Introduction
1. IT BEGAN IN SCOTLAND
   
2. THOMAS CAMPBELL WRITES HIS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
   
3. THE SPIRIT OF THE "DECLARATION AND ADDRESS"
   
4. PRINCIPLES OF THE DOCUMENT
   
5. HISTORIC NOTES ON OUR FIRST CHURCH
   
6. "LET CHRISTIAN UNITY BE OUR POLAR STAR"
   
7. THE NOBLEST ACT IN BARTON STONE'S LIFE
   
8. LEARNING FROM A BACKWOODS PREACHER
   
9. CHRISTIANS IN BABYLON
   
10. WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?
    
11. THE ESSENCE OF THE CAMPBELL PLEA
    
12. THE DEATH OF A DREAM
    
13. THE SAND CREEK ADDRESS
    
14. A MUDDLED MOVEMENT
    
15. THE AUTHORITY TOTEM
    
16. THE PARTY SPIRIT
    
17. THE BED OF PROCRUSTES
    
18. OUR COSTLIEST SIN: EXCLUSIVISM
    
19. RESTORATION OR REFORMATION
    
20. A BOY LEARNS THE MEANING OF BROTHERHOOD
    
21. THE BUTTING BRETHREN
    
22. ANALYSIS OF LEGALISM
    
23. THE ESSENCE OF CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP
    
24. THOUGHTS ON FELLOWSHIP
    
25. ON THE ROCKS
    
26. WITHDRAWING FROM THE DISORDERLY
    
27. CAUSING DIVISIONS
    
28. TWO GREAT ERRORS
    
29. UNION IN TRUTH
    
30. ONE BODY IN CHRIST
    
31. UNITY AND IDENTITY
    
32. UNITY IN DIVERSITY
    
33. IS DOCTRINE IMPORTANT?
    
34. THE WEIGHTIER MATTERS
    
35. MUST WE GIVE UP OUR OPINIONS?
    
36. WHAT DIFFERENCES DO DIFFERENCES MAKE?
    
37. THE "ONE BAPTISM" AND FELLOWSHIP
    
38. ARE WE TO FELLOWSHIP THE UNIMMERSED?
    
39. OUR FATHERS ON "WHO IS A CHRISTIAN?"
    
40. "OUR BROTHERS IN THE DENOMINATIONS"
    
41. WHAT IS "OUR FELLOWSHIP"?
    
42. ARE WE TO FELLOWSHIP THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH?
    
43. I WOULD ABDICATE
    
44. A BASIC FALLACY TO OVERCOME
    
45. CAN WE BE UNITED AND NOT KNOW IT?
    
46. SEPARATED BUT NOT DIVIDED
    
47. THE ONE CHURCH INDIVISIBLE
    
48. UNITY WILL COME, BUT
    
49. IF NOT BROTHERHOOD, THEN CO-EXISTENCE
    
50. THIS IS OUR GLORY!
    
51. THE UNIFYING POWER OF THE CROSS
    

THE "ONE BAPTISM" AND FELLOWSHIP

(This was originally a letter to Arnold Hardin of Dallas, Texas, editor of The Persuader.)

I agree with you-and with Paul and with Alexander Campbell-that the seven ones of Eph. 4, which Campbell liked to call "the seven facts," are the basis for unity. They are indeed facts or propositions and form the essence of the gospel, for they point to what God has done for us through Christ. They are not seven opinions, though there are countless opinions as to what they may mean or imply. So, while I believe that the seven facts are necessary to unity, I cannot believe that anyone's opinion about them is essential to unity. There are many opinions, for example, about "the one Spirit"-how he functions, his gifts, glossolalia, etc.-and while these may be held as opinion they cannot be made a test of fellowship. But anyone who repudiates the "one Spirit" as a fact or a reality could not be a true believer.

While I believe the seven unities of Eph. 4 to be essential to unity and fellowship, I do not believe that a perfect understanding or compliance to them is essential. If perfection is required, we are all doomed, for who has made a perfect response to the "one hope" or to the "one Lord." It appears that some early Christians, such as in Corinth, were still affected by idolatry, even though they accepted the fact of the "one God and Father of us all." It is a matter of one's heart and mind being turned in the right direction, and not a matter of perfect knowledge or perfect response.

Most of my brethren in Churches of Christ would agree with me that on six of these facts there might be some imperfection in knowledge and obedience. Even though we are strongly church­oriented, few would say that we have to know everything about the "one body" to be true Christians, or even the "one faith," however much we have taught about it. So with the one God, one Spirit, one Lord, and one hope.

