Baptists and baptism--a British perspective (1).

The purpose of this paper is to survey twentieth-century British Baptist (2) baptismal theology by means of a study of the major influences on its development. The development of baptismal theology, though well documented, is often overlooked and even denied. David Thompson notes that "one of the most striking differences in the life of the British Churches between the last quarter of the eighteenth century ... and the last quarter of the twentieth ... must surely be the changed attitude to the sacraments." (3) This is true not only of the Church of England and Church of Scotland, but also of the Baptists. The majority of nineteenth-century Baptists understood baptism in terms of a symbolic ordinance, resisting notions that it was a means of grace, and opposing all suggestions of baptismal regeneration. (4) John Briggs observes that "the context for the [baptism] debate soon became that heightened sacramentalism within the established church which mid-Victorian Baptists perceived to be the fruit of the Oxford Movement." (5) Michael Walker identified Zwinglianism and Calvinism as the chief influences on Baptist eucharistic theology, though there were others who inherited more from the Anabaptist tradition with their separation of spirit and matter, and their suspicion of anything approximating to ritualism. (6) These influences equally affected baptismal theology, as none of these "controlling" influences predisposed Baptists to think "sacramentally" about baptism. (7) The position of Charles Williams in 1879, a leading Baptist minister, can be taken as representative of the majority position: "Baptists do not regard either baptism or the Lord's Supper as a sacrament in the ecclesiastical sense of the word. ... To them the ordinance is neither the cause nor the medium of grace." (8)

However, for a minority of Baptists, only a sacramental understanding could accord with the New Testament. Many of these sacramentalists were those who converted to a Baptist position later in life, the best known being Baptist Noel who, for example, commented on Acts 2.38: "Since ... baptism is thus necessary to remission of sins, and is so closely connected with it ... [r]epentance and baptism are declared in the text to secure the gift of the Holy Ghost." (9) There were also some life-long Baptists, such as William Hawkins, who adopted sacramental language for baptism, interpreting it as a soldier's sacramentum, "a sovereign oath ... to our Sovereign Prince, in which we swear allegiance to him." (10)

This, then, was the situation at the turn of the century. These examples suffice to show the variety of Baptist understandings of baptism and to dispel the myth that there was a single Baptist baptismal theology. This fact is also borne out in my own study into twentieth-century baptismal theology, in which sacramental interpretations of baptism have gained considerable ground, to the point that the overwhelming majority of Baptists now writing on baptism are at least uninhibited in their use of sacramental language or adopt sacramental positions. Comparison of twentieth-century sacramentalism, then, with the dominant nuda signa theology of the nineteenth, is sufficient to show that development has clearly taken place. (11)

The Ecumenical Movement 

The most significant and far-reaching factor affecting Baptist baptismal theology has been the ecumenical context in which it has taken place and the gradual lessening of the influence of the Oxford Movement. The ecumenical movement has taken several forms, all of which have caused baptism to be reappraised: institutional changes, theological developments, and the liturgical and charismatic movements.

Institutional Changes.--Contrary to widespread opinion, many of the leading British ecumenists have been (and are) Baptists. From the very beginning of the modern ecumenical movement at the end of the nineteenth century, Baptists have played key roles at all levels of ecumenical involvement--local, national, and international (12)--and many of them have contributed work on baptism.

Beginning in the 1890s, a succession of major organizational developments occurred in the national ecumenical movement, (13) including the various Free Church bodies, the British Council of Churches, and more recently Churches Together in Britain and Ireland and Churches Together in England (CTE). At the local level, Union churches, which go back in origin to the eighteenth century and arguably to the Bunyan churches of the seventeenth century, developed between Baptists and Congregationalists. In these either the Congregational minister in situ or from outside or a lay officer of the church has administered the infant baptisms. These have been superseded by Local Ecumenical Partnerships (LEPs), which first appeared in the mid-1960s and embrace many denominations. In different ways, both Union churches and LEPs have developed working accommodations in which two forms of baptism coexist (14); and in recent years, some baptismal policy documents have been agreed on. (15)

Baptists have also been affected by the work on baptism of the World Council of Churches (WCC), especially in the process that began in 1952 at the Third World Faith and Order Conference in Lund, Sweden, and culminated in the 1982 document Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (BEM). (16) To the issues raised by BEM, Baptists have expressed three main reservations. First, they ask what is meant when the report says that baptism "is ... gives ... initiates ... unites ... effects." Second, the Baptist Union (BU) rejects as "wholly unacceptable" the universal bar on anything which could be interpreted as "rebaptism," as Baptists maintain the individual's right to be so baptized when "convinced out of an instructed conscience," irrespective of accusations of rebaptism. Third, they believe that viewing the total process of Christian initiation wherein all the necessary elements, including responsible faith-commitment, offers the most promising path toward the mutual recognition of baptism, and that this very fact underlines BEM's "arguable ambiguity" in its references to "baptism." (17)

Theological Developments.--The development of Baptist baptismal thought in the twentieth century can be divided into three broadly distinct periods: 1900-37, 1938-66, and 1967 to the present. (18)

