The Crisis in the Theology and Practice of Baptism

JOHN H. LEITH We have come together to discuss the crisis in the church's theology and prac­ tice of baptism, a crisis that perplexes theologians, historians, and ministers of local congregations and engages them in debate. It is appropriate to remember that the beliefs and practices of Protestants concerning baptism have been under debate and challenge since the beginning. Once the debate"s were fraught with more serious consequences than now. Some died for their beliefs and practices concerning bap­ tism. Once the debates were far more lively, as is indicated by the titles of the tracts that have periodically appeared during the last three hundred years. For example: The Dipper Diet (1644) by Daniel Featley, or Spurgeonism logically developed, A Few Suggestions adapted to Mr. Spurgeon's 'Small Logical Faculty'. Certainly the present crisis does not stir the same passions that the earlier crises did. This suggests that a greater problem than the crisis of baptism that is obvious to theologians and preachers is the indifference of the church members as well as the culture to the crisis. The basic thesis of this paper is that the present crisis concerning baptism is very intimately associated with the general crisis of Christian faith and of the Christian community in the modern world. This crisis can be stated as the disparity between the Christian faith as it has been traditioned to us and human existence as we experi- · ence it in our time and place. Therefore the crisis of baptism in our time is more . serious than the arguments we may have within the Christian community about the nature and form of baptism. The crisis has to do with the legitimacy of the whole enterprise. This deep and general crisis is the context in which all the particular aspects of the crisis of baptism must be seen. In this paper the crisis concerning the church's belief and practices concerning baptism will be examined from three perspectives: (1) the crisis in the Reformed theology of baptism, (2) the crisis of the church in society, and (3) the crisis of faith.

I In 1937 Emil Brunner, giving the Olaus Petri Lectures, declared that the con­ temporary practice of infant baptism was little short of scandalous. 1 It was obvious that he had difficulty integrating the traditional doctrine of the sacraments and, in particular, the baptism of infants into his theology and especially into his doctrine of the church. The theme of his theology was the "personal correspondence between the Word of God and human obedience-in-faith. " 2 In his ecclesiology structures and sacraments were subordinate to the Word and to the community of faith. Brunner was also shaken by the obvious dispairty between the historical practice of baptism

4 and the historical reality of the church. In 1938 Joachim Jeremias published hi s answer to the question of infant baptism in the early church, an answer that was later elaborated in a new edition in 1958 and published in Engli sh translation, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, in 1960. Kurt Aland's reply to Jeremias, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants? was published in German in 1961 and in Engli sh translation in 1963 . Jeremias replied to Aland's reply in 1962 with the Engli sh transla­ tion, Th e Origins of Infant Baptism. Historical data about early church practice is important for understanding the signifi cance and meaning of baptism in the early church. More significantly, the psychological impressiveness of a convincing case fot or against the New Testament and early church practice of the baptism of infants would be very great. Yet hi storical investigation is not likely to be finally decisive, for those who do not find the practice of the baptism of infants in the New Testament and in the church of the first two centuries nevertheless may and do vigorously advocate the practice of the baptism of infants today on theological grounds. The decisive challenge to the understanding and practice of baptism came from Karl Barth. In 1943 Barth delivered hi s lecture to Swiss theological students in which he defined baptism as a portrayal of death and resurrection. Yet baptism is no "dead or dumb representation, but a living and expressive one. Its potency li es in the fact that it comprehend s the whole movement of sacred history and that it is res potentis­ sima et efficacissima. All that it intends and actually effects is the result of this potency. It exercises its power as it shows to a man that objective reality to which he belongs in such a way that he can only forget or miss it per nefas; in such a way, at all events, that he becomes by its marks himself a marked man, by its portraiture one who is himself portrayed. ":J Baptism is the representation, the seal, the sign, the copy, the symbol of our redemption. The power of baptism li es in the free word and deed of Jesus Christ. As such, baptism belonged to the proclamation of the church. Thi s emphasis on baptism as representation and proclamation minimizes the sacra­ mental function , but enough of this emphasis remains for Barth to speak of the flat quality of Zwingli 's teaching. Immersion is a more appropriate mode of baptism than sprinkling, but Barth is not too concerned about the mode. He did , however, con­ clude that there were neither exegetical, theological, or extraneous grounds for bap­ tism of infants; and he proposed a "baptism which on the part of the baptised is a responsible act."" Barth ended hi s address with a powerful statement of the efficacy of baptism. The baptised is placed once and for all under the sign of hope. The baptised may become a Mohammedan, a National Socialist, a Bolshevik, or, worst of all , a heretic or a bad or nominal Christian, but the baptised cannot divest themselves of the sign. Brunner, like Barth, continued to have difficulty with sacramental doctrine. In hi s systematic theology the sacraments are scarcely mentioned. Yet Brunner con­ tinues to fmd a place for infant baptism. In The Misunderstanding of the Church (1951) he notes the significance of influences that are beyond our conscious aware­ ness which are operative in the child's development and which may throw light on the significance of baptism. Brunner can affirm, "Baptism is not in the first instance a

