmarked for the final ingathering.”[16]
This early church manual for worship and catechism and the writings of the
church fathers contend that the acts of sacrament are not empty but entail more
than mere cognitive recognition, for God employs his own work through the sacraments. Further,
the trajectory of church history argues for such a unity; Ignatius of Antioch
writes that the church operates as one unified body “with an undivided
mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality,
and the antidote which prevents us from dying, but a cleansing remedy driving
away evil, [which causes] that we should live in God through Jesus Christ.”[17] The underpinning
thought regarding manifold practices in the early church is that how the church
operates is predicated on a union found only in Christ. Therefore, Baptism and
the Lord’s Supper hold special significance because they are not only ordained
by Christ and intended for the church to employ as an act of anamnesis but also
as a sacrament through which the Lord’s presence is manifested.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 AD) considers the
sacraments to be signs and symbols.[18] The idea that sacraments
include more than Baptism and the Lord’s Table is not new to contemporary
thought; nevertheless, most commonly, theologians and writers referred
specifically to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper when using the term,
“sacraments.” Such is the case with Clement of Alexandria. Furthermore,
throughout church history, the sacraments were largely
thought to be symbols of an inward reality. Tertullian (c. 115 – c. 220 AD)
spoke of sacrament as an oath, even employing the common context of a military
oath. He writes, “We have
recounted, as I think, all the various causes of the wearing of the crown, and
there is not one which has any place with us: all are foreign to us, unholy,
unlawful, having been abjured already once for all in the solemn declaration of the
sacrament.”[19]
Tertullian further discusses “the man who was being prepared to act as images
of this sacrament…”[20]
Thus, while sacrament was surely used in multiple ways, in its broadest sense,
when used in liturgical contexts, the word inferred signs and symbols. Baptist doctrine should hold no disagreements with such a
broad perspective on sacrament.
Since the early church
embraced the concept of mystery in her nature and actions, the term, “sacrament,”
would not have been found to contest early church doctrine. Rather, sacrament was
congruent. Baptist worship practice often prides itself in conforming to
Scripture. Scripture, compiled by the hands of the Apostles, does not refute
the idea of “mystery” in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; rather, Scripture
embraces mystery (1 Cor 2:7, Matt 13:10-11, Eph 1:9, Col 1:26-27). Moreover,
even modern Baptist doctrine would not dispute the church’s union with Christ,
for the Bible supports such a notion (Gal 2:20, John 15:5, Rom 6:3-7, Col
3:1-4). Therefore, to recover the intent and idea of sacrament in Baptist
worship practice would not be to deviate from Baptist doctrine but to uphold it
and enhance it.[21]
Baptist worship practice seemingly includes Baptism and the
Lord’s Supper not as an act of anamnesis[22] but
cognitive consideration alone (i.e. the acts are apparently considered devoid
of God’s corporeal manifestation through them); nonetheless, the sacraments
surely impart God’s graces and presence, albeit not salvific grace. Such a
notion does not conflict with Baptist doctrine, for certainly, none of the
Baptist doctrinal persuasion would disagree that God’s general graces are
imparted in multifarious ways daily.
The foundation of early church thought and practice regarding
the sacraments is the church’s union with Christ, a reality that is
demonstrated most evidently in the sacraments. Without a firm grasp of the
church’s union with Christ, sacramental theology may certainly be found to
oppose worship practice. The mystery of the church’s union with Christ should
not be considered as an antithesis to Baptist doctrine; rather, Baptist
doctrine, in conformity with Scripture and the practice of the early church,
should align with sacramental theology. For sacramental theology to be
recovered in contemporary Baptist worship practice a proper understanding of
the church’s present union with Christ must be realized.
