Lars, Theological training aside—and in sacramental theology we’re probably at about the same level—your comments point out exactly the right tension. What does it mean to choose such that the agency belongs simultaneously to us and to the Spirit? And this maps on to baptism: what would it mean to articulate a theology of baptism where the agency belongs to us and to God?

J. Daniel, I certainly need to flesh it out for myself as much as for anyone else, since it’s such a persistent and devastating worry for me. As I hinted over on YAR, I think it’s a question of whether our foundations have changed over the past fifty years, whether we’ve traded Christ for another norm.

Kim, your Anglican rapprochement sometimes seems appealing—except that I still can’t justify it biblically. A ritual of embrace as a sign of grace for newborns is one thing, but it looks nothing like the apostolic baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Dividing God’s gift of grace and our gift of obedience into two separate sacraments seems shifty, since the point is to show that we commit ourselves to God in and through God’s gift of grace, or that God grants us grace in and through our commitment to God. In other words, the point is still to highlight the unity in diversity of agency.

Also, I’m not trying to critique orthopraxy so much as I’m worrying that the criteria of the orthos (right) have changed. Bracketing the divine in order to speak of ethics already assumes that our ethics have their source somewhere besides the God we worship. Thus American progressivism only becomes noxious to the church when it comes to supplant the foundation of the church, which is always Jesus Christ her Lord.

The Anglican in me says, take the via media! I know this is not profound or in appropriate theological jargon, but my church practiced in effect, a double baptism. Someone becomes a member of the body of Christ at birth through the parents and the community and is given grace sacramentally, and then at an older age is able to ‘confirm’ one’s desire to remain a part of the church and commit to a life of following Christ. Does this make me an ana-baptist?

The wannabe Mennonite in me says, ouch, I think Brian is becoming Catholic in his criticism of orthopraxy. Noxious American progressivism? Misguided, erroneous or lethally poisonous?

The friend in me says, I forgot about your blog when I changed to Firefox browser. Have a great day!

In the footnote above you say, “…my generation of mainstream Mennonites habitually brackets the divine in order to insist on the church as an alternative way of being-in-the-world. (I’m tempted to say something less generous: that my generation has given up Christianity for a particularly noxious form of American progressivism—noxious because this progressivism insists it is the evolution of the true church.)”

I am interested in hearing more about this when the semester’s ending has freed you of its grasp.

But that is part of what makes our faith: we do believe that God’s Spirit has been poured out equally on each of us. We do “choose” to follow God; though if we are clear, it is not we who decide, but the Spirit, who decides through (and in spite of) us, as Paul seems always eager to point out. But when Jesus himself calls people to himself and recognizes their faith, he tends to be quite clear: “your faith has made you well.”

So Believer’s Baptism should reflect this tension, I think; and it seems that we are in agreement. It is a symbol of the Spirit at work in a person. It is neither the beginning nor the summation of the relationship, but a public recognition of “God’s commitment to us” by giving us the Spirit.

Now, a part of me wants to be clear that the symbol of water baptism is only that – a symbol, not to be confused with the baptism of the Spirit. The latter is God’s commitment, the former, a public declaration of the latter. Clarity here is important.

Another part of me says, “this post has been rather rambly, and I do not have the same level of academic theological training as you, and maybe I’ve not provided anything worthwhile here.” But I will post this anyway, despite my misgivings.

This is an important issue, for we are but men, and not God.

The best thing I have read on the doctrine of baptism is Thomas F. Torrance’s article “The One Baptism Common to Christ and his Church” (in his book “Theology in Reconciliation”). George Hunsinger has an article dealing with Torrance’s understanding of the sacraments entitled “The Dimension of Depth”.

I hope this helps!