The hang­up is on the "one baptism," for here we demand perfection across the board, whether it be the mode, design, or meaning of baptism. While all believers accept what Eph. 4:5 actually says, that there is "one baptism," we insist that they accept our interpretation of its meaning and obey the ordinance as we understand it, before we acknowledge them as Christians. Many among us even insist that one must understand why he is baptized, and they dictate the why-one must understand he is baptized for the remission of sins.

Nearly all believers would grant that no one is a true Christian who repudiates any ordinance of God, including baptism. Anyone who rejects baptism rejects the counsel of God (Lk. 7:30) and falls short of the basis of unity as prescribed in Eph. 4.

But suppose one has both accepted and obeyed the ordinance of baptism "in his heart," as Campbell put it, "while mistaking the form" (assuming immersion to be the correct form or mode)? Is he in the same category as one who has repudiated the ordinance? Is he not a Christian for lack of water, being only sprinkled rather than immersed?

Campbell's View

We should be able to see why Alexander Campbell wrote as he did on this matter:

"I cannot, therefore, make any one duty the standard of Christian state or character, not even immersion into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and in my heart regard all that have been sprinkled in infancy without their knowledge and consent, as aliens from Christ and the well­grounded hope of heaven."

Campbell anticipated the question that is often asked, "How do you know that one loves Christ except by his obedience to his commandments?" His answer was:

"In no other way. But mark, I do not substitute obedience to one commandment, for universal or even for general obedience. And should I see a sectarian Baptist or a Pedobaptist more spiritually­minded, more generally conformed to the requisitions of the Messiah, than one who precisely acquiesces with me in the theory or practice of immersion as I teach, doubtless the former rather than the latter, would have my cordial approbation and love as a Christian. So I judge and so I feel. It is the image of Christ the Christian looks for and loves; and this does not consist in being exact in a few items, but in general devotion to the whole truth as far as known."

And Campbell drew the same distinction that I did above, between mistakes of the mind and mistakes of the heart: "With me mistakes of the understanding and errors of the affection are not to be confounded. They are as distant as the poles. An angel may mistake the meaning of a commandment, but he will obey it in the sense in which he understands it."

He goes on to say what is badly needed in the thinking of Church of Christ folk: "Many a good man has been mistaken. Mistakes are to be regarded as culpable and as declarative of a corrupt heart only when they proceed from a willful neglect of the means of knowing what is commanded. Ignorance is always a crime when it is voluntary; and innocent when it is involuntary."

In the same essay, which is found in Millennial Harbinger (1837), p. 411, he answers the question Who is a Christian?

"I answer, Every one that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God; repents of his sins, and obeys him in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will." These reflections from Alexander Campbell are especially significant since he championed the cause of baptism by immersion and for the remission of sins as much as any theologian in modern times.

Campbell or not, we must not impose upon the "one baptism" of Eph. 4 what is not there. If we make it mean "one immersion," we do so only by ignoring the context. The apostle is affirming oneness for Jewish and Gentile believers. Jews and Gentiles are in the one body and worship the one God and share the one faith and the one hope. They look to the one Lord and are infused by the same Spirit. In this context it would mean little to speak of one immersion-as if there could be more than one!

This is why we err when we make baptism mean immersion. It means no such thing, even if it was by immersion. The Greek word etymologically means to dip or to immerse, but words are not to be judged simply by etymology. If so, we would have to revise our dictionary, for words are not defined by their origin as much as by their use. The word candidate, for example, means "one who comes out dressed in white" if you go to etymology, but we know it does not mean that. The word dean means "a leader of ten men" etymologically, but its real meaning is different.

We believe we can establish that baptism was practiced by immersion by the early church, but that does not make baptism mean immersion. If we sought a word that best expressed its meaning, it might be initiation. This gives meaning to the "one baptism" of Eph. 4. The apostle is saying that everyone is initiated into the community of Christ alike-one initiation for Jews and Gentiles. This gives meaning to similar passages, such as Luke 7:30 where the Pharisees and lawyers rejected God's counsel by rejecting John's baptism. It is not that they rejected immersion, but they rejected the initiatory ceremony that would have inducted them into the community John was preparing for the coming of Christ. The Great Commission is similar: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them." While the act of baptism was by dipping in water, its meaning was something like initiation or enrollment, as the term "make disciples" would suggest. There was a rite whereby they were to be enrolled in the school of Christ. In this instance we might say that baptism means enrollment.

