1

THE SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM

The Pastoral Function of Ritual

The theology and administration of Christian baptism have been the subject of much

discussion, both ecumenically and within many Christian denominations, in recent

years. The consultation on Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry1 sponsored by the World

Council of Churches, commonly known as the Lima Document, has been of particular

importance both in challenging many established customs and in forging some degree

of ecumenical consensus on key issues. The Church of England was an active

participant in this process, but the continuing debates on baptism have exposed deep

divisions in Anglican thinking and practice.2 While the distinctive circumstances of

the established church in an increasingly secularised society have influenced

perspectives on the issues within the Church of England, it must nevertheless be

recognised that the impetus for the debate has been largely ecumenical.

The past century saw considerable progress in the historical critical study of liturgical

and other texts of the ancient Church, carried out in a climate of increasing

ecumenical consensus and collaboration.3 The baptismal liturgies of many

denominations have been revised, in some ways quite radically, in the light of

scholarly reconstructions of ancient Christian rites. Liturgies, such as that of the Book

of Common Prayer, which were essentially the product of western Christendom,

reflecting the religiosity and the social conditions of Christian Europe in the early

modern period, were replaced with rites which seek to recover the religiosity of a

more ancient period in Christian history, to be administered in the modern world and

in contemporary social conditions. It is at least arguable that the incongruity of

antiquarian liturgiology with the needs of the Church in a modern or post-modern

world, is what has brought to the surface many of the issues in the contemporary

debate.4 This will become clear in some of the discussion which follows.

1 Herinafter BEM. The section on baptism is on 1-7.

2 The official Church of England response is in Churches respond to BEM 3.3-79, section on baptism,

32-31. The debate in General Synod led to the report of Reardon (1991), to the formation of the

Movement for the Reform of Infant Baptism (1986), and the publication of works including Buchanan

1987; Dalby 1989; Green 1987; Kuhrt 1987. 3 E.g. Johnson 1999; Whitaker 1981; contributions in Holeton 1993; Jones 1992:111-83.

4 Dalby 1989:7,12,77,98-99; cf. Buchanan 1993:68-72,86-97; Carr 1994:82-84.

2

Parallel to the movement of liturgical reform has been a process of reflection on the

missionary experience of many Christian denominations, and the pastoral and

theological lessons to be learned from ways in which converts have been initiated and

integrated into church life. The continuing missionary context of many denominations

in the developing world has clearly informed the BEM process, as well as having

resonated at many levels with the insights of liturgical scholarship. But it has also

raised very much deeper issues of the social and cultural context in which baptism is

administered; issues yet to be fully explored. The experience of forming new

communities of converts from pagan societies has challenged many of the

assumptions on which Christian life and ministry in Europe had been based.

The process of secularisation in Europe has raised questions regarding the relationship

between Church and society. The notion of secularisation is itself controversial,5 and

no comprehensive definition can be attempted here. Quantifying the persistence of

religious beliefs, and even superstitions, in the absence of public profession or

observance, is speculative and inconclusive. What is clear is that religious observance,

in terms of regular participation in public worship, has declined.6 While no clear

correlation can be drawn between believing and belonging, this issue remains crucial

for any theology for which participation in the worshiping community is of the

essence of Christianity. This, as will become clear, is central to disputes within the

Church concerning baptism. The diversity of religious belief and observance within a

single society or locality in the modern world may in reality be more significant than

secularisation, but both are rooted in choice, made possible by the freedoms evolved

in post-Renaissance society, and in the separation of religious belief from other

aspects of social identity and activity. The Church can no longer be regarded as

coterminous with society, but is an entity within society. Where dealing with

adherents of other religions, the boundaries of the Church may seem clearer than with

those variously called secularised, cultural, or residual, Christians, especially for an

established church which persists in claiming the nominal assent of everyone who

cannot be identified with another faith community.

5 Diverse positions are represented by Bruce 2002; Gill 1988; 1993; Davie 1994; Martin 1978; Percy

2001; Wilson 1969.

3

The debates about Christian baptism in recent decades have achieved a limited

measure of consensus on a number of historical questions, but rather less agreement

on issues of pastoral practice in the present. It is my contention that a lack of social

and cultural awareness is a major obstacle to further progress on these issues. In order

to understand ancient Christian practice more adequately, and to discern its relevance

for contemporary pastoral situations, the initiation process needs to be understood as a

cultural act whose ritual component derives meaning and significance from the social

context and symbolic universe within which it is administered. This raises questions

about ancient rites which, however they have mutated over the centuries, continue to

derive their definitive meaning from an extinct culture and a context which lives only

in the collective memory of the initiated and informed within the Church.

Western rationalism and Protestant anti-sacramentalism have alike been hostile to

acknowledging the social function and power of rituals in modern societies, and to

recognising that symbolic but transformative acts lie at the heart of the Christian

gospel.7 As well as being a rite in the liturgical sense, baptism is a ritual in the

anthropological sense.8 By this we mean that the status of the person who undergoes

the ritual is thereby transformed. The rite is therefore undergone but once, and is in

principle unrepeatable. Ritual, furthermore, is essentially social, defining community

and the place and role of individuals within it. It is important that these points be

appreciated, not only to understand the tradition within which baptism functions, but

also its continuing importance and appeal in apparently secularised societies. The

pastoral value of ritual is increasingly appreciated,9 but it remains a challenge to

maintain the link between pastoral insight, liturgical act, and theological tradition.

Rites of passage10

signify and enact the transitions in the life cycle of a culture, most

particularly at birth, puberty, marriage, and death, which, while transitional,

nonetheless reflect stability and continuity in culture and society. In other words, rites

of passage involve transition from one status to another in the same community. In

6 Relevant statistics, specific to the Church of England, are found in the Church of England Yearbook

2005 xlvi-lii. 7 Chester 2003:280-83,337-42; Dillistone 1955; 1986; McVann 1995:7-8.

8 Useful theoretical discussion, and illustrative examples, can be found in Bell 1992; Eliade 1958;

Grimes 2000; Turner 1969. 9 Driver 1988, Ramshaw 1987.