5 cognitive but a causativ e act; in baptism one received the gift of the Holy Ghost. " 5 In hi s systematic theology he places the emphasis upon the signifi cance of the parents' and the church's placing the child under the blessing of God in the context of prayer a nd preaching with the prayer that God's spirit shall work in thi s child ' s life. The decisive chall enge to the Reformed Church's understanding of the meaning a nd practi ce of baptism comes from Karl Barth's fi nal work, Church Dogmati cs 4/4. In thi s fragment of what was to be the ethical section of the di scussion of the doctrine of reconciliati on, Barth clearly breaks with traditional Refo rmed theology, or at least seems to break with it. He elaborates a new doctrine of the sacraments whi ch is based upon the study of hi s son Markus Barth (Die Taufe - ein Sakrament ?) and whi ch onl y strengthens hi s early opposition to the bapti sm of infants. Barth , in 1968; no longer regarded baptism as a sacrament but as an ethi cal acti on in response to the grace of God . He begin s hi s di scussion by asking about the origin and initiati on of the Chri stia n life, assuming there is such a reality. The presup­ positions of this life are twofo ld . The first is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead as th e act of God in whi ch the hi story of Jesus Christ is revealed to be no transient thing but th e act of God fo r all men. The second presupposition is the work of the Holy Spirit by whi ch the hi story manifested to all men in th e resurrection of Jesus Christ is mani fest a nd present to a specifi c man as hi s own salvati on hi story. " It is the work of the Holy Spirit that hi s man ceases to be a man wh o is closed and blind and deaf and uncomprehending in relati on to thi s disclosure effected for him too. " 5 Barth sums up hi s unde rstandi ng of th e begin ning of the Christi an li fe under th e "slogan" of the bapti sm of the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the Spirit is ( I) the self-attestati on and self-impartati on of the li ving Jesus Christ to specifi c men, (2) a form of the grace of God whi ch actuall y reconcil es the world , (3) a de mand for gratitude, th at is, in thi s baptism the bapti zed receives hi s Lord and Master, (4) the beginning of li fe in the Christi an fell owship , and (5) a commencement of a life that looks toward the future. The baptism of the Spirit, Barth contends , is a sacramental happening in the current use of the term . " Baptism with the Spirit is effective , causativ e, even creativ e action on man and in man." It is " the acti ve and actu ali zi ng grace ofGod ."7 The real sacrament is " Jesus Christ Himself, fo r only in the incarna­ ti on of the Son of God in the man Jesus is there a real sacramental uni ty between God and man. " 8 Baptism with the Spirit does not exclude or minimize baptism with water. Indeed baptism with the Spirit demands bapti sm by water. Barth is utterly opposed to any Christomonism wh ereby salvati on is exclusively the work of Christ. He is opposed to any anthropomoni sm whereby salvation is the reali zation of the human potential of whi ch Christ is an illu strati on. He is opposed to any notion of salvati on that is wholl y objective, effecting no change in man. As Barth insisted in an earli er volume, from one perspecti ve, salvation is wholl y the work of God and , from another perspective, wholly the work of man. Baptism with the Spiri t and baptism with water, the divine work and the human work, cannol be separated, but neither can they be confu sed. Baptism is not praised but damaged when it is confused with some immanent di vine