The Subject of Sacrament
In
Reformed worship, the event is usually set out as a singular dialogue; said
another way, the individual elements and nuances of Christian worship comprise
a complete conversation between God and his people. As such, there should not
be considered a distinction between worship and any other part of the dialogue
(e.g. sermon, music, etc.), for all elements entail the whole. Further, “what
takes place in worship is expounded by reference to the reading and preaching
of God’s Word and the right administration of the sacraments.”[23]
Baptism and the Eucharist then, while merely parts of the entire dialogue, are,
nonetheless, pivotal moments in the context of corporate worship. The historic
fourfold order of worship includes the Gathering, the Table, the Word, and the
Sending.[24]
Moreover, the Table might be considered by many as the pinnacle of the worship
service, which is largely still the case in liturgical traditions today. To
recover an accurate perception of sacrament in Baptist worship practice, the
notion of an overarching worship dialogue must be present; furthermore, such a
dialogue must realize a proper subject.
In
Christian worship, God is often seen as the object, which is certainly a true
thought. Nonetheless, the subject of worship is often not considered or
realized. Rather than understanding God as merely the object (one who observes
while his people perform acts rendered unto him), God must also be understood
as the subject (the one who acts),[25]
for surely, it is God who facilitates acts of worship on behalf of his people.
Through acts of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, God is present and working. A
recovering of sacrament in Baptism worship practice will involve understanding
that people are not the primary operatives in worship; the triune God is. In a
mystic manner, through Christ’s union with the church, God is present in the
elements of Communion and the waters of Baptism. The current trajectory of
Baptist worship practice seems not to perceive the sacred acts of worship as
works performed by people for God rather than acts which manifest not only
God’s presence but also his work.
God is
not only the object of worship but also the subject. Recovering the essence of
sacrament in Baptist worship practice necessitates a foundational awareness of
God’s presence in the sacred acts as subject. God’s literal presence and work
in the lives of his people through corporate worship is essential to right
sacramental theology. Thus, for Baptist worship practice to recognize a
biblical understanding of sacrament, a deep understanding of God’s role as
subject must first be achieved.
By Grace Alone: The Heart of
Sacrament
For
Baptists, a focus on grace alone is evident in their language; yet, in a
misunderstood manner, much of Baptist worship practice suggests a focus on the
works of humankind. The heart of sacrament, however, is grace alone, for
sacrament is dependent upon the work of God rather than the work of humankind. The Reformed
view is clear (even in traditions which practice infant baptism) that the
sacraments do “not entail any kind of ex opere operato view.”[26]
Such a statement is evident in early Reformed history as well as modern
ecclesiastical traditions. Baptist worship customs should not have a concern of
falsely implying that the sacraments provide salvific grace, for to believe so
would be to believe that people may be justified through an act rather than by
grace alone.
Sadly, “the Baptist tradition has been focused more on the
proper subjects and correct mode of baptism than its meaning.”[27]
Anecdotally, it is common for worshipers in Baptist contexts to experience an
overemphasis on what the sacraments are not rather than what they are. Even if
such a focus is an attempt of separation from Roman Catholicism, its lack of
substance fails to capture the lifeblood of sacrament. Not only has church
history been in agreement with the view of sacrament proposed here, early
Baptist history has aligned with it as well. Michael A.G. Haykin contends, as a
part of six theses related to Baptist piety and praxis, that “Baptism and the
Lord’s Supper are means of grace in the hands of the Holy Spirit.”[28] The
departure from the means of grace in sacrament is central to Baptist ordinal
tradition and sacramental tradition; yet, such a deviation is based upon a
perpetual misunderstanding that must be corrected. To recover sacramental
theology in Baptist worship practice, an understanding of God’s grace must be
realized.
As already mentioned, a distinction should be made between
God’s general grace and salvific grace. Thus, while the sacraments do not hold
soteriological powers, Baptism and the Eucharist are certainly acts in which
God manifests his graces to his people. To differentiate between ordinance and
sacrament, Tim Challies argues, “The significant difference between the two
terms is God’s role in the act. When viewed as sacramental, Baptism is more
than an act of man – it is a means by which God conveys grace.”[29] In
the way that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper have been ordained, instituted, and
commanded by Christ, surely, they are ordinances. To neglect the truth that the
acts themselves, without offering a salvific bequest to God’s people, are also
components of worship through which God’s presence is manifested is to
effectively negate the core of the acts. For Baptists, grace alone is often
said to be central to theology and practice. Nevertheless, the common Baptist
ordinal perspective seems to point to man-centered action rather than
God-centered employment. The heart of sacrament is grace alone.