The discussion of baptism up to 1937, following that of the nineteenth century, was conducted largely around the twin poles of the mode and subjects of baptism, with only the beginnings of the realization that it was the theology of baptism that would provide the most profitable way forward in the discussion of the baptismal issue from both the Baptist and Pedobaptist points of view. (19)

Many Baptists at this time maintained the symbolic interpretation of baptism, (20) but this was challenged most effectively by H. Wheeler Robinson, principal of Regent's Park College, Oxford, and a leading Old Testament scholar. Robinson developed the interpretation of baptism as a means of grace that high-lighted the work of the Holy Spirit. He contended for the connection of water-baptism with the Spirit in exactly the sense in which Baptists argued for its connection with personal faith. "If the New Testament teaches the latter, it assuredly also teaches the former, and Baptists are really committed to both." It is personal faith that is the realm of the Spirit's activity, so the confession of that faith in believer's baptism brings a new opportunity for divine grace, because "it is an act of personal faith." (21)

Robinson was followed by others (22) in the view subsequently embodied in several official BU documents, (23) which paved the way for later developments.

The beginning of the second period coincides with the seminal work of the Swiss theologian, Emil Brunner, which was quickly followed by the better known work of Karl Barth. Together, these works set the theological agenda as far as baptism was concerned for the next three decades. (24) Baptists were late to join this debate, which they did predominantly from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s, the latter providing the close of the second period, which was marked by the publication of two major books by Baptist authors. (25) Brunner's language of the divine-human encounter has been very influential on Baptist thought and has encouraged the development of a Baptist baptismal sacramentalism. (26) Mid-century witnessed the high point of Baptist writing on baptism, the great majority of which explored the sacramental dimension of baptism in some way. (27)

Baptists have now generally accepted the word "sacrament," whereas, for over half a century, the word was regarded with suspicion and was frequently rejected. However, by mid-century those Baptists not frightened by sacramental language or ideas had claimed back the word for Baptists, even though this has not always led to an accompanying sacramental theology. Among Baptists, "sacrament" is now widely used, though the accompanying theology continues to be largely symbolic, (28) and though a sacramental theology is increasingly common, chiefly among the theologically literate, ecumenically committed, and liturgically oriented. (29) This is nowhere more clearly seen than in the growing practice of services of baptism-membership-communion, often accompanied by the laying on of hands. Further, it should be noted that over the last thirty to forty years anti-sacramentalist writings have all but disappeared--though this is not to say that such convictions are not held.

Since 1967, unprecedented ecumenical developments have taken place, and Baptist discussions of baptism have almost all been written within this context. A survey of the discussion of baptism over the last three decades reveals that the overwhelming majority of Baptists writing on baptism have done so within or as a response to the ecumenical context of British church life. This has led me to the conclusion that Baptists hold an ambivalent attitude towards baptism. On the one hand, when debating the issue with Pedobaptists, they have defended, sometimes vehemently, the confining of baptism to believers by immersion and denied the validity of infant baptism. On the other hand, when not involved in such discussions, they have, like the Baptists of the nineteenth century, made little of the rite. In fact, it has been an oft repeated criticism by Baptist scholars and leaders that baptism does not hold the place in Baptist life or thought that it should. (30) Further, twentieth-century Baptists are essentially pragmatists, emphasizing not so much what is true but what works and what feels good. (31) Their theology of baptism is subordinated to their evangelistic enthusiasms, for they emphasize the importance of conversion but not the act of initiation into the church. (32)

My own research has also led me to conclude that the Baptist Times has been an accurate barometer reflecting ecumenical developments and involvement. It has reflected the place that baptism has held in this process and Baptist life more generally. Periods of intense ecumenical activity have, up until the late 1960s, always been accompanied by a considerable and often heated debate of the baptismal issue. However, since the late 1960s, the issue of baptism has moved from both the center of the ecumenical debate, with the exception of BEM which, notwithstanding the thoughtful response it provoked from the BU, made very little impact on domestic Baptist theology or practice. This movement towards the margins of the Baptist agenda is shown by the observation that in recent years the majority of references to baptism in the denominational newspaper occur in reports of baptismal services, there being relatively little debate about its meaning.

Further, since 1967, there have been proportionally fewer works specifically on baptism than at any other time this century. This fact is quickly established by even a cursory survey of the bibliography to my own research, (33) which also shows that discussion of baptism now largely takes place within the study of other subjects, the majority of which are broadly ecumenical. The reasons for this are unclear. It could be that some Baptists feel confident that all that could be said has been said; perhaps this is true for some. It could reflect a fear of controversy and the possibility of schism, not least because of the christological controversy sparked by Michael Taylor in, the early 1970s, which was reminiscent of the down-grade controversy of the 1880s. (34) It could reflect a lack of interest in baptism; this is possible because other matters have come to be regarded as more pressing or important, such as the ecumenical and charismatic movements in their various expressions, issues of worship, matters concerning change within the church and questions of the survival of the local church in the midst of the decline of church attendance across all denominations. Or could it be that baptism has slipped from the denominational and ecumenical agendas to a minor position when compared with the place it once held because of its capacity to be divisive? In all probability, it is a mixture of all these elements.

