Watson In the Name of Our Lord

Four Models of the Relationship Between Baptism, Catechesis, and Communion
1. Auflage 2021
ISBN: 978-1-68359-492-5
Verlag: Lexham Press
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 192 Seiten

Reihe: Studies in Historical and Systematic Theology

Who is a member of the church? Christians divide on how one enters the church body. Matters are quickly complicated once other factors are considered, such as faith, instruction, baptism, first communion, and formal membership. Who should be baptized? What role does instruction play? And what is the best order of these things? Jonathan D. Watson's In the Name of Our Lord provides an explanatory typology and incisive analysis for thinking through these interrelated questions. Watson's four--model framework accounts for the major historical varieties of relationship between baptism and catechesis as initiation into the church. With this framework in place, Watson then considers each model in relation to one another. With a guide to navigating the terrain, readers can comprehend, compare, and contrast these different theological formulations. Readers will have a sophisticated but clear system for thinking through foundational matters that are important to every pastor and congregant.

Jonathan D. Watson (PhD, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) is associate professor and chair of Christian Studies at Charleston Southern University.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Watson, Jonathan D.

Leseproben

2 CONSTRUCTING THE EXPLANATORY FRAMEWORK Recently my wife and I purchased a trampoline for our four children. Of course, the kids wanted to jump on as soon as I unloaded the box in the backyard, but before the canvas could hold their weight and rebound them blissfully into the air, we had to spend several hours assembling the frame, attaching the springs, and securing the safety netting. The assembly process was somewhat tedious, but the tedium was tempered by the fact that blissful bouncing was just around the corner. This chapter is a bit like the assembly process for that trampoline. In order to enjoy the unique perspective, understanding, and appreciation that this study seeks to provide, we must set up the framework that will make such insights possible. Some of the bouncing will begin in chapter 3. So, stay with me through the assembly process. This chapter constructs the proposed framework of models of relationship between baptism, catechesis, and entrance. The chapter contains a visual illustration of the framework and explains its structure and categories. Though not the focus of the study, the two independent models will be sketched here in order to introduce the dynamics of the framework as well as demonstrate each model’s contours and viability. Programmatically, by the end of the chapter the focus of the study will be narrowed to consider the two interdependent models, which will be developed in greater detail in the subsequent chapters. FRAMEWORK Chapter 1 introduced the categories of independent and interdependent. That is, catechesis and baptism either function alone or together to bring one into the visible fellowship of a local church or parish. The framework below arranges these categories and their related models to one another across a spectrum, with the models prioritizing baptism on the left and the models prioritizing catechesis on the right. This section will orient the basic structural features of this framework. The above framework consists of four models classified in two categories. The broader categories are Independent and Interdependent: baptism and catechesis function either independently or interdependently for entrance. On the one hand, independent models make either baptism or catechesis the sole means of entrance. Thus, baptism alone or catechesis alone renders a candidate eligible to participate in the visible fellowship of the local church as displayed in the Lord’s Supper (“entrance”). So, while the baptism model allows for catechesis after entrance, catechesis is not an integral means of entrance. The alternative is also true; while the catechesis model allows for baptism after entrance, baptism is not an integral means of entrance. On the other hand, interdependent models make baptism and catechesis a tandem means of entrance. Here, baptism and catechesis function together to render a candidate eligible for visible fellowship with the local church around the Table of the Lord. Interdependent models demonstrate variety in their ordering—sequence and priority—of baptism and catechesis. When baptism functions as the foundation for catechesis, the retrospective model is operative, because catechesis as a means of entrance looks back to baptism. Alternatively, when catechesis functions as the foundation for baptism, the prospective model is operative, because catechesis as a means of entrance looks forward to baptism. It may be helpful to draw out the questions to which these models offer their respective answers. The diagnostic questions for distinguishing the various models of relationship are as follows: •Independent or interdependent: What are the prerequisites of entrance: baptism or catechesis or both? Do baptism and catechesis function together or independently in the process of entrance? •Independent model: If baptism or catechesis are functioning independently, which one is operative in the