It is not meant to negate the importance of ordinance, for
certainly, Baptism and the Lord’s Table are ordinances; the intended scope is
to recover a harmonious sacramental theology in Baptist worship practice. There
subsists room for both ordinal and sacramental concepts in Baptist worship
praxis. To recover sacramental theology, Baptist worship must return to a true
realization of grace alone derived from a foundational understanding of the
church’s union with Christ. Sacramental theology is predicated upon the nature
of a church: a body saved by the grace of Jesus Christ alone and found in union
with him. Grace alone is that by which God’s people are saved; grace alone is
the heart of sacrament and, therefore, the heart of Baptism and the Lord’s
Supper.
Consecration
for the Glory of God in Sacramental Theology
The footing of sacramental theology is the church’s present
union and participation with Christ. Sacramental theology then was not
originally predicated – as Baptist teaching commonly and incorrectly seems to
teach – on sacred acts that offer salvific grace but rather serve as a catalyst
for God’s abundance of grace. In a cyclic manner, God’s people are consecrated
for his purposes; God then works on their behalf through the acts his people
employ. “…it is the mystery of the Incarnation, in which
the humanity in the Son’s person is assumed by divinity. Therefore, the Church
is principally given in Christ as assumed by God, while the Spirit is
still carrying the work of assuming sin-afflicted
humanity into effect.”[30] God employs
his work to change his people upon which his people participate with him in such
work.
To recover a sacramental theology in Baptist worship
practice, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper must be viewed through the lens of the
church’s present and eternal union with Christ. In such a union, the sacred
acts of worship are participatory, not only between the people of God but
between God and his people. A right view of the sacraments then necessitates a
realization of the church’s union and participation with Christ. Additionally,
church history is suggestive of a sacramental perspective of Baptism and the
Lord’s Table; such a perspective includes Baptist history. While not negating
the importance of ordinance here, sacrament, in its truest essence, does not
oppose Baptist teaching and practice. Moreover, anecdotally, Baptist worship
practice seems to dismiss the mystic participation between God and his people during
Christian worship. God himself is the one who works through the sacraments;
therefore, the efficacy of the sacred acts is not contingent upon the church’s
action but God’s. Despite common Baptist teachings that the sacraments do not
impart grace, ordinal perspectives often depend on the actions of humankind
rather than God, but a sacramental view rests upon the notion of grace alone.
Said another way, the heart of sacrament proceeds from grace alone and is
centered around God’s work alone rather than humankind’s. The work of God’s
people in the sacraments is merely participatory rather than obligatory.
God’s people are consecrated for the glory of God, a truth
that is copiously evident in the sacraments. Sadly, a perpetuation of
misunderstanding has caused Baptist teaching to deviate from the truth of
sacramental theology. Baptist worship practice is compatible with the core of
sacrament despite such misinterpretations. God’s people alone, consecrated for
his own glory, hold the right and privilege to commune with their Lord and
participate in his work and life through Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, a right
that is established on the church’s oneness and union with Jesus Christ. Such
an understanding demands the recovery of a sacramental theology in Baptist
worship practice.
[1] “Christians throughout
history have generally accepted Augustine of Hippo’s definition of a sacrament as ‘the visible form
of invisible grace’ (‘On the
Catechism of the Uninstructed,’
26.50). However, different Christian churches and
traditions vary in their understanding of how the visible sign relates to the
divine grace. There are two general understandings:
1.
The sign bestows or contains the grace.
2.
The sign depicts, represents, or symbolizes the grace”
(Eugene
R. Schlesinger, “Sacraments,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible
Dictionary, Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
[2] Gregg R. Allison, “The Ordinances of the Church,” The
Gospel Coalition, n.d.,
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-ordinances-of-the-church/.
[3] J.D. Chrichton, “Sacramentals,” ed. J.G. Davies et
al., The New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship (Philadelphia,
PA: Westminster Press, 1986), 473.