10 The phrase was coined by Van Gennep (1960).

4

Judaism, circumcision of week-old boys is a rite of passage at birth, marking

incorporation into God’s covenant with Abraham (Gen 17:1-14).11

Christian baptism

may have become in many traditions an analogous rite of passage, but it did not

originate thus. Irrespective of its antecedents,12

Christian baptism originated as an

initiation rite which followed or accompanied conversion, representing not the

continuum of a life cycle but the disruption of social and cultic dislocation and

disorientation, and resocialisation.13

In other words, a conversion-initiation rite

involves not merely change of status, but also of community. Early Christian baptism

therefore involved a transformation in which a new identity, discontinuous with that

previously held, is assumed.14

This is not to assert that all baptisms during the earliest

years of the Christian church were those of converts in the contemporary

understanding of the word;15

merely that the rite was originally defined and

interpreted in terms of the voluntary conversion of autonomous adults.16

It never was

the case that all conversions took this form, and it is unlikely that more than a small

minority of the first generations of Christians acquired their faith through personal

conviction, or were baptised of their own volition.

This last point is worth developing, even if it may appear to be something of a

digression. I do not propose here to enter the long-running and inconclusive debates

as to whether the early Church baptised infants.17

This is an issue which can be

addressed only in a broader context, and one which far too many New Testament

scholars have overlooked. The most important consideration is the nature of human

identity in a specific social and cultural context, and the strength of family and other

bonds vis-à-vis individual freedom and autonomy. In patriarchal societies, such as

those in which Christianity emerged, patterns of religious adherence and observance

tend to be collective rather than individual. In a forthcoming work I argue, on these

and other grounds, that household baptism was normative in the early Church, and

11

Bradshaw (1996:13-18) & Grimes (2000:298) emphasise patriarchal succession rather than birth, but

continuity is nevertheless central. 12

Various positions are argued by Beasley-Murray 1962:1-44; Bradshaw 1996:13-31; Collins 1995;

Johnson 1999:1-32. 13

Taylor 1992:100; followed by Christiansen 1995:41,232; cf. Johnson 1999:xvii. 14

Taylor 1995. For theoretical foundations see Mol 1976; Snow & Machalek 1983; Straus 1979. 15

The most comprehensive recent treatment is Rambo 1993. 16

Taylor 1995; on very different premises, and drawing different inferences, Beasley-Murray 1962. 17

Classically debated by Jeremias 1960; 1963 and Aland 1963; more recently, and more polemically,

Jewett 1978; Bromiley 1979.

5

that the conversion of a householder was consummated in the baptism of the entire

household, regardless of age and status.18

Subordinate members of households,

whether adults or children, were not deemed capable of the informed consent which

has become a quasi-legal concept in modern western societies, and their baptism

derived its significance from the conversion of their patron.19

Where there was limited

autonomy, or complete subordination, unequivocal commitment to Christianity

independent of the patron would not have been possible, and many may have been left

on the fringes of the church at an early date.20

The issue, therefore, is not so much

whether or not babies were baptised in the earliest years of the Christian church, but

whether such a practice in the early Church would provide an appropriate precedent

for the baptism of infants in the Church today, and in what specific circumstances. It

would be possible to argue that, while baptism of infant members of the household of

a convert was normative in the early Church, it would not be appropriate in modern

western societies in which individual autonomy is emphasised, and informed adult

consent is required by law and custom before socially, culturally, and legally

significant transactions are undertaken. This is a question we will need to consider

further in due course. The observations which have been made about the level of

commitment presupposed on the part of parents21

are historically incontrovertible,

even if strictly speaking it would have been the patron of the household rather than

necessarily the parents who made the commitment.

A second consideration is the role of supernatural power in ritual. In the ancient world

there was no doubt that rituals, including Christian baptism, were effective means of

transmitting supernatural power to achieve a desired effect.22

This does not mean that

the early Church believed or taught that salvation could be effected on the basis of the

baptism alone, but this was a notion which had to be resisted from the earliest times.23

The doctrine of divine sovereignty, along with a strong tradition of Christian moral

teaching, have militated against too mechanistic or magical a conception of baptism.

Nevertheless, any idea that divine power is in no way active in the rite itself is very

recent. Most modern western Christians would not profess that the words and actions

18

Ms provisionally entitled Paul’s Teaching on Baptism. 19

Cf. Osiek & Balch 1997. 20

Taylor 1995; 2002. 21

Buchanan 1990a; Crowe 1980; Kuhrt 1987:128-30; Reardon 1991:20. 22

Chester 2003:280-83,337-42; Finn 1997; Graf 2002; Janowitz 2002.

6

which constitute baptism effect, in any mechanistic or causal way, that which the rite

symbolises, but such thinking persisted in informed circles in the Church of England

at least into the nineteenth century.24

Supernaturalistic interpretations of baptism may

well be more widespread today than is often assumed,25

particularly among those who

are not active members of any church but seek baptism for their children. While

presumptions of insincerity on the part of some such parents, among proponents of a

more restrictive policy,26

extend beyond simple definitions of belief to questions of

commitment, it is nonetheless important that the nature of the beliefs and values of

those who seek baptism be discerned.

A third consideration must surely be the nature of religious conversion. We have

noted that Christian baptism began as a conversion rite, and was not originally linked

to inherited cultural identity. The assumption that conversion refers to a change in

intellectual conviction, from one set of beliefs to another, is in itself a product of

modern western readings of the experiences of Paul and Augustine.27

Modern studies

of conversion have shown the process to be far more complex, and that the adoption

of new beliefs can in fact be the consequence of rather than the catalyst for joining a

particular religious or other group.28

In other words, converts adopt and adapt the

beliefs and practices of the group they join, and thereby acquire the identity which

they derive from that group. Our observations above regarding the circumstances in

which baptism was administered in the early Church are clearly entirely consonant

with this broader and more fluid understanding of conversion.

As an initiation rite, baptism marks the boundary of the Church, and therefore in a

sense between the Church and the wider society from which it draws its members. We

have noted above that these boundaries have become indistinct in modern western

societies, where the majority of the population of Christian descent, including those

who have been baptised and present their children for baptism, have become

secularised, in very diverse ways, and many maintain at most an ambivalent and

ambiguous relationship with the Church. How this issue is perceived, precisely where

23

Paul, 1 Cor 10:1-5; cf. Rom 6:3-5. 24

Buchanan 1993:40-43; Every 1959:95-98. Both reflect on the Gorham case (1846-49). 25

Cf. Carr 1994:52-56; Davie 1994:74-116; Percy 2001:60-80. 26

Buchanan 1993:175-81; Crowe 1980:83-84; Owen 1991:150-54. 27

So Nock 1933; Krailshaimer 1980; cf. Segal 1990.

