by Aaron Lewis
Over the last few decades there has been a resurgence in interest among Baptist theologians regarding the sacramental nature of the ordinances of Christ, namely baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Studies in Baptist History and Thought is an international series of academic studies from contributors of various denominations, all of whom share a common interest in Baptist history and thought. Two volumes in this series, Baptist Sacramentalism and Baptist Sacramentalism 2, provide a wealth of information for anyone interested in recovering the rich theological heritage within Baptist tradition. The volumes themselves have not been met without criticism, as some have characterized this renewed interest in sacramental theology as a “corrupting influence.”[1] Indeed, at face value, “Baptist sacramentalism” might sound oxymoronic or indeed altogether foreign to Baptist identity; however, as will become clear, I do not find sacramental language, when properly understood, to be out of step with Baptist modality.
What’s more, the title of this essay might trigger alarms, as I am tethering the Baptist tradition to the idea of ressourcement found within the mid-twentieth century French Catholic renewal movement, referred to as the nouvelle théologie (“new theology”). This movement was led by a coterie of Catholic theologians such as Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, and Henri Bouillard, to name a few. Protestant theologian Hans Boersma is among the leading interpreters of this renewal movement, whose work articulates the contours of what characterizes his specifically Protestant ressourcement.[2]
Borrowing Boersma’s vision of ressourcement, it is the aim of this essay to apply such ressourcement to a specific Baptist modality for the sake of the renewal and enrichment of Baptist life and worship, with special consideration given to the sacramental dimensions of baptism and Eucharist.[3] Stated differently, I share in the Center for Baptist Renewal’s vision of embracing and recovering the Great Tradition of historic Christianity for the sake of renewing Baptist faith and practice.[4] Before moving forward, it would be helpful to briefly define Boersma’s use of ressourcement and why Baptists should welcome and participate in this wider ecumenical project.
Recovering Baptist Voices
Is it true that early Baptists held such a sacramental vision? Baptist ressourcement must include returning to the sources of our own tradition. In doing so, I wish to highlight three examples from within Baptist history that demonstrate how a rich understanding of the sacraments is consistent with Baptist tradition.
First, the history of the seventeenth century reveals that not all Baptists sensed the need to reject the term sacrament to distinguish itself from the sacramentalism and sacerdotalism of the Roman Catholic Church.[5] Stanley Grenz notes that General Baptists were willing to retain the use of sacrament while using ordinance as well; he cites the Orthodox Creed of 1678 as referring to ‘those two sacraments’ as ‘ordinances of positive, sovereign, and holy institution.’[6] The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession (SLBC) only names baptism and the Lord’s Supper as ordinances, but the description of each is far richer than contemporary understanding would have it. For example, Chapter 29 of the SLBC says that one is baptized as “a sign of his fellowship with Him, in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Him.”[7] This is the language of participation. Whatever occurs in baptism, it is clear early Baptists viewed the action as signifying union with God, being engrafted into Him; baptism is more than a symbol of one’s personal, interior decision.
Further, the language used to describe what occurs in the celebration of Eucharist is far more surprising than contemporary Baptists would believe. The 1689 document lays out why the ordinance was instituted: “for the perpetual remembrance, and showing to all the world the sacrifice of Himself in His death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe Him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other.”[8] There are at least five reasons for the celebration of Eucharist, according to the London Baptists: for the remembrance and proclamation of Christ’s sacrifice, assurance of faith, spiritual nourishment and growth, deeper discipleship, and the celebration functions as a bond and pledge (a seal and promise) of their communion with God and the people of God.
Further still, the 1689 confession speaks to the real spiritual presence of Christ at the table. Paragraph 7 of Chapter 30 says this: “Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of His death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present[.]”[9] In light of this astounding theologically rich understanding of Eucharist, it is astonishing that the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 reduces the mystery and significance of the Lord’s Supper to one sentence as follows: “The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.”[10] It is my view that if the early Baptists had anticipated such a subsequent impoverishment in theology of the Lord’s Supper, they would have retained the use of sacramental language. Though the seventeenth century Baptists chose the language of ‘ordinance,’ upon reading their understanding of the ordinances, it is clear that theirs was a sacramental understanding. The language they used is the language of participation.