6 work. It is a human act in response to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The New Testament takes it for granted. It originates in the baptism of Jesus by John. At this point Barth deliberately breaks with the traditional doctrine of the sacra­ ment. According to Roman Catholi cism, Barth finds, baptism is a sacrament; that is, a sign instituted and guaranteed by Jesus Christ. It is filled with power which it symboli zes and causally underli es. It controls and mediates the reality it depicts and as such is a basic epiphany, an extension of the existence of Jesus Christ. If it is given correctly, and if the recipient does not intentionally oppose receiving what it offers ~ the Spirit is imparted. Lutheranism placed greater emphasis than does Roman Catholi cism on the rela­ tion of the sacrament to the Word of God. Yet for the Lutheran too the sacrament is a "visible sign in stituted by Christ which proclaims him and which is also the effectiv e means, organ, or instrument of an invisible grace. " 9 This particular emphasis of Luther raises the question, Why the twofold form of the Word? Why is baptism as necessary as the Word? rs it a weakness of faith that needs the sacrament to apply the Word? Lutheranism also insists that faith is necessary for the proper reception of the sacrament, thus ruling out any ex opere opera to effect of baptism. Nevertheless, in Lutheranism the sacrament of baptism is sti ll more than a sign , more than a confes­ sion, more than a symbol of fellowship . It is a means of grace. Reformed theology , according to Barth, has "more strong!y than Roman Catholi cism or Lutheran teaching" subordinated baptism to the written and preached Word of God as an appendix. The word to which baptism is tied is , moreover, not simply the words of institution but the whole living proclamation entrusted to the ministers of the Word. Faith is in no sense the consequence of baptism, but baptism by the power of the Holy Spirit strengthens fait h. Baptism has a cognitiv e effect. While it does not cause salvation, it does mediate knowledge and certitude of salva­ tion. Baptism is not so much a work of God but a form of the word of God which reveals this work. As such, it does not need to be supplemented by confirmation or penance. This teaching of Reformed theology controll ed Barth's teaching on baptism in 1943. Barth now rejects all three doctrines of the sacrament. He is opposed to any notion of the sacrament that finds its meaning in a divine action ''which is concealed in the administration by men and which makes use of this." Over again st this consen­ sus he demythologizes baptism and states his position: "Against it we set the princi­ ple that the water baptism which is given by the community and desired and re<::eived by the candidates is the human action which corresponds to the divine action in the founding of the Christian life, which goes to meet this, which responds to baptism with the Holy Spirit and cries out for it. It is the human action whose meaning is obedience to Jesus Christ and hope in Him." 10 Barth is emphatic that his teaching does not disparage water baptism. He is adamantly in opposition to any minimizing of the outward act of baptism by substitut­ ing some "inner work," in the form of experience, inspirations, illuminations, exalta­ tions, or raptures," 11 which can then be regarded as an inner baptism by the Holy

