The Sign of the Gospel

Toward an Evangelical Doctrine of Infant Baptism after Karl Barth

W. Travis McMaken

• Publisher: Fortress Press
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN:
  9780800699994
• eBook ISBN:
  9781451465372
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Rituals & Practice

The theology of the sacraments is one of the most contested parts in Barths theology, none more so than the doctrine of baptism. Barths proposals on baptism have generated intense conversation and disagreement, not only on its application to Protestant and ecumenical theology but even on its own consistency with Barths larger dogmatic project. McMaken takes up this controversial question, sets it in its proper context within the history of doctrine and Barths systematic work, and argues for a constructive reclamation of infant baptism that accords with Barths overarching theological concerns and insights, notably from Barths mature theological commitments. Pivotally, this volume claims that a reorientation of the doctrine of baptism opens up a new perspective on the practice of infant baptism on the basis of Barths theology; this new perspective, as well, holds the potential for wide, ecumenical application as a form of the proclamation of the gospel and a vital dimension of the churchs missional vocation. A commanding volume for scholars and students in systematic theology, ecumenical studies, and sacramental theology.

5

“The Sign Of The Gospel”—Toward A Post-Barthian Doctrine Of Infant Baptism

Barth’s mature doctrine of baptism is important both for what it affirms and what it rejects. As this study has discussed at length, Barth rejects both the sacramental and covenantal arguments for infant baptism, and affirms the close integration of baptism with his account of the Christian life. Following Barth in these moves does not commit one to a simple restatement of his position, however, nor does it rule out the possibility of advancing a different—albeit related and fundamentally sympathetic—doctrine of baptism on the basis of Barth’s broader theological commitments. I intend in this chapter to outline such a doctrine of baptism, one in which there is space for the practice of infant baptism. In pursuit of this goal, I will recapitulate at lesser length Barth’s own treatment of water baptism, organized as it is by discussions of water baptism’s basis, goal, and meaning. After sketching my post-Barthian doctrine of baptism through this reconfiguration of Barth’s own treatment and before concluding the chapter, I will address the critical question of how infant baptism fits into the picture. My primary thesis is that a doctrine of baptism as “the sign of the Gospel”^[1]—that is, as a nonverbal form of the church’s gospel proclamation—is a viable option for contemporary theology despite and, indeed, precisely because of the rejections and affirmations made by Barth in his own doctrine of baptism.

Barth’s Demands and Previous Attempts

Before moving on to this constructive work, however, it will be useful to recall Barth’s demands for any successful doctrine of infant baptism. He makes four such demands, as noted in the previous chapter: [1] such a doctrine must fit well with the broader doctrine of baptism in question and not appear merely as an appendix; [2] such a doctrine must be presented calmly and in a measured way; [3] such a doctrine must honor the stated premises of the broader doctrine of baptism in question; and [4] such a doctrine must prove what needs proving by providing a scriptural foundation for the practice of infant baptism (see CD IV/4, 169–79; KD IV/4, 186–97). While Barth lists four demands, further analysis reveals that there are only two formal stipulations. The second of Barth’s demands is trivial. While Barth scores a rhetorical point here, it is hard to countenance this subjective evaluation of theological tone as a significant demand. The first and third of Barth’s demands are restatements of the same basic stipulation: they both ask for the related qualities of consistency in principle and for infant baptism to be a “natural” or “organic” part of a larger baptismal doctrine. Barth’s fourth demand constitutes the second formal stipulation, namely, that infant baptism must either be placed on a scriptural foundation or else abandoned.

These two formal stipulations are helpful when considering the two most serious attempts to reconcile infant baptism with Barth’s theology prior to this chapter, namely, those offered by George Hunsinger and Reinhard Böttcher. I discussed Hunsinger’s treatment in chapter one and will not dwell on it here at any length. To recap briefly, Hunsinger makes two key moves: first, he develops an account of the threefold sacrament parallel to Barth’s account of the threefold Word from Church Dogmatics I/1; second, he uses the category of koinonia-relation to positively relate the community’s faith to that of the infant baptizand. Given these two moves, Hunsinger argues that infant baptism is admissible as “a prolep[tic] form of adult baptism.”^[2] This second move is problematic in light of the formal stipulations discussed above: by granting that baptism of the responsible is the standard practice, and that infant baptism is a sort of acceptable substandard practice, questions arise as to whether Hunsinger has maintained consistency in principle. Infant baptism begins to look like an appendix of secondary or tangential importance to a larger doctrine of baptism.

Like Hunsinger, Böttcher wants to find a way to maintain the practice of infant baptism within Barth’s broader theological commitments. To that end he imagines water baptism as a sign of humanity’s election and reconciliation in Jesus Christ, as well as of human commitment to serve and obey God in response to that election. By conceiving of water baptism as a “sign” in this way, Böttcher is able to close the perceived gap between Spirit and water baptism in Barth’s treatment. So Böttcher: “Baptism is the place where the history of call and response between God and humanity (die gott-menschliche Wort-Antwort-Geschichte) is on striking display—while preserving the freedom and sovereignty of God’s grace and in this justified human freedom.”^[3] Closing the gap between water and Spirit baptism in this way, and reaching back to Calvin and the Heidelberg catechism as well as Barth’s 1943 work on baptism, Böttcher attempts to reclaim a cognitive-sacramental understanding of water baptism. He believes that baptism of infants under such an account is acceptable and even believes that Barth’s doctrine of election helps to smooth some wrinkles in the traditional account.^[4]

Thinking back to the two formal stipulations outlined above, Böttcher succeeds in meeting the first to a greater degree than does Hunsinger insofar as he does not treat infant baptism as a substandard form of baptism. However, both Böttcher and Hunsinger fall short of the second stipulation, namely, they do not succeed in supplying a scriptural foundation for the practice of infant baptism. Hunsinger’s treatment makes use of a number of scriptural touchstones, but they pertain to the conceptual tools he applies to the subject rather than to baptism itself. Böttcher’s material is self-consciously restricted to the conceptual, and he admits that the truth of his account “is subject to an exegetical control based on the biblical witness that was, however, ignored in this study.”^[5] It is unfortunate that Böttcher ignored such matters, given that Barth’s departure from his 1943 understanding of baptism owes so much to exegetical engagement with the New Testament, as amply demonstrated in Church Dogmatics IV/4. Any attempt to reclaim cognitive-sacramentalism, much less infant baptism, must attend carefully to the exegetical component.