7

and how rigidly the boundary between the Church and the surrounding society is to be

drawn, and how baptism is appropriately to be administered in the face of any

ambiguity, is a pastoral as well as a doctrinal question. The issues, and different

approaches to baptismal discipline, can usefully be illustrated by means of Niebuhr’s

paradigm in Christ and Culture.29

Niebuhr identifies five theological traditions reflecting different approaches to the

society in which the Church is located. These cannot always be rigidly distinguished,

and religious movements frequently mutate and change their attitude to the

surrounding society in doing so. Given Niebuhr’s indebtedness to Troeltsch and

Weber,30

these observations would be all but self-evident, but they are nonetheless

significant given the long period of history between the formulation of Christian

Scripture and liturgy and today. Nevertheless, even if we are dealing with ideal types

rather than concrete manifestations thereof, it does help identify and understand the

diverse ways in which baptism may be interpreted and administered.

The “Christ against Culture” approach to society would tend to be more prevalent

among Christian groups with sectarian origins than established denominations, to the

extent that Troeltsch’s dichotomy remains helpful. This was also frequently the

approach taken in Christian mission, particularly in Africa.31

The Church is narrowly

defined in terms of its active, initiated, worshiping community, and a particular,

regulated, way of life is assumed to be integral to Christian commitment. In this

system there is no space for ambiguity or for less than fully committed membership.

The host society is perceived as hostile and depraved, both in its values and in its

attitude, and a rigid boundary is maintained against it. In terms of baptismal

discipline, this could involve baptising those born to members of the community, if

paedobaptism is practised at all. It is of interest to note, in this respect, that Niebuhr

assigns Tertullian, an early critic of infant baptism, to this category.32

Evangelism as

such is unlikely once the sect has been established, but, on the other hand, is the

raison d’etre of missionary movements whose hostility to outsiders and their culture

28

Beckford 1978; Rambo 1993; Snow & Machalek 1983; Straus 1979. 29

Niebuhr 1951. 30

Troeltsch 1931; Weber is not cited in Niebuhr 1951, but informs Niebuhr 1929. 31

Chidester 1996; cf. Isichei 1995; Hastings 1996. 32

1951:51-55.

8

is directed not so much to their own native society as to that from which they wish to

draw converts. This approach is so inimical to the ethos, not merely of the Church of

England but of any other mainline denomination, that it is unlikely to be found within

the established Church in its dealings with its own native population.

The “Christ of Culture” approach is characteristic of established denominations,

where religious, cultural, and national identity are inextricably linked. It is assumed

that society as a whole is Christian, and therefore that the culture is inherently

Christian. Membership of the church is inherited, and not contingent upon any

personal commitment or profession. Baptism is as much a cultural as a religious rite

of passage, to be administered indiscriminately. This approach would undoubtedly

have been normative in mediaeval Europe, as it continues to be in oriental and eastern

Orthodox Christianity. While the practice persists in the Church of England, and in

many other denominations throughout the world, it would probably have few

articulate defenders today.33

Where baptism is understood not as a rite of the Church,

but one to be administered by the Church, on demand, to those who seek it, and on the

terms on which they seek it,34

then social and cultural assumptions are assumed to be

consistent with the Gospel, if not identical therewith, so that Christ becomes identified

with prevailing popular culture. Most defenders of indiscriminate or open baptism,

however, would wish to maintain at least some critical distance from the prevailing

culture, and to assert the theological and ecclesiastical basis of baptism.35

This can

take the form of a somewhat surprising confidence in the supernatural effects of the

rite.36

The “Christ above Culture” approach sees the Gospel and the prevailing culture as

coalescing, creating an ecclesiastical and cultural synthesis as the Gospel finds an

interpretation congenial to the host culture. Niebuhr assigns early Christian apologists

Justin and Clement to this category,37

but there would be no case for understanding

the surviving ancient liturgical traditions this way. In early Christian history, this

approach perhaps reflects the idealism of an intellectual elite rather than the

33

Carr 1994; Osborn 1972; cf. Dalby 1989. 34

Carr 1994:49-57. 35

Dalby 1989. 36

Osborn 1972:61-75; cf. Dalby 1989:41-53. 37

Niebuhr 1951:123-28.

9

experience and outlook of the Church as a whole. While in many ways close to the

“Christ of Culture” approach, where that is complacent “Christ above Culture” would

be more assertive in setting the Gospel as a standard against which cultural

observances and attitudes are measured. The confidence required to sustain this

approach means that it is more likely to be prevalent in situations where the Church is

perceived to be robust and growing, rather than where it is challenged by cultural

forces and perceived to be in decline. Such an approach is common in Africa,38

but

religious movements which flourish in the west today tend to be somewhat more

countercultural.39

A baptismal discipline consistent with a “Christ above Culture”

outlook would be similar to that of the “Christ of Culture” approach; indeed, the latter

would seem the logical end of the former.40

An open or indiscriminate baptismal

policy, furthermore, would be reinforced by the high level of consciousness of

supernatural powers likely to accompany Christian belief in contexts of rapid church

growth. The rite would be understood to be an effective instrument for building the

Church both through overcoming cosmic evil and through extending the boundaries

of the community.

The “Christ and Culture in Paradox” approach may appear in some respects similar to

the “Christ against Culture” approach, but is to be distinguished from the latter in that

the sense of paradox generates a more critical engagement with the prevailing culture

than does the “Christ above Culture” approach.41

A baptismal discipline which

reflects this outlook would tend to admit children to baptism only in defined

circumstances. Baptism is, in principle if not in practice, likely to be conditional upon

the parents or guardians of the child being active members of the worshiping

community, and conducting their lives in accordance with church teaching. Parents

who do not immediately meet these criteria are to be drawn into the fellowship of the

church, whether from the periphery or from outside, and then, on the basis of

commitment, invited to present their children for baptism. This approach is

represented by Baptismal Integrity, formerly the Movement for the Reform of Infant

Baptism,42

and is represented in a less militant form quite broadly in the Church of

38

Mbiti 1971; Nyamiti 1984; Sawyerr 1968. 39

Cf. Percy 1996; Wilson 1982. 40

Cf. Percy 2001:345-67. 41

The cognitive dissonance theory of Festinger (1957) may be helpful here. 42

Their website can be accessed at www.baptism.org.uk; see also Owen 1990.