7 Spirit that makes baptism by water unimportant. Barth wants to emphasize the very great significance of baptism as an ethical action. "The dignity (of baptism) consists in the fact that in baptism - certainly along with all kinds of experiences - a man may take up his responsibility to God's work and word in a first public and binding act, and may thus begin to live the life of one who is obedient to the divine promise and claim." 12 Thus Barth rejects both causative and cognitive understandings of baptism. It is a "true and genuine human action whi ch responds to the divine act and word.'' 13 In explicating the character of baptism, Barth makes three formal statements. First, baptism is a concrete happening visible to all - a washing with water. Its reference is to the cleansing and renewal that have taken place in Jesus Christ and that have been mediated by the Holy Spirit. Secondly, baptism has a social character. lt involves one who is baptized and one who baptizes. Baptism is an act in which the Christian community is present and active. Finally, baptism is a free act on the part of all concerned. It is not an obligatory act done under a compulsion that destroys its spontaneity or responsibility. After this formal definition of baptism, Barth turns to the substantive meaning of water baptism. Baptism, he contends, is an act of obedience and of hope. It is an act of obedience from the standpoint of its basis in that the baptized obey the divine command, and it is an act of hope from the standpoint of its goal, for the baptized grasp the divine promise. The obedience and the hope that constitute the meaning of baptism can best be comprehended in the term conversion. This conversion is not a change in intellectu al, social, and moral convictions so mu ch as it is a decision in regard to God as the basis, origin, and norm of all change. The decision as to God or conversion to God mu st not be confused with conversion to any human program. This conversion follows God's command s and grasps hi s promise. Hence conversion and herewith the meaning of baptism - is an act of obedience and hope. "But we must be more definite. The command which a man follows here is that of Jesus Christ. He becomes a disciple of Jesus Christ when he forsakes hi s old way and enters on a new way , when he is converted, when he has himself baptized in concrete confirmation of hi s conversion. His relation to God is basically , decisiv ely , and distinctively changed by the fact that he is not confronted here by God in general or by thi s or that god. He is confronted in the power of the Holy Spirit by the living Jesus Christ as the Son of the Father." 14 Is baptism necessary to salvation? Barth finds the question more diffi cult for him to answer than for those who held to the traditional doctrine of the sacraments. As the human action that is appropriate to God's action , baptism is not di spensable, even though circumstances may sometimes prevent the proper public action. Fi nally , Barth recogni zed the problematic character of baptism. It is a first step. It is a hope. No human judgment or action can guarantee its future. Pious intentions may issue in fai lures. Baptism is a ,hope. It is also prayer for God's blessing on the baptised. There is no cheap grace, grace which can be counted in advance, grace which is disposable. God's grace cannot be handled as though it were a bank account. 8 "Baptism is a calling on the name of the Lord," Barth writes. "What is asked for, or prayed for, in it? A good conscience, a being in harmony with God, is what Christians need for well-doing, for witness among the heathen, for patience in maltreatment at their hands, for the building of that spiritual house. They do not have this naturally, nor can they procure it for themselves, nor can they be assured of it of themselves. They can only await it as God's free gift. Hence they can only pray for it. The divine work of their justification and sanctification, the divine work of the presence and action of the Holy Spirit can alone create and give them the good conscience which they need. The human work of baptism is the request for this, the petition that God will create and give it to those who ask and pray for it." 15 Barth insists that his study of baptism did not focus on the baptism of infants; but having made his study and having come to his conclusion, he faces what he calls the brute fact of the baptism of infants. Barth finds no way to include infants in baptism as he has understood it. Moreover, he believes that the theology of the baptism of infants was worked out after the fact. In addition, the social and pedagogical reasons that are given as a justification of the baptism of infants Barth finds unconvincing. It is a very significant fact that Emil Brunner and Karl Barth, the most prominent of twentieth century Reformed theologians, have significantly minimized the sacra­ ments as they have traditionally been understood. Barth's own account of his pil­ grimage, written in 1955, is instructive:

