Historical Origins And Development Of The Renewal Of The Baptismal Covenant

Baptism was understood as a pledge, vow, covenant, or contract early in the history of the Christian church. The very term sacrament meant an oath in Roman culture. When children of Christian parents were baptized, whether as part of the households mentioned in the New Testament or as children born into families that had been Christian for generations, this pledge was made by the parents and baptismal sponsors. The sacrament of confirmation became separated from baptism in the West. When Protestant Reformers denied sacramental status to confirmation but retained it as catechetical device, it gradually developed into a ceremony by which, after instruction, adolescent children of Christian parents took ownership of the vows made for them at baptism.

Early Baptism and Promises Baptism, which represents God's gift in grace, represents also a believer's deep commitment, an act of faith. The sixteenth century theologian Richard Hooker said, "?The solemnest vow that we ever made to obey Christ and to suffer willingly all reproaches for his sake was made in baptism?" (Ecclesiastical Polity, 5. ixv.9). This baptismal commitment stays with a Christian throughout life. It may be a guiding factor all through a lifetime, but it may also be forgotten, or forgotten and later remembered. One of the functions of liturgy is to provide prompts for weak memories, bringing to mind the promises of baptism when one's inclination would be to disregard them, or providing occasions to reaffirm these promises at times of new beginnings in Christian life. Vows at baptism may be traced to Jewish proselyte baptism, at which heavier and lighter commandments of the law were read during the action. Among the first-century Christians, there seemed to have been germinal statements of faith to which converts should hold fast—possibly "?Jesus is Lord?" in the Pauline churches and "?Jesus was sent from the Father?" in the Johannine community. It cannot be determined from the circumstantial New Testament accounts of baptism that such affirmations figured in the actual initiatory rites of the first-century church. As early as the second-century, the church spoke of baptism as a vow or contract, suggesting that it contained some pledge on the part of the candidate. There is at least a suggestion of baptism as pledge in 1 Peter 3:21, although the language is allusive. The term sacrament, introduced by Tertullian, meant "?military oath.?" In the first extant baptismal text (Hippolytus, c. 215 c.e.), at the point of the actual baptism, while the candidate is in the water, he or she is asked to renounce the devil and his works—a solemn turning from all previous religious loyalties. Then the three sections of the Apostles' Creed (in an early version) are asked: "?Do you believe in God, the Father almighty??" At each reply of "?I believe?" the candidate is baptized. The Apostles' Creed was a piece of esoteric lore, known among Christians, but kept secret from the rest of the world. It would not have been said perfunctorily, but as an existential act of commitment. At a later time, the church used the brief formula of baptism, "?[Name], I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,?" at the baptismal action itself, and the creed was delivered some weeks prior to Easter, during the catechumenal preparation. This profession of the Apostle's Creed was sometimes referred to as an act of adherence—one's commitment to the enduring relation with Christ. The Apostles' Creed, the central confession of the church, growing out of the apostolic preaching, was, as far as the evidence indicates, the only promise expressly made. Doubtless one's Christian faith and life involved other pledges and understandings—commitment to a disciplined life of worship and prayer, courage when called for, uprightness in one's obligations, faithfulness in marriage, and the like. Such commitments were, however, implicit—matters covered, no doubt, in the catechumenate and taken for granted at the baptism itself. There is early evidence that the convert's children were baptized with their parents. Adults spoke for the children who were too young to speak for themselves. However, there is simply no information about the baptism of children born to Christian parents. Presumably they were baptized, and adults made the promises on their behalf, as was done for the children of converts. (There is no evidence whatever that the admission of the children of believers into full Christian membership was withheld until some later age of personal discretion.) The early sources describe the baptism of first-generation converts and say nothing of the baptism of the church's next generation. In the early church, there was no formal occasion for the renewing of the promises once made in baptism. Yet every time one said the Apostle's Creed, or one was present, as at each Easter, when others were baptized, or, indeed, every time one received Holy Communion, one would (if one's imagination made the requisite connections) be renewed in the baptismal gift and be made aware of one's baptismal responsibilities. In time, the bulk of the population became Christian—first in the Mediterranean basin and the Near East, later in Slavic regions and in Northern Europe. As it did, baptismal practice came to center, not on new converts from paganism, but on the children of Christian parents. Consequently, the church's educational efforts (sometimes more, sometimes less effective) shifted from catechesis before baptism to the Christian education of the baptized. The Western Development of a Two-Stage Initiatory Rite The New Testament describes baptism as a brief, compact water rite which holds significance beyond its apparent simplicity. From quite an early time, however, the baptismal action became more complex. It was preceded by a ritual enrolling; it took place against the church-wide observance of Easter; it was united with the receiving of Communion; and it was followed by additional actions, such as anointing or the signing with the cross (different in different regions), which separated it from the receiving of the sacramental bread and wine. Such actions are not mentioned in the New Testament (hence, they were rejected, often acrimoniously, by the sixteenth-century Protestant groups which sought to follow the Bible prescriptively). Yet, the New Testament interprets becoming a Christian by a rich body of imagery, such as coming from darkness to light, being anointed, receiving new clothing, or eating food for nourishment and delight. Did such Christian imagery develop from Jewish poetry and prophecy, followed by the rapid development of ritual actions? Or were there already in the first-century ritual actions correlative with the imagery? One could argue either way from the hints in such New Testament sources as 1 Peter or the Apocalypse. Throughout the church in the early centuries (and in the East until the present), the entire rite of baptism—the water rite plus the postbaptismal anointing (chrismation in the East) leading to the Holy Communion—was observed for children, as it was for adults. Baptisms took place in a baptistery building near the bishop's church on