10

England and other denominations.43

It is also the approach favoured by BEM, which

indeed was the impetus for much thinking in this direction in the Church of England

and more widely.

The final category, “Christ transforming Culture”, is a natural development from the

preceding approach, though perhaps not as inevitably so as Niebuhr may seem to

suggest.44

As well as seeking to draw marginal people or outsiders into its fellowship,

the Church aspires to change the character of society. This approach is to be

distinguished from “Christ above Culture” in that there is a clearer presumption that it

is culture which must be brought into conformity with the Gospel, rather than that the

Gospel must be articulated in terms of the host culture. This distinction is of course

more difficult to sustain in practice than in theory, particularly where the

interpretation of the Gospel on social and moral issues is disputed. So far as baptismal

discipline is concerned, there would be awareness of a boundary between Church and

society, albeit vague and contested. How the objective of transforming society is to be

accomplished is also likely to be contested, and the approach to individual cases is

likely to be determined accordingly. This would naturally lead to some degree of

ambivalence or dispute so far as “open” and “rigorous” baptism policies are

concerned.

Before considering this issue in greater detail, it would be useful to make some

observations on contemporary culture, not least in comparison with the cultural

context in which the New Testament and ancient Christian liturgies evolved. The New

Testament documents, of which the letters of Paul are the most important source of

baptismal teaching, are products of a Jewish missionary movement actively seeking

converts from other nations as well as their own.45

Paul in particular is noted for

linking baptism symbolically with the crucifixion of Jesus, and with the acquisition of

a radically new identity in Christ.46

Niebuhr associates Paul with his “Christ and

Culture in Paradox” category.47

Some New Testament scholars, if they were to use

Niebuhr’s categories, would argue “Christ against Culture” more adequately

43

Buchanan 1976; 1987; 1993; Crowe 1980; Kuhrt 1987. 44

1951:185-96. 45

Beasley-Murray 1962:127-305; Christiansen 1995; Dunn 1991; Stark 1996. 46

Rom 6:3-5. Beasley-Murray 1962:127-46; Christiansen 1995; Dunn 1998; Gorman 2001. 47

1951:159-67; cf. Räisänen 1986; Sanders 1983.

11

represents Paul’s thought.48

While this issue cannot be addressed here, the

countercultural element in early Christianity is not to be overlooked.

The earliest extant liturgical texts and accounts, such as the Apostolic Tradition

associated with Hippolytus, reflect the theology and self-identity of Christian groups

in the second and third centuries.49

The baptismal liturgies reflect a sense of the

Church as isolated in society and subject to persecution, and accordingly endowed

with a clear sense of its boundary with and against the world. The inclusion of new

members through baptism is cause for celebration, a sign of growth which perhaps

shifts the orientation of the community from “Christ against Culture” towards “Christ

and Culture in Paradox”. This mindset arguably resonates with contemporary

Christians who see the faith as beleaguered but their own version thereof as capable of

winning converts. A rigorous baptismal discipline would unite ancient and modern

Christian groups with this orientation.50

Contemporary British society is by no means monolithic, and even the older

distinctions between south and north, town and country, are now simplistic. The

presence of a diversity of immigrant communities, whose assimilation to local society

and culture has varied considerably, at the very least means that simplistic

correlations of national with ethnic and religious, and even cultural, identity are no

longer possible. As well as the diversity of Christians, observant and secularised,

there are citizens of the United Kingdom, whose cultural heritage is not British. For

most of these Christianity is not part of their inherited identity, beliefs, or way of

life.51

The integrity of all faith communities requires an acknowledgement that there

are citizens of the United Kingdom for whom Christian baptism cannot be regarded as

a cultural rite of passage. The religious diversity of contemporary British society

challenges the traditional Christian imperative for mission and evangelism, premised

as it is upon notions of exclusivity.

48

Elliott 1994; cf. Taylor 1997. 49

Bradshaw & al. 2002:1-16; Cramer 1993:9-45; Finn 1992; Johnson 1999:33-88. 50

Cf. Buchanan 1993:175-93; Owen 1991:181-95. 51

Statistics from the 2001 census are available at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=395,

with links to further details and analysis of trends.

12

Mission and evangelism are a major consideration for many who advocate rigorous

baptismal discipline, even if secularised Christians are of greater concern to them than

adherents of other faiths.52

Their position is internally consistent, and would pre-empt

any question of institutionalising pluralism. Christianity was undoubtedly founded

upon a premise of unqualified and exclusive commitment to Christ. Jewish

monotheism in the ancient world, together with the ethnic aspect of Jewish identity,

had previously maintained a clear boundary between Israel and the gentiles, while at

the same time accommodating a variety of sympathetic adherents.53

While there is

reason to believe that early Christian communities similarly entertained uninitiated

adherents, and later catechumens, baptism nevertheless remained a clear boundary

between the Church and the surrounding world.54

The nature of boundaries, ethnic,

social, creedal, and symbolic, between faith communities in a pluralist society such as

modern Britain would be beyond the scope of this study. However, such boundaries

between at least some communities are clearly permeable in that mixed marriages do

take place. When neither partner converts to the religion of the other, different faiths

can be represented in a single family. Christian baptism, and the rites of passage of

another religion, could therefore be sought for the same child. Where the “Christ of

Culture” or “Christ above Culture” paradigms predominate, this may even be

normative, as in avowedly Christian families in many parts of Africa today.55

It may

be a western rationalist question to ask whether traditional observances imply

traditional beliefs, and how these are compatible with Christianity, but such questions

cannot be ignored in a modern western context.

Unlike the African situation mentioned above, we are dealing not with syncretism

within Christianity, but rather with a situation of pluralism in which two belief

systems, and patterns of adherence and observance, coexist in a single family. This is

more likely to be experienced as problematic by those from a monotheistic

background. Where cultic adherence is not exclusive, as tends to be the case with

polytheistic religions, ancient and modern, a plurality of religious or cultic affiliations

is entirely possible, if not normative. It would therefore be quite conceivable that

52

Cf. Buchanan 1993:143-93; Owen 1991:181-210. 53

Cohen 1989; Goodman 1994. 54

Christiansen 1995; Finn 1992; Johnson 1999:33-86; Taylor 1995; 2002.