In the introduction to IV, I, I had in mind that the doctrine of baptism and the Lord's Supper should be treated in the first two and constitutive parts of the doctrine of reconciliation (in each case in the section on the Church). But on a nearer approach to the problems I have adopted a different course. And it will perhaps have been noted in Volumes II and III that I made less and less use - and finally not at all - of the general term 'sacrament,' which was so confidently bandied about in Volume I. I cannot now explain the reasons . . . I can only indicate that here, if anywhere, I have learned to regard a cautious and respectful 'de­ mythologizing' as expedient and practicable. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are given only incidental mention in the present volume. But they are not forgotten, and will be given what seems to be their appropriate and worthy place as the basis and crown on the fourth and ethical section of the doctrine of reconciliation. 16

Emil Brunner, as has been noted, gave minimal space to the sacraments in his systematic theology. In contemporary Reformed theology the role and meaning of the sacraments, especially baptism, has significantly changed. Do these changes represent a fundamental change in the tradition or the working out of perspectives or thrusts that have been in Reformed theology all the time? Is this new direction supported by the biblical witness? How do these altered doctrines and practices fare in the day-to-day life of the church? Are Barth's emphases on baptism as an ethical action and the traditional Reformed doctrine of baptism as a sign and a seal mutually exclusive or complementary understandings of baptism? 9 The theological crisis of meaning and practice of baptism can be summed up as fo ll ows: I. A shift of emphasis on the part of prominent Reformed theologians from word and sacraments to an overwhelming emphasis on the word, to which sacraments or other actions associated with the traditional doctrine of the sacraments are related as subordinate appendices. 2. A new understanding of the meaning of sacrament, at least on the part of Karl Barth. 3. A repudiation of or uneasiness about infant baptism. Barth and Brunner do not, of course, exhaust the Reformed tradition·. There are many other Reformed theologians and scholars who have opposed the course of Barth and Brunner or who have worked out their own understanding of the meaning and practice of baptism; e.g., the Church of Scotland study, The Biblical Doctrin e of Baptism; Cullmann, J. Leenhardt; P. C. Marcel; Giovanni Miegge; John Baillie, G. C. Berkouwer, among others. Barth and Brunner, however, raise the issues that all Reformed theologians must face.

II The crisis of the meaning and practice of baptism is not only theological; it is also cultural. The parish church and christendom are no longer realities. American church members are increasingly members of highly voluntary churches in a free, pluralistic, secular, mobile, urban, industrial society. These changes are very significant for our understanding of the practice of baptism. The voluntary character of the church is far more apparent in America than it has been in Europe. Hence, many European comments about the baptism of infants cannot be transferred to America without taking into account this difference. Baptists constitute the largest Protestant body in the United States, and their influence is pervasive. Hence the practice of infant baptism, even apart from the secularization of society, has never been universal or even the dominant practice in American church life, particularly among Protestants. This is true of many Presbyterian congregations which affirm the doctrine of infant baptism. Furthermore, the American tradition of the revival and the camp meeting kept the conversion experience in the forefront of the church's attention and in many communities the normal pattern of admission to membership in the church. At times the practice did violence to theology. For exam­ ple, James Henley Thornwell , a brilliant and distinguished Presbyterian theologian, expressed deep anxiety that his daughter, who had been baptized and reared in the church, should have the experience of conversion and come to know Jesus as her Lord and Saviour. Thornwell combined this outlook with the baptism of infants on the basis of a doctrine of an ecclesiastical covenant into which a child was intro­ duced by baptism. Membership in the covenant of grace needs further attestation. In many cases the problem in American church life is not, as in Europe, the scandal of universal baptism so that Hitler and the Pope alike bear the sign, but a pervasive 10 confusion about the meaning and practice of baptism, the meaning of conversion, and the meaning of church membership. The practice of baptism, if not the meaning, is significantly shaped by the cul­ ture. Hence it is important to note that the crisis in the meaning and practice of baptism is tied up with the relation of church and society. Certain characteristics of our culture as it relates to the church are important for the practice of baptism. First, the American church is a highly voluntary church. Thi s has been legally true since the beginning of the nation. During the past three decades it has become true psychologically. There is little social pressure to conform to patterns of church li fe . T here is no longer any fear of hell. Americans are free to be or not to be the church . Secondly , American culture is increasingly pluralistic in regard to religious be­ li efs and li fe styles. Every American community offers a great number of options. Television and popular magazines invade the most isolated communities. The options in faith are not limited to Christian churches but include almost all known religions, cults, and life styles. Thirdly, American life is increasingly secul ar. As late as the early sixties, many public schools were for practical purposes Protestant schools. Today all public schools are secular. Education generally is increasingly secular and religiou sly and morally pluralistic. Society has no official religious and few moral commitments. Even theological schools are sometim es more comfortable with the study of the Bible than with the devotional use of the Bible. Fourthly, American life is increasingly mobile. The family that has liv ed for three or four generations in the same community is increasingly rare. The typical American li ves during one lifetime in many different communities. Young fami li es have the responsibility of rearing children apart from the support of the extended family. The anonymity of the person or family on the move provides more freedom and less support for human life than has ever been true before. The mobility of the typical American has special significance for church li fe. After each move, indentification with a new congregation has to be established. This requires a great amount of physical and psychical energy both on the part of the people on the move and on the part of the church. The mobility of the American people also raises serious questions about the practice of baptism of infants which in­ volves the responsibility of the congregation for the nurturing of a child . Fifthly , the urban and industrial character of American li fe has an impact far beyond the competence of most to decipher. Suffice it here to say, it removes life from its primordial sources in the soil, in growing things. It also cramps human existence into narrow spaces. It regiments li fe and ties it strictly to a money economy. fn the older society the parish church had a responsibili ty for every one in the community, and everyone in the community had some relation to the parish church. The parish may have always been a fiction , but in some measure it was realized even in free and partially pluralistic societies. In the older societies the community as well