I say this in order to observe that John the Baptist or Jesus and his disciples did not choose immersion or dipping in water as the rite of initiation into the new community. Jesus did not invent or originate immersion as a ceremony. Neither did John the Baptist. When the Pharisees observed John baptizing, they knew exactly what he was doing. It was a familiar rite, long practiced by the Jews. What upset the Pharisees was that John was relating this old rite of initiation to a coming Christ and a coming kingdom of God, thus calling for their repentance.

While Paul later found great symbolic value in immersion, as in Romans 6, we are not to presume that the founders of the church selected it for this reason, for they did not select it at all. They used the rite that was familiar, but elevated it to greater significance. It could be argued that the practice of immersion (washings) among the Jews was part of the preparation that the God of heaven made for the coming of the Messiah and his community, and so he had baptism there as a recognized rite of initiation when John came on the scene. But it could also be argued that it did not matter all that much, that John sought for an initiatory symbol of some sort, something for the people to do as a "stepping out" act of decision, so he simply used what was already known and practiced, giving it special meaning. He might have used something else, such as anointing the eyes with clay and spittle, followed by washing the eyes, a rite Jesus used at least once.

But my point is that the meaning of John's baptism (and of Christian baptism that followed) was not that it was immersion but that it was an act of initiation into a new community. Immersion was but its mode.

"One Immersion"

If you ask the So what? of all this, it is that we may miss the point of baptism when we are preoccupied with its mode, and especially when we labor to make baptism mean immersion. It is risky to equate baptism with immersion, as if they were synonymous. Of the hundreds of translations of the New Testament hardly any dares to substitute immersion for baptism, not even those translations made by those who practice immersion. Our own Alexander Campbell is an exception in that in his Living Oracles immerse and immersion displace baptize and baptism, the wisdom of which can be and has been seriously questioned.

To impose immersion upon some passages, as if it were the meaning of the original Greek word, is to make them awkward to say the least, Eph. 4:5 being one of them: to say "one Lord, one faith, one immersion" is not the same as saying "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." One points to the mode of the rite; the other points to the rite itself. Despite our complaints to the contrary, it is probably just as well that the Greek word has through the years been consistently baptize and baptism. Perhaps that too has been the providence of God.

Another part of the So what? is that other modes of baptism are rendered less offensive. After all, we level a serious indictment against most of the Christian world when we make baptism mean immersion, which implies a degeneracy on the part of those who do not see and practice baptism the way we do. If it is as "simple" and "clear" as we claim, why does such an infinitesimal part of the Christian world insist on immersion? Many who practice other modes readily admit that immersion was the primitive mode, but they believe the sprinkling of water captures the meaning of the initiatory rite as well as immersion, and that they are in no wise rejecting the ordinance of baptism. Are we to dechristianize them for this?

We should at least be able to see that those who have been "sprinkled" or "poured" have submitted to an initiatory act. It is not as if they have rejected baptism or not been baptized at all. They have "stepped out" and declared themselves as part of the Christian community by being baptized, even if it was not by the mode used by John and the primitive church.

How important is this "mistake" (as most of you and I see it) to the God of heaven? Is the difference in the amount of water between sprinkling and immersion of great import to Jesus Christ? I do not know. Speaking for myself, I was immersed and this is what I believe. It is also what I must practice. It would have to be a very unusual circumstance for me to sprinkle someone, but I suppose I would do so if immersion were impossible. This is almost certainly how other modes started, as a sincere effort to obey an ordinance of God in dire circumstances, not as a repudiation of immersion or even as an indifference to immersion. We as immersionists must rid ourselves of the ungracious notion that those who do not baptize the way we do have rebellious and disobedient hearts. They can be mistaken without being degenerate. And they can be mistaken and still be Christians who are pleasing God, just as we can still be Christians when we are mistaken.

Our position on immersion would be much stronger if we could prove that (1) baptism means immersion; (2) baptism by immersion was chosen (originated) by John and Jesus rather than borrowed from current practice; (3) that any other mode is absolutely and incontrovertibly unacceptable and invalid to the Lord Jesus Christ and the God of heaven. I cannot prove any of these things, so while I remain an immersionist I nonetheless accept as Christians those who practice other modes.

Since some of my readers may be of the persuasion of some of those to whom Alexander Campbell was writing in the quotations given above, I will close with one more statement of his from the same essay:

"My correspondent may belong to a class who think that we detract from the authority and value of an institution the moment we admit the bare possibility of any one being saved without it."

(Restoration Review: Vol. 25, No. 8; Oct. 1984)