13

parents might seek Christian baptism for their children, in addition to whatever other

rites of passage may be performed in the home or in a place of worship, without any

intention of professing exclusive Christian allegiance and repudiating other deities. In

terms of Canon B 22.4 such parents would probably be acting fully within their rights

as citizens of the United Kingdom and residents of a particular Church of England

parish. The rite of baptism presupposes exclusive Christian allegiance, but it may be

debated whether the renunciation of “the devil and all rebellion against God”56

necessarily implies repudiation of all other belief systems. The issue therefore remains

a theological and a pastoral problem where the “Christ against Culture” and “Christ

and Culture in Paradox” paradigms do not prevail.

We have already made reference to the issue of the propriety of parents’ committing

their children to the Christian faith through baptism. The significant changes in

culture, so far as individual autonomy is concerned, between the society in which

Christianity emerged and modern liberal societies, was noted. It needs immediately to

be observed that those Baptist and Pentecostal denominations which reject infant

baptism are not concerned to protect the right to self-determination and freedom of

association of the offspring of their members. On the contrary, they fully expect that

parents will educate their children in the inherited faith, and that these children will in

due time come to adult profession thereof and undergo baptism.57

Scruples concerning

committing their children to the Christian faith are more likely to be felt by parents

not fully convinced of the faith themselves. Many, but not all, parents in this position

may be unlikely to seek baptism for their children. Clergy may be confronted with

tentative requests for baptism in such circumstances, and the pastoral instinct of many

would be to encourage them in this. Such parents may, subliminally if not overtly, be

soliciting an assurance that their child would in no way be disadvantaged through not

being baptised. A response to such overtures which appears coercive or superstitious

would not merely fail to affirm and engage with the parents’ reservations, but would

project a narrow and inadequate theology. Several issues require further

consideration.

55

I have encountered this personally in pastoral situations in three African countries, and have been

present where it has been discussed under both ecclesiastical and academic auspices, reflecting much

wider experience. 56

Common Worship: Initiation Services 22,36,51. 57

Cf. Beasley-Murray 1962:368-73; Jewett 1978.

14

Inextricably bound up with the nature of human identity, and the cultural changes in

western society since the earliest days of Christianity, is the significance of

membership of the Church as a corporate entity. Much western individualism is an

ideal, if not a fantasy, of an intellectual elite, as popular allegiance to football teams

bears eloquent testimony.58

While these allegiances are not as geographically

determined as was once the case, they remain strong and highly ritualised. This raises

questions about the nature of the Christianity that is professed without membership of

any church. Formal, subscribed, membership of a football club may not be a

prerequisite to acquiring the livery thereof, including the name of a player, or

attending matches. Such informal adherents, however, make no secret of their

allegiance, and many flaunt it. This is rather different to parents, surreptitious in their

Christian profession, seeking baptism for their children. It could also be asked why

parents who profess Christianity, without involvement in the worshiping life of any

congregation, should perceive a need to avail themselves of the rituals of such a

church on behalf of their children. The way in which baptism has tended to be

administered, apart from the worship of the congregation despite Canon B 21, may

have made this question seem less acute. The apparently complacent acceptance as

normative of baptism apart from realised and enduring integration in the worshiping

Christian community59

is both theologically and pastorally problematic.60

It seems to

assume both that England is a Christian society,61

a “Christ of Culture” outlook which

is at best dated, and that such a state can persist without common identity and values

being given corporate expression in rituals which integrate beliefs with social life.62

Whatever residual beliefs in the supernatural may endure, it is doubtful whether

values can be sustained in the long term in the absence of such affirmation.63

The

issue here is not the decline in religious observance, but whether Christian allegiance

can be preserved and transmitted over the generations apart from the worshiping

community. This must, at the very least, be open to doubt.

58

Cf. Percy 2001:191-210. 59

Carr 1994:49-54. 60

Kuhrt 1987:135-36; Reardon 1991:33-34. 61

Dalby 1989:14; Osborn 1972:61-92. Pace, Cryer 1969. 62

Cf. Davie 1994; Wilson 1969. 63

Cf. Bruce 1995; 2002; Gill 1993; Percy 2001:81-101.

15

The question of supernatural power, specifically the Holy Spirit, transmitted and

received in and through baptism, is in some ways more closely linked with the

previous issue than would at first sight appear to be the case. As noted above, contrary

to Protestant anti-sacramentalism, the early Church did believe and profess that the

performance of the rite effected the transmission of the Holy Spirit to the one

baptised. In the mediaeval west, confirmation came to be seen as the occasion of

receiving the Holy Spirit,64

a theology expressed in the Book of Common Prayer65

rite, but the supernatural aspect to baptism was nonetheless presupposed. It is perhaps

too quickly assumed that the modern world is radically different in its understanding

of ritual. Western Christian theologians and clergy, even those of conservative

orientation, would tend to be very tentative in defining the link between what are

often described as outward rite and inner grace, and would insist upon the necessity of

the ritual as obedience to a dominical injunction66

rather than as a prerequisite to

receiving the Holy Spirit. Such embarrassment about the instrumentality of ritual

would not be found among clergy in many places in the developing world. It is

doubtful also whether the separation between rite and grace is widely maintained in

the popular mindset, even in the west.67

Any cleric who refused baptism on demand

would be liable to accusations of depriving an innocent child of some undefined and

intangible benefit to which he or she is entitled.68

Furthermore, the persistence of

popular superstitions, and the scrupulosity with which taboos are observed, suggest an

unarticulated linkage between certain acts and the activities of supernatural forces. A

responsible pastoral approach to baptism needs to be conscious of this.

The crucial issue linking these questions concerns the nature of the ritual.