II as the church traditioned the faith . The teaching of the church was supported and undergirded by the structure and the sanctions of the community. Today the church can expect no real support from the community in the traditioning of the faith. Indeed, the church has to counter many influences of the communit y. Television and popular magazines barrage Christi ans and others alike with alien ideas and li fe styl es. How, for example , can the Christian doctrine of marriage be maintained over against the doctrines of sex and marriage that inform almost every television progra m? T he crisis of the meaning and practice of baptism is in part the crisis of our culture and of the relationship of the church to our society . How does baptism as initiation into the Christian life and the baptism of infants who are born into the Christi an community, according to traditi onal doctrine, make sense in th e kind of society in which we liv e? How is a public and binding Christian decision made in a secular a nd pluralistic society? Do the radical Protestants offer young people a dramatic way of publicly declaring their faith and conversion that meets a need not met in the churches that practice the baptism of infants and offer communicants' classes that are essentially study sessions? T he doctrine of baptism is not to be determined by the culture, a nd the culture does not determine the church's agenda. Nevertheless, the culture does enable us to see some things about ourselves more clearly and to understand some of our doctrines and practices better than we could or did when these doctrines and practices were not challenged by the culture. A pluralistic, secular, and mobile culture also poses theological as well as practi­ cal questions. What, for example, is the relation of the community of faith to the natural community or to the community of birth? What is the relation of grace and election to the social context of the believer? Wh en the two extremes are eliminated, the extreme that the social setting has no sign ifi cance or the extreme that the social setting is determinative, th e problem of the relation of grace and election to the socia l setting is still complex. This complexity is simil ar to the complexity of the relation of the promise of which the sacrament is a sign and a seal to its fulfi llm ent. The per­ formance of the sacrament does not guarantee the fulfillment. God, not man, holds together promise and fulfi llment, and God holds together grace a nd election and the social setting of the bel iever. The crisis of baptis m is now forcing us to say more tha n we have thus far about the complex relation of grace and election and the social setting, and of th e promise sealed in the sacrament and its fu lfillment. Grace, elec­ tion, and fulfillment of the promise all take place neither in isolation from the social context nor in dependence upon it, but th e precise relationship is a my stery about which we can speak only hesitantly . Yet we must begin to speak.