The Liturgical Movement.--While many Baptists have continued to be resistant to "liturgy" in a formal sense, a growing number of ministers and churches have welcomed liturgical developments, many of them fueled by personal ecumenical involvement and/or simply the growing openness among the denominations to influence from one another. Further, increased population mobility has increased the cross-fertilization of ideas.

It should be noted that not all liturgical scholars can be placed within the liturgical movement itself, as a number of them owe more to biblical studies than the liturgical movement per se, (35) though hard-and-fast distinctions cannot be made. The three most recent, and by far the most influential, of the ministers' manuals have been written or compiled by those involved in the liturgical, and usually also the ecumenical, movement in some way. (36)

The most significant contribution of the liturgical movement to the theology of baptism has been the development of services reflecting the whole process of Christian initiation, namely, baptism--membership--communion, (37) emphasizing the greater use of the laying on of hands, though much of the practice in local churches continues to be essentially conservative in form; and this pattern of initiation, while more prevalent than at any earlier time, continues to be resisted in many quarters.

The Charismatic Movement.--The question of the relationship between baptism and the work of the Holy Spirit is not a new one, but the charismatic movement has provided a new perspective from which to view it. With its British origins in the early 1960s, the movement has become a major factor and contributor to the ecumenical nature of British church life. While it has led to the establishment of many new churches, it has also deeply affected many of the churches in the mainline denominations, Baptists included. Commentators on the movement have identified four "waves" in its development. The first wave was Pentecostalism; the second, the charismatic movement itself; the third was the signs-and-wonders movement associated with the Vineyard churches and the Church Growth movement; and the fourth wave is the hoped for integration of charismatics and evangelicals. (38)

A key tenet of the first and second waves was "the baptism of/with/in the Holy Spirit," an experience subsequent to conversion (a "second blessing") and separate from water-baptism. For Baptists, this first arose as an issue in the early 1970s (39) and caused Michael Walker to comment that because Baptists have "emptied baptism of its sacramental character" "we have been afraid to believe that God acts in grace and pours out His spirit in water baptism, we now see the sundering of water and spirit. There is now a `second' baptism, a `second' blessing, something more that has to be done before we are brought fully to Christ." (40) It is, however, probably true that the majority of Baptists follow the evangelical line that understands baptism in the Spirit as conversion. (41)

The third wave focused on signs and wonders, but in the fourth wave David Pawson argued that Christian initiation is a complex of four distinct "spiritual doors": repentance, believing, water-baptism, and reception of the Spirit. He argued that all four are essential for entrance into God's kingdom. (42) But while influential in many evangelical-charismatic circles, Pawson has been strongly criticized by George Beasley-Murray, particularly in his contention that the initiations in the Book of Acts are normative for Christian experience. (43) The acceptance of a two-stage, or even four-stage, initiation is yet another example of the way in which Baptists have separated water-baptism from Spirit-baptism, and the charismatic movement is rightly to be set within the context of the wider discussion of Christian initiation, a debate that began sometime in the 1940s-50s. (44)

Somewhat surprisingly, the most detailed study of the movement comes from someone outside of it. Paul Fiddes, principal of Regent's Park College, accepts that "baptism in the Spirit" cannot be separated from a theology of water-baptism. It is here he believes that Baptists have a contribution to make to the theology of the Holy Spirit, though they have often failed to do so because of an impoverished understanding of water-baptism "as no more than a human witness to faith." (45) A 1978 BU Working Party report recommended that "more direct teaching on the Holy Spirit should be incorporated into baptism/church membership classes or their equivalent," to which Fiddes added that this should be set in the context of the need to teach a fuller understanding of baptism, "so that candidates should have a higher level of expectation about what they may receive from God in their baptism." For Fiddes, water-baptism in the New Testament is truly a sacrament because it is the God-appointed meeting place for the believer. who comes in faith and God who comes in grace, and this possesses the corporate dimension as baptism is immersion into the Spirit and into the body of Christ, the church. (46)

The charismatic movement has also proved to be an important factor in breaking down denominationalism. Though baptism/initiation has been important in the second and fourth waves, it has not significantly affected the theology of baptism other than its positive reinforcement of the role of the Spirit in conversion, which predisposes many towards a form of sacramentalism in that something is effected in baptism. It also heightens the candidates' expectation of a definite experience at the time of their baptism. Negatively, it has intensified the individualism associated with baptism.

Biblical Scholarship

While the ecumenical movement has been the major influence on baptismal theology, the impact of biblical studies must in no way be downplayed. This is borne witness to by the central place Scripture has in Baptist thought and is supported by the observation that the two most prominent writers on baptism are both biblical scholars: Wheeler Robinson and George Beasley-Murray, one-time principal of Spurgeon's College and professor of New Testament at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky. In saying this, recognition needs to be given to what Brian Haymes, principal of Bristol Baptist College, calls the "naturally assumed ecumenism" of twentieth-century biblical scholarship, which is both inter-denominational and international. (47) Clearly, Baptists have benefited from interaction with the scholarship of those from other traditions, and this has clearly enriched their baptismal theology.