Fundamentally, does baptism confer membership of a new community, or merely a

new status in that to which the initiate already belongs, or, indeed, does it have such a

significance at all? The biblical and earliest patristic sources are entirely clear, that

baptism is a conversion-initiation rite, whereby initiates become members of the

Church.69

The post-Constantinian church retained at least a tacit distinction between

birth into a Christian society and membership of the Church. Cosmology and

64

Johnson 1999:203-13,275-77. 65

Published 1662. Hereinafter BCP. 66

Matt 28:16-20 is most commonly cited, cf. Beasley-Murray 1962:77-92,382-86; Green 1987:54-60. 67

Cf. Carr 1994:68-70; Percy 2001:60-80. 68

Cf. Owen 1991:152.

16

soteriology, reinforced by an enhanced sense of divine power at work in baptism,

reinforced this, with increasingly indiscriminate and “clinical” baptism the

consequence.70

Baptism nonetheless involved a clear transition to new and defined

identity and community, and social processes complemented the rite in integrating the

initiate into the life of the Church. A combination of factors has collapsed this sense

of the ritual function of baptism in the modern world, including increasing

voluntarism and individualism, reduced social cohesion, diminished supernaturalism,

and declining ritual consciousness. These have created the context in which the

Church is called to minister today. While we cannot ascertain here the supernatural

efficacy of baptism, or discuss the nature of prevenient grace, we do need to be aware

of the potential social power of ritual, and to consider how this is to be exercised in

pastoral situations.

Some observations on liturgical developments in the Church of England may help

shed light on several of these issues. The BCP envisages that baptism be administered

at public worship on a Sunday or holy day as soon as possible after the birth of a

child. While provision is made for baptism in the home and on other days, this is a

concession to necessity or emergency. Given that the mother would still be in

seclusion after childbirth, and not yet “churched”, her presence at the baptism is not

presupposed; neither, indeed, is that of the father. It is the godparents who present the

child for baptism, and assume responsibility for his or her nurture in the Christian

faith. In communities of this period, particularly in rural areas, senior relatives and

village elders, from whose ranks godparents would have been drawn, were in a

position to exert considerable influence in the rearing of children. Godparents would

therefore have been in a position to honour their promises, and their role was not

merely ceremonial.

In addition to developments in liturgical scholarship already noted, significant social

changes have intervened between the publication of the BCP and the modern

initiation rites in the Alternative Service Book71

and Common Worship.72

Social

69

Beasley-Murray 1962; Finn 1992. 70

Johnson 1999:215-21; Searle 1995. As a junior priest in Africa, I was instructed to administer

clinical baptism after traffic accidents, and in other situations where anyone whose baptismal status

was unknown was in danger of death. If no water was available, I was to use Coca-cola. 71

Published 1980. Hereinafter ASB.

17

mobility and urbanisation have dissolved extended families, and fundamentally

altered the dynamics of local communities.73

Also of some significance has been the

formalisation of education, and, more recently, its secularisation. With the rise of the

nuclear family, parents have become increasingly jealous of their role and authority in

rearing their children. So far as baptism is concerned, the role of godparents has

become increasingly formal. While Canon B 23 continues to define the qualities and

responsibilities required of godparents, Canon B 22.3 and the rite in ASB and CW

require that parents as well as godparents make the promises on behalf of the child

being baptised. Despite objections,74

these changes simply reflect changing social

conditions and where responsibility for the nurture of children rests in contemporary

society.75

The defence of open baptism does not rest solely on naïve or anachronistic

assumptions about the role of godparents, but also on a theology which recognises the

grace of God as the origin and foundation of the benefits of baptism.76

However, the

question needs to be asked whether the optimism that this grace, bestowed through

baptism, can realise its benefits in the absence of parental commitment, depends on an

implied supernaturalistic or magical interpretation of the rite. Without disputing the

doctrine of prevenient grace, or adjudicating upon the instrumentality of baptism,

against such notions must be balanced faith and commitment.77

The sincere desire to

maintain an open baptism policy, and to administer the rite with theological integrity

and pastoral sensitivity, needs to be accompanied by a strategy and a determination to

ensure that baptism accomplishes that which it signifies: incorporation into the body

of Christ, realised in the worshiping community of the local church.

We have observed that divergent Christian, and specifically Anglican, approaches to

baptismal discipline reflect particular understandings of the way in which the Gospel

relates to its host culture. We have observed that the “Christ of Culture” paradigm is

not viable in modern, pluralist, Britain. Nor can the established church, on account

both of its breadth and its obligations to society as a whole, create a subculture of its

72

Published 1998. Hereinafter CW. 73

Cf. Gill 1993; Russell 1986 for implications for churches. 74

Dalby 1989:51-73. 75

Cf. Kuhrt 1987:128-30; Reardon 1991:20. 76

Carr 1994:36-46; Dalby 1989:17-53; Osborn 1972:117-33.

18

own in which such a paradigm might be applicable. Such a subculture would,

furthermore, generate a “Christ against Culture” approach to the rest of society. While

there are some who might wish to adopt such a paradigm, this would overlook the

long history of Christianity in the British isles. Irrespective of the ambiguous record

of many religious organisations, the influence of Christian values on British culture is

incontrovertible. An approach to baptism in the Church of England needs therefore to

recognise the need for critical tension between the Gospel and prevailing social

values, but to address the issues in a transformative rather than an antagonistic

manner.

A typology of baptismal discipline has been devised,78

which, while neither detailed

nor sophisticated, identifies the range of pastoral approaches, with the implicit

theological rationale of each. This provides some indication of the complexity of the

issues, and of the immense variety of concrete pastoral circumstances in which

baptism is sought and administered. What this typology does treat is how different

positions reflect different understandings of the way in which Gospel and Church

relate to society and culture. Nor does it define where the boundaries of the Church

are understood to lie, socially as well as theologically, or how rigid and how

permeable these boundaries are understood to be.

Whatever their theological position, clergy need to find ways in which the ritual of

baptism can function, not merely as a social rite of passage, but as an awesome

experience, transformative and incorporating rather than alienating, so that the

identity conferred on the one baptised can be sustained and realised in the worshiping

life of the Church. In many cases this will require that baptising their child makes real

and meaningful for the parents their own baptisms, transforming their lives and

relationships, and incorporating them in the life and fellowship of the worshiping

community. The challenge to clergy and congregations is to develop the social

awareness as well as the pastoral, teaching, and liturgical insight to accomplish this.

77

Beasley-Murray 1962:373-86; Kuhrt 1987:84. 78

Owen 1990:82.