Second, Michael A. G. Haykin gives a luminous account of the sacramental understanding of the Lord’s Supper in the eighteenth century.[11] Of particular interest from Haykin’s essay is Anne Dutton, a Calvinistic contemporary and correspondent of George Whitefield and John Wesley.[12] Haykin notes that Dutton authored a sixty-page treatise on the Lord’s Supper which stands in continuity of the position outlined in the 1689 Confession, which is itself a Calvinist document. She writes, “As our Lord is spiritually present in his own ordinance, so he therein and thereby doth actually communicate, or give himself, his body broken, and his blood shed, with all the benefits of his death, to the worthy receivers.”[13] Dutton is but one among many early Baptists who held to the view of Christ’s real spiritual presence at the table, signifying a sacramental understanding of the ordinance.
Finally, the great Baptist preacher of the 19th Century, Charles Spurgeon, held to a sacramental understanding of the ordinances of Christ. Tim Grass and Ian Randall write, “although Spurgeon was reluctant to use the word ‘sacrament,’ in his thinking the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper were not empty symbols.”[14] This is a familiar pattern amongst all early Baptists; many preferred the designation of ordinance while holding a higher view than the mere memorialist positions in contemporary evangelical Baptist churches. Contrary to contemporary practice common to Baptists today, Spurgeon encouraged the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper, if possible.[15] It is clear through reading Spurgeon’s sermons that he believed in the real spiritual presence of Christ. For example, he once commented that “Jesus Christ spiritually comes to us and refreshes us, and in that sense we eat his flesh and drink his blood.”[16] And in an 1889 sermon, Spurgeon explicitly stated that the Lord’s Supper “is more than a memorial, it is a fellowship, a communion. Those who eat of this bread, spiritually understanding what they do, those who drink of this cup, entering into the real meaning of that reception of the wine, do therein receive Christ spiritually into their hearts.”[17] As is the common thread throughout early Baptist history, the language here is the language of participation.
Even through this brief sketch of certain historical figures and documents within the Baptist tradition, it is clear that a sacramental understanding of the ordinances pervaded Baptist thought and practice. Contemporary Baptists have drifted into a reductionistic memorialist understanding of the sacraments. Today, Baptist churches are in desperate need of a ressourcement of their own tradition for the sake renewing the life, faith, and worship of local Baptist congregations.
___
[1] T. Nettles cited in Philip E. Thompson, “Introduction: Practicing Sacramentality in Baptist Modality,” in Baptist Sacramentalism, Studies in Baptist History and Thought, 25, eds. Anthony R. Cross and Philip E. Thompson (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2003), xvii.
[2] While recognizing that the nouvelle theologians employed various methodologies and pursued unique interests, Boersma highlights ressourcement as the common feature connecting their ideas. Specifically, Boersma borrows the term “sacramental ontology” to convey the notion that reality is sacramental in its nature, that the created order shares in and participates in heavenly realities. See his Nouvelle Théologie and Sacramental Ontology; Heavenly Participation; and The Oxford Handbook of Sacramental Theology.
[3] From the Greek εύχαριστέω (eucharisteó), meaning ‘to give thanks,’ Eucharist is my preferred term for what is also called The Lord’s Supper or Communion. Eucharist also functions as the preferred term in ecumenical discussions.
[4] The Center for Baptist Renewal is a group of conservative, evangelical Baptists committed to the vision described above. See centerforbaptistrenewal.com to read about their beliefs and mission.
[5] Stanley J. Grenz, “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as Community Acts: Toward a Sacramental Understanding of the Ordinances,” in Baptist Sacramentalism, Studies in Baptist History and Thought, 5, eds. Anthony R. Cross and Philip E. Thompson (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 82.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Second London Baptist Confession 29.1, in Baptist Confessions of Faith, ed. W.J. McGlothlin (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1911), 270.
[8] Ibid., Ch 30.1., 270.
[9] Ibid. Ch 30.7., 272 (emphasis mine).
[10] “The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message,” VII, www.sbc.net, (emphasis mine).
[11] See Michael A.G. Haykin “‘His soul-refreshing presence’: The Lord’s Supper in Calvinistic Baptist Thought and Experience in the ‘Long’ Eighteenth Century” in Baptist Sacramentalism, Studies in Baptist History and Thought, 5, eds. Anthony R. Cross and Philip E. Thompson (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 177-191.
[12] Ibid., 184.
[13] Cited, Ibid., 184.
[14] Tim Grass and Ian Randall, “C.H. Spurgeon on the Sacraments,” in Baptist Sacramentalism, Studies in Baptist History and Thought, 5, eds. Anthony R. Cross and Philip E. Thompson (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 55.
[15] Ibid., 72.
[16] Cited Ibid., 69-70.
[17] Cited Ibid., 75.