The Bible is the most important source for Baptist thought; but as Baptists have studied what the New Testament says of baptism, they have become increasingly dissatisfied with the interpretation of it merely in terms of a symbolic ordinance. Robinson began his Baptist Principles by examining the New Testament meaning of baptism as "the immersion of intelligent persons, as the expressive accompaniment of their entrance into a new life of moral and spiritual relationship to God in Christ." (48) He showed that New Testament baptism was initiatory and implied cleansing from sin, was linked with the gift of the Spirit, was administered to believers, and meant experimental union with Christ. "If it is asked just what the outer act of baptism contributed to these inner experiences of forgiveness, regeneration, faith, and fellowship with Christ, we must reply that the New Testament never considers them apart in this detached manner." (49) Believer's baptism, he believed, emphasizes the significance, necessity, and individuality of conversion; forms a direct link to the spiritual authority of the New Testament and of the Lord revealed in it; and carries the unmistakable definition of the church, to which it is the entrance--a spiritual society composed of the converted. (50) In all this, he believed in the appropriateness of the term "sacrament," which was saved from connotations of a mechanical conveyance of grace by the faith of the believer. (51) In several memorable passages, Robinson explained that there need be no surprise that the New Testament so closely linked the gift of the Spirit with believer's baptism, indeed the experience was the test of the rite, and that "when we speak of Believers' Baptism, we mean that baptism in the Spirit of God, of which water baptism is the expression." (52)

The biblical nature of baptismal sacramentalism is also evident in the work of George Beasley-Murray, which is both widely known and highly respected. (53) He first wrote on baptism in 1948 and has continued to do so ever since. (54) But rather than reviewing his better known works, the scriptural basis of his sacramentalism can be shown in a most telling exchange that took place following the publication in 1959 of a collection of essays by younger Baptist scholars entitled Christian Baptism. (55) In his discussion of Paul's letters, Beasley-Murray expounded the interpretation that for the apostle baptism was a sacrament of the gospel and that this was basic to all his utterances on the subject. Because baptism involved union with Christ in his redemptive acts and with his body, the church, it was "an effective sign; in it Christ and faith come together in the meeting of conversion." (56) Whether conceived of as a sacrament of the gospel or of union with Christ, "in either case faith is integral to it"; and this is the decisive issue between Baptists and Pedobaptists. That faith and baptism go together is consistently maintained by Paul in his baptismal teaching, setting forth a unified baptismal theology where the presence of faith is presumed, operating as the "instrument of surrender" of the convert. (57)

Leslie J. Stones was one of a number who expressed grave concerns about what he believed to be this "new sacramentalism." (58) For him, baptism was a symbol, a witness to grace and not for its reception. He believed the contributors to Christian Baptism, who included many future leaders in the BU, were advocating baptismal regeneration. (59) Others joined the controversy, some supporting Christian Baptism, others attacking it. (60) Beasley-Murray took the fore in answering criticisms, clearly rejecting the charge that they were advancing baptismal regeneration, but accepting that they believed New Testament baptism was a means of grace. He carefully explained that baptism was of the Spirit (Acts 2:37-38), affected union with Christ (Rom. 6:1-11), and that the practice of many Baptists was reductionistic in that it failed to convey the full weight of biblical theology, criticizing the merely symbolic interpretation of various correspondents in the controversy. Beasley-Murray was at pains to emphasize that the teaching of the authors in the book "relates to baptism in the apostolic Church, not to baptism in the average modern Baptist church. Where baptism is sundered from conversion on the one hand, and from entry into the church on the other, this language cannot be applied to it; such a baptism is a reduced baptism." Objectors to the book, he maintained, had "transferred the theology applying to apostolic baptism to that which they have known and still foster in their churches." They had, therefore, misunderstood Beasley-Murray and his fellow contributors, whose concern was to present Baptists with the picture of ideal baptism as portrayed in the New Testament, "in the hope that we may strive to recover it or get somewhere near it. To insist on keeping our impoverished version of baptism would be a tragedy among a people who pride themselves on being the people of the New Testament." (61)

Changes in Society

Ecclesiastical and theological issues have not been the only influences on the development of baptismal theology--though they have been the major ones. What can be broadly categorized as social changes have also contributed to the development of a baptismal theology.

Population Mobility and Patterns of Allegiance.--Changes in society have clearly, though indirectly, affected baptism and related issues, particularly communion and membership, forcing many churches to reconsider and even alter their constitutions, if not their Trust Deeds, when possible. (62) As people have become more mobile, the composition of churches has changed; and there is greater fluidity in membership. This had also been a problem in the nineteenth century when it led people first to think carefully as to whom they could share fellowship. Differences over the terms of communion led many of the churches that wished to remain closed in communion and membership to form the Strict (now Grace) Baptist churches, (63) but many of the remaining churches opened up first the Lord's Table to those not baptized as believers and later to the practice of open membership, where those from Pedobaptist traditions are allowed into membership on profession of faith. (64)

The lessening of denominational loyalty has also been a feature of the twentieth century. It is now common for people to look for churches to their liking rather than those of the same denomination. (65) Those loyal to one tradition tend to be among the older generations. The younger generations are impatient with and intolerant of the exclusivity of the past and have worked for the breaking down of old denominational barriers. They tend to display a greater willingness to experiment both theologically and practically.

