In a collegial debate over baptism with a fellow pastor and friend, while we both agreed there were some rare circumstances where baptism by immersion was not possible - a deathbed conversion for example - I argued that in some situations non-immersion may be common, even the norm, and should not be a bar to church membership - even in a Baptist church.
I cited an example known to both of us of a missionary's child in Africa who professed faith in Christ as a teenager and was baptized on that profession by having water carefully poured over her head. The reason this was done rather than being immersed in the river nearby was because of the presence of debilitating parasites in the water that entered into the body through one's ears. Oh - and there were also the crocodiles...
Though my colleague acknowledged the circumstances of this particular case he was plainly uncomfortable with the legitimacy of the pouring. He felt people in that situation should pursue immersion at the earliest possible opportunity because... but here he struggled to verbalize his conviction.
"Why?" I pressed, "Because it didn't work - or what?" After a slightly exasperated "I don't know..." he proceeded to expound on baptism being a symbol of Christ's death, burial and resurrection, and the well known (to Baptists anyway) meaning of the word baptidzo in Jesus' great commission command to "make disciples of all nations baptizing them..." - that it can only mean immerse, etc.
That's fine if the circumstances are right - like having lots of water. I proposed a hypothetical situation (hypothetical but very likely in the so-called "10-40 window") of a desert tribe, say in the Kalahari or Sahara of Africa, where the whole tribe comes to faith in Christ en masse but all the water available for 100 miles is contained in a small goatskin.
Whatever your conviction about the mode of baptism there's only enough water for each person to be lightly sprinkled. Are we to deny the legitimacy of their baptism, or worse, their faith because they were not - no, could not - be immersed? To this there was no answer.
The irony of all this comes into focus when we understand that Baptists tend to steer clear of using the word sacrament in reference to the Lord's Supper and baptism, preferring the term ordinance. By using this term it is hoped on the one hand to avoid any notion of priest craft involved in the administration of the rites or any inherent power in the ritual, and on the other hand point all spiritual efficacy instead to the gospel and the power of God.
Yet, because some Baptists hold to immersion so intensely and are so uncomfortable with anything but that, it's hard to avoid the thought that a sacramentalism has entered into their outlook on baptism. In other words, they believe the rite of baptism must be performed precisely if it is to "take," or "work" or be legitimate. Legitimate not simply as a picture of sharing in Christ's death and resurrection, but if salvation itself is to be complete. If there has been no baptism by immersion, then - in the minds of these sacramentalists - doubt concerning the genuineness of one's faith, if not a suspicion of latent apostasy, persists.
Worse than sacramentalism, insistence on immersion can be an outright denial of the gospel. Recall the Apostle Paul rebuked the Galatians for believing another gospel which was no gospel at all. What was it they were believing? They had come under the influence of the Judaizers who were insisting that to be saved one must believe in Jesus AND be circumcised. It is the "Jesus AND" formula that is deadly. Yet to hear some Baptists talk it is "believe in Jesus AND be baptized by immersion" and nothing short of that will suffice. This is clearly to add to the perfect righteousness of Christ and is a denial of the gospel.
Next time - Why Baptists Should Insist on Immersion