19

REFERENCES

World Council of Churches Documents:

Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1982.

Baptism and Eucharist: Ecumenical Convergence in Celebration, ed. M. Thurian & G. Wainwright.

Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1983.

Churches Respond to BEM, ed. M. Thurian. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1986-1988.

Church of England Documents:

Book of Common Prayer. 1662.

Common Worship: Initiation Services. London: Church House Publishing, 1998.

The Church of England Yearbook 2005. London: Church House Publishing.

Aland, K.

1963 Did the Early Church Baptise Infants? London: SCM.

Beasley-Murray, G. R.

1962 Baptism in the New Testament. Exeter: Paternoster.

Beckford, J. A.

1978 ‘Accounting for Conversion’, British Journal of Sociology, 29: 249-62.

Bell, C. M.

1992 Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York: OUP.

Berger, P. L.

1969 A Rumor of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural. New York:

Doubleday.

Bowker, J. W.

1983 Worlds of Faith: Religious Belief and Practice in Britain Today. London: Ariel.

Bradshaw, P. F.

1996 ‘Christian Rites Related to Birth’,P. F. Bradshaw & L. A. Hoffmann (Ed.), Life Cycles in

Jewish and Christian Worship, 13-31. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Bradshaw, P. F. & al.

2002 The Apostolic Tradition. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Bromiley, G. W.

1979 Children of Promise: The Case for Baptizing Infants. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

Bruce, S.

1995 Religion in Modern Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

1996 Religion in the Modern World: From Cathedrals to Cults. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2002 God is Dead: Secularization in the West. Oxford: Blackwell.

Buchanan, C. O.

1974 Baptismal Discipline. Nottingham: Grove.

1978 One Baptism Once. Nottingham: Grove.

1979 Liturgy for Initiation. Nottingham: Grove.

1984 A Case for Infant Baptism. Nottingham: Grove.

1987 Policies for Infant Baptism. Nottingham: Grove.

1993 Infant Baptism and the Gospel: The Church of England's Dilemma. London: Darton,

Longman, and Todd.

2001 Infant Baptism in Common Worship. Cambridge: Grove.

Buchanan, C. O. and M. Vasey

1998 New Initiation Rites: A Commentary on Services Authorized from Easter 1998. Cambridge:

Grove.

Capps, D.

1983 Life Cycle Theory and Pastoral Care. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Carr, A. W.

1994 Brief Encounters: Pastoral Ministry Through Baptisms, Weddings and Funerals. London:

SPCK.

Chester, S. J.

2003 Conversion at Corinth. London: T & T Clark.

Chidester, D. S.

1984 ‘The Challenge to Christian Ritual Studies’, Anglican Theological Review, 66: 23-34.

20

1996 Savage Systems: Colonialism and Comparative Religion in Southern Africa. Cape Town:

University of Cape Town Press.

Christiansen, E. J.

1995 The Covenant in Judaism and Paul. Leiden: Brill.

Cohen, S. J. D.

1989 ‘Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew’, Harvard Theological Review, 82: 13-33.

Cohn-Sherbok, D.

1993 The Jewish Faith. London: SPCK.

Collins, A. Y.

1995 ‘The Origins of Christian Baptism’, M. E. Johnson (ed.), Living Water, Sealing Spirit:

Readings on Christian Initiation, 35-57. Collegeville: Liturgical.

Cramer, P.

1993 Baptism and Change in the Early Middle Ages, c. 200 - c. 1150. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Crowe, P. A.

1980 Christian Baptism. London: Mowbray.

Cryer, N. B.

1969 By What Rite? Infant Baptism in a Missionary Situation. London: Mowbray.

Dalby, J. M. M.

1989 Open Baptism. London: SPCK.

Davie, G.

1994 Religion in Britain Since 1945: Believing Without Belonging. Oxford: Blackwell.

Denny, F. M.

1993 An Introduction to Islam. New York: Macmillan.

Dillistone, F. W.

1955 Christianity and Symbolism. London: SCM.

1986 The Power of Symbols. London: SCM.

Driver, T. F.

1998 Liberating Rites: Understanding the Transformative Power of Ritual. Oxford: Westview.

Dunn, J. D. G.

1991 The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism, and Their Significance for the

Character of Christianity. London: SCM.

1998 The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

Eliade, M.

1958 Rites and Symbols of Initiation: The Mysteries of Birth and Rebirth. New York: Harper.

Elliott, N.

1994 Liberating Paul. New York: Crossroad.

Every, G.

1959 The Baptismal Sacrifice. London: SCM.

Fenn, R. K.

1997 The End of Time: Religion, Ritual, and the Forging of the Soul. London: SPCK.

2001 The Return of the Primitive: A New Sociological Theory of Religion. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Festinger, L.

1957 A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Finn, T. M.

1992 Early Christian Baptism and the Catechumenate. Collegeville: Liturgical Press.

1997 From Death to Rebirth: Ritual and Conversion in Antiquity. New York: Paulist.

Gill, R. M.

1981 Prophecy and Praxis: The Social Function of the Churches. London: Marshall, Morgan &

Scott.

1988 Beyond Decline: A Challenge to the Churches. London: SCM.

1993 The Myth of the Empty Church. London: SPCK.

2003 The 'Empty' Church Revisited. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Goodman, M. D.

1994 Mission and Conversion. Oxford: Clarendon.

Gorman, M. J.

2001 Cruciformity: Paul's Narrative Spirituality of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Graf, F.

2002 ‘Theories of Magic in Antiquity’, in P. Mirechi & M. Meyer (ed.), Magic and Ritual in the

Ancient World, 93-104. Leiden: Brill.

21

Green, E. M. B.

1987 Baptism: Its Purpose, Practice and Power. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Grimes, R. L.

2000 Deeply Into the Bone: Re-Inventing Rites of Passage. Berkeley: University of California

Press.

Gruenwald, I.

2003 Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel. Leiden: Brill.

Hartman, L.

1997 'Into the Name of the Lord Jesus.' Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

Hastings, A.

1996 The Church in Africa, 1450-1950. Oxford: Clarendon.

Hoffmann, L. A.