Attitudes in society are now generally pragmatic, and this pragmatism has also influenced attitudes among Christians, not least towards doctrines and practices, including baptism, which are increasingly treated less dogmatically. (66) For example, more than at any previous time, the BU is open to the development of ecumenical relationships, and this has been assisted by a considerable amount of baptismal pragmatism. In previous generations, for example the 1920s and 1930s, movement towards a United Church in England foundered principally on the twin rocks of baptism and episcopacy. (67) Since the mid-1960s, both matters (though episcopacy more than baptism) have been marginalized in ecumenical discussions, which now focus primarily, not on questions of theology, but on structures and agreements, how to implement these and on how further unity can be achieved. This pragmatism is most evident in the baptismal policies of LEPs where the onus is on finding ways in which it is possible to practice both forms of baptism rather than solving the many theological and practical difficulties implicit in and surrounding the rite. In this the BU is only in a position to advise as it has no powers to make multilateral decisions, though a move in this direction is evident in the concordats with Methodists and the United Reformed Church.

Another instance of theological pragmatism, but one which the overwhelming majority of Baptists has resisted, lies behind a recent major ecumenical document, reflecting a movement in both the World Council of Churches and CTE, that has called for the recognition of "common baptism." This appears to Baptists as an attempt to circumvent the seemingly (probably) insoluble (68) antipathy between the two forms of baptism by treating infant baptism plus confirmation as equivalent to believer's baptism. (69) While some have advocated acceptance of this approach, (70) the most surprising development is George Beasley-Murray's exploration of the "possibilities" of a rapprochement between believer's baptism and pedobaptism when the latter is seen as attesting "the commencement of the work of grace within the baptized with a view to its blossoming into fulness of life in Christ and in his Body the Church as the individual's life progressively opens to Christ." (71) However, the discussion within the various denominations of baptism as part of the process of initiation is, perhaps, more promising a way forward than the root of "common baptism," and this is being increasingly explored along with the issue of the place of the child in the church. (72)

Called to Be One is the most recent document to call on Baptists to cease admitting into membership those never baptized by any means (73) and to desist from what Pedobaptists see as rebaptism. (74) The most recent "official" BU declaration on these issues rejects the notion of common baptism, recommends that churches do not admit the unbaptized into membership, and, somewhat more cautiously than many Baptists, believes that only "in certain circumstances" is it right to baptize someone baptized in infancy, (75) while many ministers still regard infant baptism as no baptism. (76)

Individualism.--Individualism, so characteristic of Baptists in the nineteenth century, has become more ingrained in both British society and church life. The emphasis placed on baptism continues to center on the candidates, their decision to be baptized, and their personal testimony to what God has done in their lives, and is reflected in the most popular baptismal hymn being "O Jesus, I Have Promised." This individualism has meant Baptists have continued to find difficulty in expressing the prevenience of God's grace and the corporate dimension of the rite. While Baptists wholeheartedly believe that salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8), this is rarely emphasized in the baptismal rite. The corporate dimension continues to revolve around the congregation as predominantly spectators of that which the candidate is doing. That the overwhelming majority of Baptist churches practice either open membership, or closed membership with the offer of associate membership to those not baptized as believers, has further increased the tendency to focus on the candidate's decision to be baptized. Baptism separated from entry into church membership has further reduced the corporate aspect, and this despite the protestations of many of the denomination's scholars who have criticized both the practice of permitting into membership those never baptized by any means and the perpetuation of separating baptism from initiation into church membership. It is also enigmatic that while open membership, which is a recognition of the status of Christians from pedobaptist traditions, has become the norm, this has not led to the acceptance of infant baptism as a valid form of baptism, as is reflected in the Baptist refusal to recognize a "common baptism." This has led to a position that is effectively inimical to ecumenical accommodation while practicing something akin to it. This pattern can also be seen in the position of Baptist congregations involved in LEPs that make accommodations to infant baptism while still maintaining an exclusive validity for the practice of believer's baptism.

Conclusion

As far as Baptists are concerned, a century of baptismal debate and controversy, both internal and external, discussion and developments, seems, on the weight of recent publications, to have created almost a schizophrenic denomination in which the ones most apparently interested in the theology and practice of baptism appear to be those involved within the ecumenical movement. (77) Further, Baptists are themselves no nearer consensus in answering the important theological question than they were at the beginning of the century--is baptism merely a symbol of conversion (however important a one), or is it an effective rite? This second position now commands more respect than in earlier years, but no one side has convinced the other, and Baptists are left with competing theologies and practices of baptism/initiation.

Endnotes

(1.) This article is based on and summarizes my own research, "The Theology and Practice of Baptism Amongst British Baptists, 1900-1996" (Ph.D. diss., University of Keele, 1997). A revised and extended version of this will be published shortly under the title Baptism and the Baptists (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000). References are taken from the dissertation but are followed in brackets by the chapter in which they will appear in the published book. I am grateful for the helpful comments of W. M. S. West and J. H. Y. Briggs in the preparation of this article.

(2.) Throughout this paper, "Baptist(s)" refers to those in membership of the Baptist Union of Great Britain (and Ireland).