III

T he crisis of the meaning and practice of baptis m is a lso the crisis of faith. The crisis of faith is the heart of the issue. T he a nxi ety about baptism is a symptom of a deeper crisis. The practice of baptism may have been irregular, but the irregularities would not have been noticed apart from a deeper cri sis; na mely , the crisis of faith in God. T he crisis of faith in God is surely not new. It is th e crisis of every age, indeed of

12 every human being. But there is some evide nce tharit has been in a particular way the crisis of our time. rn the 1960's we went through the death of God controversy when for the first time in Christian hi story the first article of the creed was at stake. This whole episode is best understood as a symptom of the spiritual sickness of our time. The crisis of faith is especiall y vivid in those moments when li fe is most real as, for example, in the moment of death when we trust to God the fate of conscious personality itself. Similarly, in baptism faith is chall enged. Barth himself begins hi s discussion of baptism with a clear awareness that the existence or reality of the Christian life itself is a very great assumption, a very great affirmation of faith. In the baptism of a child the question of faith is always raised. Do we believe that this child is by the power of God, that God thought of this child before this child was, gave to this child an identity , an individuality, a name? Do we believe that the Spirit of the Lord God is at work in this life? These questions which are enhanced by the fragility of a baby's life and the uncertain ty of the future also apply when we baptize an adi.llt. In the baptism of infant or adult what is the real commitment of the congregation that participates in the baptism? Baptism does not make sense except as the consequence of faith and except in the context of faith . Better theologies or sounder practices will not suffice for fa ith , though they may be aid s to faith. The crisis of faith and its relation to baptism can be vividly illustrated in the current status of the old Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, the conviction that God will carry on to completion the work that he has begun in the heart of the believer. Few Reformed doctrines have greater significance for the realities of life in our time, but it is also true that few doctrines are more difficult to preach in a way that ill uminates the experience not of the secularist but of the church member. What does baptism mean during the dark times of the soul or when the baptized falls away from the church? 1 Baptism, however it may be understood and practiced, makes sense only in the worshipping, believing, obeying community of Christian people. When baptism takes place outside this context, it loses its meaning and is discarded, or it acquires another meaning, perhaps a social reason, and becomes a scandal. Our final decision about th e signifi cance of bapti sm is more likely to be determined by the community of worship in which we participate than it is by the th eology we study . The theological study of baptism is not th erefore unimportant. First of all , if good th eology cannot create faith, bad th eology can surely damage faith. Bad prac­ tice can and does corrupt both th eology a nd life. Second , faith itself seeks under­ standing, intelli gibility. Much baptismal practice and baptismal di scussion is irrele­ vant and meaningless because it has no obvious relationship to the brute facts of personal li fe, church life, and public li fe in our time. T he task of theology is to show how baptism does justice to the facts, illu minates and gives meaning to human ex­ perience as does no other practice in our society. But thi s theological task can be accompli shed only in the community of beli eving and obeying and worshipping people of God.

13 FOOTNOTES 1 Emil Brunner: Truth as Encounter (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965), Revised Edition, pp. 183-184. 2 Ibid., pp. 198- 199. 3 Karl Barth: The Teaching of the Church R egarding Baptism (London: SCM Press, 1965), p. 16. • Ibid., p. 54 . ' Emi l Brunner: The Misunderstanding of th e Church (Philad_elphi a: Westminster Press, 1953), p. 165 . • Karl Barth: Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1969) , JY/4, p . 27. 7 Ibid., p . 34 . 8 Ibid., Editor's preface, p. 6. 9 Ibid., p. 103 . 19 Ibid., p. 105 .

II Ibid., p. 106. " Ibid., p. 107. 13 Ibid., p. 128. 14 Ibid., p. 147 . " Ibid., p. 212 . 16 Church Dogmatics, IV/2, pp. xi, xii .

14