1996 ‘Life Cycle as a Religious Metaphor’, in P. F. Bradshaw & L. A. Hoffmann (ed.), Life Cycles

in Jewish and Christian Worship, 1-12. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

1996 ‘Rituals of Birth in Judaism’, in P. F. Bradshaw & L. A. Hoffmann, Life Cycles in Jewish and

Christian Worship, 32-54. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Holeton, D. R.

1988 ‘Initiation’, in S. W. Sykes & J. E. Booty (ed.), The Study of Anglicanism, 261-72. London:

SPCK.

1991 Christian Initiation in the Anglican Communion. Nottingham: Grove.

Holeton, D. R. & al.

1993 Growing in Newness of Life: Christian Initiation in Anglicanism Today. Toronto: Anglican

Book Centre.

Isichei, E. A.

1995 A History of Christianity in Africa: From Antiquity to the Present. London: SPCK.

Janowitz, N.

2002 Icons of Power: Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity. University Park: Pennsylvania State

University Press.

Jeremias, J.

1960 Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries. London: SCM.

1963 The Origins of Infant Baptism. London: SCM.

Jewett, P. K.

1978 Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Johnson, M. E.

1999 The Rites of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and Interpretation. Collegeville: Liturgical

Press.

Krailsheimer, A. J.

1980 Conversion. London: SCM.

Kuhrt, G. W.

1987 Believing in Baptism: Christian Baptism - Its Theology and Practice. London: Mowbray.

La Fontaine, J. S.

1986 Initiation. Themes in Social Anthropology. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Lewis, P.

1994 Islamic Britain: Religion, Politics, and Identity Among British Muslims. London: Tauris.

Martin, D.

1978 A General Theory of Secularization. Oxford: Blackwell.

1980 The Breaking of the Image: A Sociology of Christian Theory and Practice. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Mbiti, J. S.

1971 New Testament Eschatology in an African Background: A Study of the Encounter Between

New Testament Theology and African Traditional Concepts. London: SPCK.

McDonnell, K. & G. T. Montague

1991 Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit: Evidence from the First Eight Centuries.

Collegeville: Liturgical Press.

McVann, M. E., Ed.

1995 Transformations, Passages, and Processes: Ritual Approaches to Biblical Texts. Semeia 67.

Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Mol, H. J.

1976 Identity and the Sacred. Oxford: Blackwell.

Niebuhr, H. R.

22

1929 The Social Sources of Denominationalism. New York: Meridian.

1951 Christ and Culture. New York: Harper & Row.

Noakes, K. W. & al.

1992 ‘Initiation’, in C. P. M. Jones & al. (ed.), The Study of Liturgy, 111-83. London: SPCK.

Nock, A. D.

1933 Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of

Hippo. Oxford: Clarendon.

Nyamiti, C.

1984 Christ Our Ancestor: Christology from and African Perspective. Gweru: Mambo.

Osborn, R. R.

1972 Forbid Them Not: The Importance and the History of General Baptism. London: SPCK.

Osiek, C. and D. L. Balch

1997 Families in the New Testament World. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

Owen, P. C.

1991 Baptise Every Baby? Eastbourne: Marc.

Owen, P. C. & al.

1990 Reforming Infant Baptism. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Pawson, D. and C. O. Buchanan

1976 Infant Baptism Under Cross-Examination. Nottingham: Grove.

Percy, M. W.

1996 Words, Wonders and Power: Understanding Contemporary Christian Fundamentalism and

Revivalism. London: SPCK.

2001 The Salt of the Earth: Religious Resilience in a Secular Age. London: Sheffield Academic

Press.

Perham, M. F.

2000 New Handbook of Pastoral Liturgy. London: SPCK.

Proctor-Smith, M.

1996 ‘Contemporary Challenges to Christian Life-Cycle Ritual’, in P. F. Bradshaw & L. A.

Hoffmann (ed.), Life Cycles in Jewish and Christian Worship, 240-61. Notre Dame:

University of Notre Dame Press.

Räisänen, H.

1986 Paul and the Law. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Rambo, L. R.

1993 Understanding Religious Conversion. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Ramshaw, E.

1987 Ritual and Pastoral Care. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Reardon, M. A.

1991 Christian Initiation: A Policy for the Church of England. London: Church House Publishing.

Robinson, N.

1999 Islam: A Concise Introduction. London: RoutledgeCurzon.

Russell, A. J.

1986 The Country Parish. London: SPCK.

Sanders, E. P.

1983 Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. London: SCM.

Sawyerr, H. A. E.

1968 Creative Evangelism: Towards a New Christian Encounter with Africa. London: Lutterworth.

Searle, M.

1995 ‘Infant Baptism Reconsidered’, in M. E. Johnson (ed.), Living Water, Sealing Spirit, 365-409.

Collegeville: Liturgical Press.

Segal, A. F.

1990 Paul the Convert. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Smith, J. Z.

1987 To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Snow, D. A. and R. Machalek

1983 ‘The Convert as a Social Type’, in R. Collins (ed.), Sociological Theory 1983, 259-89. San

Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Stark, R.

1996 The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History. Princeton: Princeton University

Press.

Straus, R. A.

23

1979 ‘Religious Conversion as a Personal and Collective Accomplishment’, Sociological Analysis,

40: 158-65.

Taylor, N. H.

1992 Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem: A Study in Relationships and Authority in Earliest Christianity.

Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

1995 ‘The Social Nature of Conversion in the Early Christian World’, in P. F. Esler (ed), Modelling

Early Christianity, 128-36. London: Routledge.

1997 ‘Paul for Today: Race, Class, and Gender in Light of Cognitive Dissonance Theory’,

Listening: Journal of Religion and Culture, 32/1: 22-38.

2002 ‘Baptism for the Dead (1 Cor 15:29)?’ Neotestamentica, 36: 111-20.

Troeltsch, E.

1931 The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches. London: Allen & Unwin.

Turner, V. W.

1969 The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Weber, M.

1947 The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Oxford University Press.

1964 The Sociology of Religion. Boston: Beacon.

Whitaker, E. C.

1975 Sacramental Initiation Complete in Baptism. Nottingham: Grove.

1981 The Baptismal Liturgy. London: SPCK.

Wilson, B. R.

1969 Religion in Secular Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

1982 Religion in Sociological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yates, A. S.

1993 Why Baptize Infants? A Study of the Biblical, Traditional and Theological Evidence.

Norwich: Canterbury Press.