(3.) D. M. Thompson, "Baptism, Church and Society in Britain Since 1800" (unpublished Hulsean lectures, 1983-84), 1.

(4.) See Michael J. Walker, Baptists at the Table: The Theology of the Lord's Supper Amongst English Baptists in the Nineteenth Century (Didcot: Baptist Historical Society, 1992), passim; John H. Y. Briggs, The English Baptists of the Nineteenth Century (Didcot: Baptist Historical Society, 1994), passim; Cross, "Theology," 8-21 [ch. 1]; S. K. Fowler, "Baptism as a Sacrament in 20th-Century British Baptist Theology" (D.Th. diss., University of Toronto, 1998), 60-93.

(5.) Briggs, 46.

(6.) Walker, Baptists, 3.

(7.) Part of the problem for most Baptists is that "sacramentalism" has become in their minds inextricably associated with infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, and an ex opere operato understanding of the rite, and they have generally lost sight of the biblical teaching that God graciously acts in baptism (cf., e.g., Acts 2:38, 22:16, Romans 6:3-4, Titus 3:5 and 1 Peter 3:21). But, in this paper, when Baptists use this word they do so either in the sense of a sacramentum, an oath of allegiance, or as an effective means of grace, whereby the grace of God in Christ is given to the believer through the work of the Holy Spirit.

(8.) Charles Williams, The Principles and Practices of the Baptists (London: Baptist Tract Society, 1879), 23.

(9.) Baptist W. Noel, Essay on Baptism (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1849). Cf. also the former Independent, Isaac Orchard, Christian Baptism (London: Wightman & Cramp, 1829), 11.

(10.) William Hawkins, A Sermon on Baptism (London: Wightman & Cramp, 1827), 22. Cf. Anonymous, "Sacramental Meditations," Baptist Magazine 49 (January, 1857), 22-23.

(11.) See Cross, "Theology," 117-51 [ch. 4], 251-89 [ch. 7], 397-405 and 441-44 [ch. 9] for detailed discussion of the sacramental position. This is not, however, to suggest that the symbolic position has been abandoned; on the contrary, it is still widely held. One of my major conclusions is that there is no single Baptist theology or practice of baptism, only theologies and practices, ibid., 519 [Conclusion]. In general terms, this point is also made by P. E. Thompson, "Practicing the Freedom of God: Formation in Early Baptist Life" (unpublished paper delivered at the College Theological Society/National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion Conference, June 1999, 1), "There has long been an [erroneous] assumption that Baptist theology has remained fairly constant throughout the four centuries of Baptist existence."

(12.) See Anthony R. Cross, "Service to the Ecumenical Movement: The Contribution of British Baptists," Baptist Quarterly (BQ) 38, no. 3 (July 1999): 107-22.

(13.) These are discussed in detail with particular reference to the place of baptism by Cross, "Theology," 50-116 [ch. 3], 152-218 [ch. 5], and 290-371 [ch. 8].

(14.) Union churches adopted more "live and let live" attitudes to the two forms of baptism, while LEPs asked questions and sought solutions in local settings that were not being asked or solved at the national level.

(15.) See Baptist/Methodist Agreement on Baptismal Policy Within Local Ecumenical Projects (BU/Methodist Church, 1991); The Baptist Union of Great Britain/United Reformed Church Agreed Guidelines for Baptismal Policy in Local Ecumenical Partnerships (BU/United Reformed Church, 1996). The issues involved have been most recently discussed in Believing and Being Baptized: Baptism, So-called Re-baptism, and Children in the Church (Didcot: Baptist Union of Great Britain, 1996).

(16.) Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (F&O Paper 111; Geneva: WCC, 1984). On this process, see W. Morris S. West, "Baptists in Faith and Order," Keith W. Clements, ed., Baptists in the Twentieth Century (London: Baptist Historical Society, 1983), 55-75. Baptists played key roles in this process, see Cross, "Service," 112-15, and Cross, "Theology," 315-28 [ch. 8].

(17.) "Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland," in Max Thurian (ed.), Churches Respond to BEM (F&O Paper 129; Geneva: WCC, 1986), 1:70-71.

(18.) Cross, "Theology," 5 [Introduction].

(19.) E.g., H. Wheeler Robinson's Baptist Principles (London: Kingsgate Press, 1925) [This was originally a chapter in Cecil E. Shipley, ed., The Baptists of Yorkshire (London: Kingsgate Press, 1912), 3-50]; the Congregationalist, Peter T. Forsyth, Lectures on the Church and the Sacraments (London: Independent Press, 1917); and the Anglican, Oliver C. Quick, The Christian Sacraments (London: Nisbet, 1927).

(20.) E.g., William T. Whitley, Church, Ministry rind the Sacraments in the New Testament (London: Kingsgate Press, 1903), e.g., 244 and 271; Arthur S. Langley, The Faith, Heritage and Mission of the Baptists (London: Kingsgate Press, 1931), 8.

(21.) H. Wheeler Robinson, The Life and Faith of the Baptists (London: Methuen, 1927), 178.