entrance process? •Interdependent model: If baptism and catechesis are functioning together, how is catechesis oriented to baptism in the entrance process? Is it looking back to baptism (retrospective) or anticipating baptism (prospective)? Put differently, is baptism the basis for catechesis (catechesis is retrospectively oriented to baptism), or is baptism grounded on catechesis (catechesis is prospectively oriented to baptism)? MODEL DESCRIPTIONS (BRIEF) As shown in the preceding graphic, four major models are proposed for understanding the relationship between baptism, catechesis, and entrance. Each will be developed in turn, but provisional definitions are offered here: 1.The baptism model is an independent model in which baptism is the sole prerequisite for entrance. Catechesis is subsequent to entrance and grounded on baptism and Lord’s Supper. 2.The retrospective model is an interdependent model in which baptism and catechesis are both prerequisites for entrance. Catechesis is grounded on and looks back to baptism. The catechetical process is typically concluded with a rite of confirmation that is prerequisite for entrance.1 3.The prospective model is an interdependent model in which baptism and catechesis are both prerequisites for entrance. Here, however, catechesis is prerequisite to baptism and provides the basis for baptism. The catechetical process culminates in baptism and leads to entrance. 4.The catechesis model is an independent model in which catechesis is the sole prerequisite for entrance. Baptism, if it is given at all, is subsequent to entrance and viewed as a means of personal growth. The independent model names are straightforward. The titles “retrospective” and “prospective” frame the interdependent models in terms of how catechesis relates to baptism in the process of entrance. Thomas Finn writes, “Baptism, whether ancient or modern, is the hinge upon which Christian identity turns.”2 Understood in terms of the visibility of faith and the reality to which baptism points (i.e., union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection), Finn’s description is certainly correct. Unlike catechesis, baptism is a visible sign and, therefore, receives the emphasis in the framing of these models of entrance into visible fellowship. ATTRIBUTES The sequence of baptism, catechesis, and entrance is the key attribute defining each model. There are, however, subsidiary attributes to consider, including but not limited to the model’s projection of the nature of confirmation, the nature the church, and faith’s relation to baptism (assuming baptism is practiced).3 Regarding confirmation, does the model project a view of confirmation that makes it the capstone of catechesis, or is it an objective seal connected to baptism, or some combination of these? Idiosyncrasies on the issue of confirmation abound. For example, what is its status: Is it a valid sacrament or merely a rite? What is its function: Is it an immediate, objective sign or seal of the Holy Spirit, or a later, subjective completion of baptism? What is its nature: Is it an objective gift to the recipient, or is it a subjective affirmation of the faith once delivered to the saints, or some combination of these? The variety of answers to these questions is wide. In fact, Paul Turner, a Roman Catholic theologian, identifies three forms of confirmation within the Catholic tradition alone: as a rite of (1) initiation, given in infancy at baptism; (2) maturity, given at a (varying) age of discretion; or (3) reception, given to a proselyte from another Christian denomination.4 In subsequent discussion, attention will be given to these issues as necessary for explaining the relationship between baptism, catechesis, and entrance within a particular model. For now, however, I simply want to note that the various sequences of the proposed models tend to cast or project a particular view of confirmation. Regarding the church, does the model project a view that the church is a mixed body (corpus permixteum) or regenerate body? That is, does the model of entrance leave the church expecting that there are those within her visible fellowship who have not yet expressed personal faith in Christ and his gospel? A model of initiation or entrance that projects such a view will have downstream effects on a host of issues such as discipleship, church polity, church discipline, and many more. Regarding faith’s relation to baptism, does the model project a view that faith is an objective gift flowing from the baptismal sign or that the baptismal sign is an emblem of prior faith or even an instrument through which the subjective faith of the baptizand is actualized? This also has a multitude of practical reverberations. For example, it affects how persons are led to the baptismal waters, what they are taught is happening in baptism, and how they are to think about their baptism after the fact. The development of models within this study will also consider the elasticity of each, examining the ideal extremes of its logic. These extremes will be considered along an objective-subjective continuum. This continuum is not essential to the framework we are developing, but it holds explanatory strength that I will demonstrate along the way. Of the two means of entrance named—baptism and catechesis—baptism, being an elemental symbol or sign, adds weight to a model’s so-called objectivity. Likewise,...