Despite the ways in which both Hunsinger and Böttcher fall short when measured against Barth’s formal stipulations, they nonetheless identify the most fruitful path forward toward developing a post-Barthian doctrine of infant baptism, namely, the notion of baptism as a “visible word.” Hunsinger uses this language explicitly—“water baptism is a form of God’s Word corresponding to proclamation”—and Böttcher sidles up to this notion by treating water baptism as a sign of the dynamic covenant between God and humanity or, to put it in more relevant terms, as he affirms that “the unity of the reformational solo verbo and sola fide is strikingly expressed in the act of (water) baptism.”^[6] Barth’s earlier theology moved along these lines as well. For instance, early in the Church Dogmatics he describes “sacrament” as inseparable from the church’s proclamation of the Word, characterizing the former as “the visible act that confirms human speech” (CD I/1, 70; KD I/1, 71). Vectoring this line of thought through Barth’s mature account of the Christian life as presented in Church Dogmatics IV, I will argue that water baptism is a nonverbal form of the church’s gospel proclamation. Of course, this study has everywhere resisted suggestions that Barth’s mature theology concerning baptism and the sacraments be abandoned in favor of the earlier strata, so I will advance in due course an account of how Barth’s earlier thought on these matters relates to the later.

Reconfiguring Barth’s Doctrine of Baptism

Fundamental to the doctrine of baptism that I will advance here is a reconsideration of the place and function of the baptizing community with reference to the individual baptizand. A persistent theme throughout Barth’s mature treatment of water baptism is that baptism “is not a collective act but a personal one” (CD IV/4, 83; KD IV/4, 91). The community is certainly involved, but its activity exists primarily to serve that of the baptizand. He recognizes the need for the community’s involvement given that baptism in the New Testament is clearly not self-baptism, but he nonetheless assigns an active role to the baptizand and a fundamentally passive role to the community. For Barth, the candidate asks for and accepts baptism, and therefore “baptism is his own act”; the community’s role is to facilitate that act through “recognition of [the candidate’s] faith” (CD IV/4, 49; KD IV/4, 54). The situation that Barth envisages seems to be as follows. With reference to the baptizand: first, one is awakened to faith in Spirit baptism; then, one recognizes that the significance of this occurrence is not merely private or personal but must become also a public or communal matter; this recognition leads one to seek active conformity with Jesus Christ’s baptism through one’s own baptism, through which one decisively confesses the reconciliation between God and humanity wrought by and in Jesus Christ; finally, one petitions the community of faith for the opportunity to confess in this way. With reference to the community: first, the candidate’s petition raises the question of whether the community will grant this opportunity for confession; the community then considers the candidate’s confession of Jesus Christ, not in an attempt to determine the authenticity of the candidate’s faith but to judge whether the candidate’s confession indeed proclaims the gospel of Jesus Christ; following a positive determination, the community undertakes to administer baptism, thereby joining with the baptizand in confessing Jesus Christ before the world (see CD IV/4, 147–48; KD IV/4, 161–63). Dieter Schellong’s remark aptly captures this dynamic: “The congregation moves from first to second place, waiting . . . to serve the candidate by granting the request for baptism.”^[7]

There is no doubt that Barth’s account has a certain logic to it, and it certainly fits well with his account of baptism’s basis. Neither is he without recourse to New Testament passages where initiative seems to reside with the candidate. Perhaps the most oft-cited example of this phenomenon is the Ethiopian eunuch,^[8] who exclaims after hearing Philip preach Jesus to him on the basis of Isaiah 53, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:36). Of course, it is hard to explain how the eunuch might have known about Christian baptism on the basis of Isaiah 53 unless Philip had previously discussed it. Furthermore, his exclamations and the form of his question suggest that not only had Philip mentioned baptism, but that he had discussed it as an activity in some way associated with the fullness of gospel proclamation and conversion. One sees on this reading a certain kinship with the baptismal dynamic involved in Peter’s Pentecost sermon of Acts 2, which I discussed in chapter three’s exegetical excursus. Hartwell is justified when he asks, “does the Church really play such an inferior part in Baptism as Barth attributes to it, inferior even to the part played by the person to be baptised?”^[9]

That the community plays an important role in baptism, one equal to or perhaps superior to that of the baptizand, is a valuable insight recognized by both the sacramental and covenantal arguments for infant baptism. Like Barth, Otto Weber notes that the New Testament does not countenance self-baptism and that the baptismal “act with which we are dealing is always the act of another person.” But unlike Barth, he draws the more natural conclusion that, in the first instance, baptism is a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Table Of Contents
• Abbreviations
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Baptism and Infant Baptism from the New Testament through Barth
• Election, Soteriology, and Barth's “No” to Sacramental Infant Baptism
• Election, Circumcision, and Barth's “No” to Covenantal Infant Baptism
• Barth’s Doctrine of Baptism: “The Foundation of the Christian Life”
• “The Sign Of The Gospel”—Toward A Post-Barthian Doctrine Of Infant Baptism
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index of Names and Subjects
• Index of Scriptural References