(22.) E.g., Alfred C. Underwood, "Views of Modern Churches (g) Baptists (2)," in R. Dunkerley, ed., The Ministry of the Sacraments (London: SCM Press, 1937), 225; and Conversion: Christian and Non-Christian (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1925), 109-15; and the collection of addresses in James H. Rushbrooke, ed., The Faith of the Baptists (London: Kingsgate Press, 1926).

(23.) See A. R. Cross, "Dispelling the Myth of English Baptist Baptismal Sacramentalism" (unpublished paper\presented at the Theological Consultation on Doing Theology in a Baptist Way, Regent's Park College, Oxford, 17 August 1999), 20-22.

(24.) See Emil Brunner, The Divine-Human Encounter (London: SCM Press, 1944, original German 1938), and Karl Barth, The Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism (London: SCM Press, 1948, original German 1943). D. M. Thompson, 86-87, commented that "by the 1950s ... baptism in particular and sacramental theology in general had become an ecumenical concern. They were no longer the property of any one school of thought in the Church." He then added that this new concern owed virtually nothing to defenders of believer's baptism.

(25.) George Beasley-Murray, Baptism Today and Tomorrow (London: Macmillan, 1966), and Alec Gilmore, Baptism and Christian Unity (London: Lutterworth Press, 1966).

(26.) I emphasize Brunner's influence over Barth's because it is less recognized (see Cross, "Theology," 152-57 [ch. 5]). His importance is because a legacy of the hyper-Calvinism that dominated Particular Baptist theology in the eighteenth century was that it undermined the human side of faith, and Brunner contributed significantly to the rediscovery of this dimension in baptism. See Fowler, 91-93.

(27.) A selection of the major works from this period that are not mentioned elsewhere in this paper include Robert C. Walton, The Gathered Community (London: Carey Press, 1946); Harold H. Rowley, "The Christian Sacraments," Harold H. Rowley, The Unity of the Bible (London: Carey Kingsgate Press, 1953), 149-87; Neville Clark, An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments (London: SCM Press, 1956); Reginald E. O. White, The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1960); and Alec Gilmore, ed., The Pattern of the Church (London: Lutterworth Press, 1963).

(28.) See Beasley-Murray, Baptism Today and Tomorrow, 14-15.

(29.) The most significant recent example is Paul S. Fiddes, ed., Reflections on the Water (Macon, Ga.: Smyth and Helwys, 1996).

(30.) This criticism was also made by the Presbyterian J. M. Ross, "The Theology of Baptism in Baptist History," British Quarterly 15, no. 3 (July 1953): 100.

(31.) See Brian Haymes, A Question of Identity (Leeds: Yorkshire Baptist Association, 1986), 4.

(32.) I have recently explored this issue of baptism as an integral part of conversion--initiation, in "`One Baptism' (Ephesians 4:5): A Challenge to the Church," Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross, ed., Baptism, the New Testament and the Church (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 173-209.

(33.) Cross, "Theology," 540-89 [Bibliography].

(34.) See H. Leon McBeth, A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1990), 386-90. On downgrade, see Briggs, 158-98; Ernest A. Payne, The Baptist Union (London: Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland, 1958), 127-43.

(35.) E.g., Ralph E Martin, The Worship of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982).

(36.) Ernest A. Payne and Stephen E Winward, Orders and Prayers for Church Worship (London: Carey Kingsgate Press, 1960); Alec Gilmore, Edward Smalley and Michael J. Walker, Praise God (London: Baptist Union, 1980); and Patterns and Prayers for Christian Worship (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991).

(37.) Payne and Winward, 127-61; Gilmore, Smalley, and Walker, 137-40; Patterns and Prayers, 93-107.

(38.) David Pawson, Fourth Wave: (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1993), e.g., 56-61.

(39.) See Cross, "Theology," 409-10 [ch. 9].

(40.) Michael J. Walker, "How Sacramental Is Baptism?" Baptist Times 30 (March 1972): 4. Cf. the editorial "The Neglected Spirit," Baptist Times 18 (May 1972): 5.

(41.) E.g., Paul Beasley-Murray, Radical Believers (Didcot: Baptist Union of Great Britain, 1992), 15.

(42.) David Pawson, The Normal Christian Birth (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1989), 11-69.

(43.) George R. Beasley-Murray, "Christian Initiation--the discussions must go on," Baptist Times 14 (December 1989): 17.

(44.) On the origins of the Christian initiation debate, see "Theology," 373-74 [ch. 9], and Cross, "One Baptism," 173-81.

(45.) Paul S. Fiddes, Charismatic Renewal (London: Baptist Publications, 1980), 31.

(46.) "The Report," in Fiddes, Charismatic Renewal, 6, and Fiddes, ibid., 31-32.

(47.) Brian Haymes at the Theological Consultation on Doing Theology in a Baptist Way, Regent's Park College, Oxford, 16 August 1999.

(48.) Robinson, Baptist Principles, 3rd ed. (London: Carey Kingsgate Press, 1938), 12.

(49.) Ibid., 13-15, italics his.

(50.) Ibid., 17-27.

(51.) Ibid., 29n.

(52.) Ibid., 24-25. See also his "The Place of Baptism in Baptist Churches of To-day," Baptist Quarterly 1, no 5 (January 1923): 209-18; The Christian Experience of the Holy Spirit (London: Nisbet & Co, 1928); "Believers' Baptism and the Holy Spirit," Baptist Quarterly 9, no. 7 (July, 1939): 387-97; Life and Faith, passim.

