Content provided in partnership with

Ecclesiological and Ecumenical Implications of Baptism

Ecumenical Review, The, Oct, 2000 by Walter Kasper

I. The ecumenical problem at present

Church and baptism belong together from the very beginning. In the New Testament the account of the event of Pentecost, which definitively established the church, moves directly into the report of the baptism of the first Christians (Acts 2:41). In all churches baptism has since been the gateway to church membership. In all churches and in almost all church communities we find the practice of baptism in the name of the triune God, the Quakers and the Salvation Army being the only exceptions among the ecumenically active church communities. Hence the ecumenical movement from the start has sought to make our common baptism the point of departure and the basis for ecumenical efforts. Vatican II also took this path (UR 3). Thus, for all the divisions that still exist, there is already a fundamental common basis -- which shows that the separations have neither penetrated to the deepest roots, nor "extended to heaven".

More Articles of Interest: The baptism of our Lord: January 13, 2008; The convergence texts baptism, eucharist, and ministry: how did they take...; Second Sunday after the Epiphany: January 20, 2008; Bedrock truths - Living by the Word - sin and temptation - Brief Article; Ecclesiology in Faith and Order texts

After many preliminary efforts(1) and a process of consultation lasting for many years, the Lima declaration, Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982), took up this concern, achieving a considerable consensus and extensive convergence in the understanding of baptism? Since then formal mutual recognition of baptism has taken place between churches in many countries.

Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry undoubtedly marks a great step forward, and within this convergence text it is the section on baptism which has met with most agreement. Above all, the ecclesiological consequences (for the divided churches) resulting from a common understanding of baptism have been welcomed.

But the churches' responses to BEM(3) also show that many questions still remain unresolved and that the differences go more deeply than BEM assumed. The bilateral dialogues(4) which have been conducted since then, and the fact that all churches still do not recognize each others' baptism, confirm this conclusion. Alongside the cultural questions and challenges -- raised above all by the churches in Asia and Africa -- there are fundamental theological questions which show that the traditional controversial questions still persist, at least to some extent. It is regrettable, therefore, that -- despite some significant studies(5) -- the theology of baptism has remained somewhat peripheral in the last few decades.

This is also true of the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification", which mentions baptism almost only in passing (no. 25).

Differences in the understanding of baptism exist above all between the "historic" churches on the one hand and the Baptist, evangelical and Pentecostal communions on the other. Here the question is not only about the baptism of infants and the practice of "adult baptism", but also about the much more fundamental question of the understanding -- more precisely, the sacramental understanding -- of baptism. With the swift growth, and increasing importance, of the Pentecostal and charismatic communities this question is becoming increasingly urgent.(6)

Problems of another kind arise in relation to certain Orthodox and Oriental churches. They do not recognize the baptism performed in another church of Christians transferring to them, or preparing for a church wedding in an interfaith marriage, and correspondingly require what the other churches describe as a "re"-baptism.(7) Underlying this are differences in the understanding of the ecclesiological presuppositions and consequences of baptism, about which there is little clarity and no consensus, even among Orthodox churches.

A third set of problems must finally be mentioned. Even where churches do recognize each other's baptism, there is not always a consensus on the ecclesiological presuppositions and consequences of such recognition. This is true for the relation between baptism and confirmation or sacramental chrismation and, above all, for the relation between baptism and the eucharist; for recognition of another church's baptism does not mean, for the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches, that persons thus baptized are then also admitted to the eucharist. This is why the Reformation churches often ask these two churches why those who -- by the "one baptism" are members of the ecclesial body of Christ -- nevertheless(8) cannot together receive the eucharistic body of the Lord at the Lord's table.

BEM sees the remaining differences among the churches above all in their different practices in relating faith and baptism, and baptism, confirmation and eucharist. It sees these differences as complementary approaches. In doing so, however, it underestimates the deeper differences among the church in the understanding of baptism and the church. The problems of the Orthodox and Oriental churches, and the challenges coming from the Pentecostal communities, are scarcely considered.

For this reason, further discussions on the theme of baptism are urgently necessary. For without mutual recognition of baptism all other ecumenical efforts are literally left hanging in the air: they amount to nothing more than friendly gestures and interchurch diplomacy, and lack theological substance, commitment and consistency. And even mutual recognition of baptism really makes sense only if it is backed by a fundamental common understanding of baptism -- and its ecclesiological consequences.

Ecclesiological and Ecumenical Implications of Baptism

Ecumenical Review, The, Oct, 2000 by Walter Kasper

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Business

Most Popular Articles in Reference

Most Popular Publications in Reference