[4] Ibid.
[5]
Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1131.
[6]
The scope of this paper does not include misunderstandings of Roman Catholic
doctrine on sacrament; nonetheless, it should be noted here that such a
misunderstanding subsists and perhaps contributes to a distinct effort to bring
about separation between Baptist and Roman Catholic doctrine.
[7] Gregg R. Allison, “The Ordinances of the Church.” The
Gospel Coalition, n.d.,
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-ordinances-of-the-church/.
[8]
The Greek New Testament usage of mystery refers to what was hidden from
humankind prior to God’s revelation through Jesus Christ. The early church
applied such a term to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper because of its symbolism
to the gospel (i.e. the mystery revealed in Jesus Christ).
[9] The term, “Sacrament,” should be considered
in a broad scope, for even in Latin, sacramentum possesses a plurality
of meanings (e.g. oath, sacred action, or even military oath).
[10] Ibid.
[11] John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An
Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing,
2013), 1019.
[12] The importance of ordinance should not be
dismissed in discussion of recovering sacrament, for certainly, Baptism and the
Lord’s Supper are also ordinances. To contend for one is not to dismiss the
other; both principles, although, disparate implications, may be true. The
vitality sacrament in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper allows for acts also
employed on the basis of the Lord’s instruction (i.e. an ordinance).
[13] Michael A.G. Haykin, Amidst Us Our Beloved Stands:
Recovering Sacrament in the Baptist Tradition (Bellingham, WA: Lexham
Press, 2022), 13.
[14] Ibid., 12-13.
[15]
The reality of Christ’s presence is usually not debated; the essence of
Christ’s presence, however, is (e.g. his literal physical presence or his
spirit which abides in his people). While not in the scope of this paper, the
acceptance of Christ’s presence is fundamental to a proper understanding of
sacramental theology.
[16] Aaron, Milavec, The Didache: Text, Translation,
Analysis, and Commentary (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), 68.
[17] Ignatius of Antioch, Epistles of Ignatius,
trans. Tim Perrine (Christian Classics Ethereal Library, n.d.), ch. XX.
[18] Clement of Alexandria, “Works Book V Elicudations,”
in Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 2, ed. Philip Schaff, 368-1265 (Grand
Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, originally published 1885),
1013.
[19] Tertullian, “The Chaplet.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers
Vol. 3, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal
Library, originally published 1885), 208.
[20] Ibid., 336.
[21] Being mindful of the fact that ordinance is
also not contrary to the teachings of Scripture and the early church, embracing
the concept of sacrament enhances one’s understanding of Baptism and the Lord’s
Table.
[22] Here the term refers to more than mere
mental remembrance but a realistic cognitive and spiritual participation with
what or who is considered (i.e. anamnesis not only remembers but also
participates).
[23] David Fergusson, “The Theology of Worship: A Reformed
Perspective,” in Worship and Liturgy in Context: Studies and Case Studies in
Theology and Practice, ed. Duncan B. Forrester and Doug Gay, 92-106
(London, UK: SCM Press, 2009), 74.
[24] Robert E. Webber, Planning Blended Worship (Nashville, TN:
Abingdon Press, 1998), 21.
[25] Webber, “God: The Object or Subject of Worship?” Robert
E. Webber Institute for Worship Studies, September 1, 2005,
https://iws.edu/2005/09/robert-webber-god-object-or-subject/.
[26] Stephen Wellum, “Baptism and the Relationship between
the Covenants,” Kingdom of God, August 17, 2007, 107,
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://kingdomresources.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/wellum_baptindd.pdf.
[27] Haykin, 18.
[28] Ibid., 90.
[29] Tim Challies, “Baptism: Sacrament or
Ordinance?” Tim Challies (blog), Challies, July 28, 2004,
https://www.challies.com/articles/baptism-sacrament-or-ordinance/.
[30] Prokop Broz, “Belonging to Christ and Belonging to
the Church,” Theologica roc. 4, c. 2 (2014): 315.