the eve of Easter. The early rite of Rome, and evidently only Rome, included two postbaptismal anointings: one was administered at the water, immediately after the baptism, by the minister of the water rite; the other followed directly, in the eucharistic room, performed by the bishop. This bishop's anointing was of the forehead and was accompanied by a prayer for the gifts of the Spirit. With the rise of the system of dioceses and parishes, baptism came to be administered, in both the East and the West, a few days after the birth of a child, with the local priest officiating. This baptism was in all respects complete. In the early medieval efforts to bring regularity to the Western church, the Roman model was put into the service books for most of Europe. A bishop's postbaptismal anointing came to be expected in places which had not known the practice. However, conditions such as large dioceses, difficult travel, and absentee bishops, made it impossible for the bishop's anointing to be administered punctually. The local minister baptized; the baptism was followed by an anointing and led to first Communion. The bishop's anointing very often had to be abandoned. When this second anointing could be done, it was usually administered some years after one had been baptized. Thus it came to be associated with the years of growing up, the receiving of some minimal learning, and the taking of some responsibility for oneself. The result of this largely accidental process was a divided, two-stage initiatory rite: The first part (baptism) was associated with infancy, and the second part (which came to be called confirmation) was associated with maturation. Saint Thomas said that baptism is to birth as confirmation is to growth. By disciplinary regulations no earlier than the late Middle Ages, this second part was made the proper pre-condition for receiving communion which, by then, even adults did only infrequently. Even though meanings associated with individual competence were becoming attached to confirmation, the bishop's rite itself said nothing about coming of age nor about renewing the promises of one's baptism. The rite was understood as a performative sacramental anointing with the Spirit. Confirmation and the Renewing of Promises The Reformation inherited this two-stage pattern. Luther and Calvin accepted baptism as they had received it, but they both criticized confirmation, saying that it was without clear biblical warrant. Confirmation seemed to pretend to an importance beyond that of baptism; perhaps it was invented to give bishops something to do. Yet, they turned this ritual act in a direction suited to the genius of the Protestant movement. They saw this second stage of Christian initiation as an opportunity to raise the level of understanding in the faith community. This new direction for confirmation had several sources: (1) The Bohemian Brethren (later known as the Moravians) had developed the idea that children who had been baptized as infants should be provided an occasion to own for themselves the promises that had been made for them by others at baptism. (2) The humanistic emphases of Erasmus created concern for education, and confirmation seemed like a ready-made rite requiring catechetical preparation. (3) The Reformation understanding of faith emphasized explicit faith—informed, rooted faith. Preparation for confirmation provided a way in which persons baptized as infants could be led to such faith. (4) Martin Bucer identified occasions in the Old Testament in which divine covenant was entered into, and then often violated, and, when violated, renewed. Confirmation seemed an act that could be interpreted as a renewal of the baptismal covenant. From such sources, Protestant confirmation developed as a moment, prepared for by serious catechesis, when a person on whose behalf others had spoken at baptism could now speak for her or himself. The Roman and Anglican churches sustained the more sacramental rite from the medieval church, but early in the case of the Church of England and later in the case of the Roman Church, much of the sense of confirmation as a coming of age in the community of faith was added to the sacramental understandings. Separated from baptism though it was, confirmation was taken to be initiatory. It was unrepeated, as baptism is unrepeated. It admitted one to the Holy Communion, as baptism itself did not. One became a Christian in full standing through this two-stage rite—leading to the widespread (and unfortunate) understanding of confirmation as "?joining the church.?" The divided parts of initiation provided for birth and for coming of age. The life into which it brought one was to be sustained by the Word and by feeding at the Table of the Lord. Modern Questions In this century, a number of objections have arisen concerning this inherited pattern. (1) This two-stage rite has no real history except in the modern West. (2) To associate the Holy Spirit in a distinctive way with the second stage deprives baptism of its Trinitarian fullness. (3) Lack of understanding is not made a barrier to baptism, but it keeps one from participating in Holy Communion. Why are the two great sacraments of the gospel treated so differently? (4) If confirmation is meant to signify coming of age in the life of the church, what age adequately expresses that meaning? Adolescence and youth are so protracted in modern society that any age one chooses is too early to capture some of the adult meanings or too late to give sacramental support for childhood. (5) When the renewing of the baptismal promises is made a part of a second stage of Christian initiation, it is taken to be unrepeatable, as baptism is unrepeatable. Yet life stages which affect us inwardly begin prior to adolescence and continue long after it. If the substance of confirmation is the reaffirmation of vows, why can one make a solemn restatement of one's baptismal promises at one occasion in childhood, but not do so again at later points in life, when such an act might be more significant than it was at age twelve? Such thinking recovered a position articulated by Luther, who had stressed the totality and unrepeatability of baptism, which he saw as an act by God, carrying the pledge that God is for us, now and always. Yet, he added, baptism remains uncreative unless it is remembered, claimed or drawn on. In his society, virtually everyone was baptized, yet "?there are scarce any who call to mind their baptism and still fewer who glory in it?" (The Babylonian Captivity of the Church). If one's baptism should be a vital part of one's awareness, the renewing of its promises at one moment of adolescence seems an inadequate provision for sustaining the glory of it. In the life of Christ, one's baptismal starting place, although it is not repeated, is always accessible to one. One does not grow beyond it, but is always growing into it. One's baptism is to be claimed, reaffirmed, remembered. The promises of baptism, whenever they were made and under whatever circumstances, are always capable of being repossessed and restated in connection with new situations. Having been said once as the human part of the baptismal covenant, they may be said again; they are indefinitely repeatable.