(53.) George R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1962) and Baptism Today and Tomorrow.

(54.) George R. Beasley-Murray, "The Sacraments," The Fraternal 70 (October 1948): 3-7. See also "Baptism in the New Testament," Foundations 3 (January 1960): 15-31; "The Authority and Justification for Believers' Baptism," Review and Expositor 77, no. 1 (Winter 1980): 63-70; "Faith in the New Testament," American Baptist Quarterly 1, no. 2 (December 1982): 137-43.

(55.) Alec Gilmore (ed.), Christian Baptism (London: Lutterworth Press, 1959).

(56.) George R. Beasley-Murray, "Baptism in the Epistles of Paul," in Gilmore, ed., 148.

(57.) Ibid., 148-49.

(58.) Three writers have recently dispelled the misreading of Baptist thought that sees baptismal sacramentalism as an innovation of recent times, by tracing it from the seventeenth century to the present, see Fowler, 7-175; Philip E. Thompson, "A New Question in Baptist History: Seeking a Catholic Spirit Among Early Baptists," Pro Ecclesia 8, no. 1 (Winter 1999): 51-72, and also his "Practicing the Freedom"; Cross, "Dispelling the Myth."

(59.) Leslie J. Stones, "Sacramentalism Among Baptists," Baptist Times 10 (September 1959): 6.

(60.) For a detailed discussion, see Cross, "Theology," 271-80 [ch. 7].

(61.) George R. Beasley-Murray, "The Spirit Is There," Baptist Times 10 (December 1959): 8. Many leading Baptists have been similarly critical of both the Baptist theology and practice of baptism, e.g. Neville Clark, "The Theology of Baptism," in Gilmore, ed., 316, and White, 306, but the best-known example is Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 393, who stated: "A call for reform according to the Word of God has to be heeded first by those who issue it. In this connection there is room for improvement in our own administration of the rite of initiation."

(62.) See Cross, "Theology," Appendix 2 "Trust Deeds," 533-39.

(63.) See Payne, 40-41, 86-87.

(64.) Discussion of both controversies can be found in Walker, Baptists at the Table, especially 32-83; and Briggs, passim; and Cross, "Theology," 475-87.

(65.) See the BU report Signs of Hope (London: Baptist Union, 1979), 33.

(66.) In his survey of the articles published in the Fraternal, now the Baptist Ministers' Journal, during the three periods 1947-51, 1967-71, and 1987-91, Peter Shepherd, "The Baptist Ministers' Journal, 1946-1992," Baptist Quarterly 35, no. 5 (January 1994): 253-54, observed a growing pragmatism in approach to subjects, with fewer doctrinal subjects being covered and theological reflection being more practical and less dogmatic. He concluded: "Christian doc trine would appear to be a less central concern for Baptist ministers today, and theology is primarily of interest when it sheds light on a particular aspect of ministerial activity or serves some practical purpose."

(67.) An example of such debates is discussed in detail in Anthony R. Cross, "Revd Dr Hugh Martin: Ecumenist. Part 2," Baptist Quarterly 37, no. 2 (April 1997): 71-86, and "Revd Dr Hugh Martin: Ecumenical Controversialist and Writer. Part 3," Baptist Quarterly 37, no. 3 (July 1997): 131-46.

(68.) I explore the possibility of a return to the New Testament practice of conversion-initiation, of which baptism is an integral part, in my "`One Baptism.'"

(69.) Called to Be One (London: Churches Together in England, 1996), 70, cf. 46. The basic difference between the two conceptions of baptism is that Pedobaptists see baptism as part of a process, while the majority of Baptists see it as punctilier.

(70.) E.g., Christopher J. Ellis, Together on the Way (London: British Council of Churches, 1990), 22.

(71.) George R. Beasley-Murray, "The Problem of Infant Baptism," in Festschrift Gunther Wagner, edited by the Faculty of the Baptist Theological Seminary, Ruschlikon (Berne: Peter Lang, 1994), 13. Earlier, 7, he stated: "In reality there is no such thing as a Baptist theology of baptism, accepted by all Baptists; what they do not themselves possess they should not demand of others."

(72.) For recent Baptist work on baptism as a process/journey, see Fiddes, ed., passim; Believing and Being Baptized, e.g., 9-12; and on the child and the church, Believing and Being Baptized, 39-43; and W. Morris S. West, "The Child and the Church: A Baptist Perspective" (forthcoming).

(73.) This practice was strongly criticized by Beasley-Murray, Baptism Today and Tomorrow, 86-88.

(74.) Called to Be One, 70.

(75.) Believing and Being Baptized, 21-23, 29, and 24-29, respectively.

(76.) Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 385-86, had, until his 1994 article, led the Baptist rejection of infant baptism, see Cross, "Theology," 28-31 [ch. 2].

(77.) This said, I am sure that widespread interest in baptism exists within nonecumenical settings; little evidence of this appears in written sources.

Anthony R. Cross is a research fellow at the Centre for Advanced Theological Research, Roehampton Institute, London, England.