Jason of Sustainable Traditions posted a link today for a free ebook download of Growing Deeper in Our Church Communities: 50 Ideas for Connection in a Disconnected Age. by Chris Smith (which looks like it will be an interesting read). While I was on the site, I glanced at some of the books that they've recently reviewed. One was called Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the first Five Centuries, by Everett Ferguson. It looks amazing. Ferguson has apparently done a survey of literary, artistic and architectural references to Christian baptism from before the first century (to give a little background) through to the fifth century AD. As the reviewer, Marius Nel, explains, "The primary strength of Ferguson’s excellent study is its comprehensive focus on all the available primary literature, while also surveying (chapter 1) and engaging (in numerous footnotes) the relevant secondary literature." Nel then proceeds to give a chapter by chapter description of Ferguson's findings and conclusions.
As intriguing as the book sounds, even just the review of it brought up some interesting questions. The following is a quote from the review that typifies the type of provocative questions that a survey such as this can raise:
Christian literary sources (backed by secular word usage and Jewish religious immersions), for instance overwhelmingly supports full immersion as the normal baptismal practice. Exceptions for a lack of water and sickbed baptism were however made (857). If this was the case the question arises when is a baptismal practice (for example sprinkling instead of full immersion) wrong and unacceptable (even heretical) instead of a practical matter to be decided by faith communities in terms of their own specific context? Put differently: what is the relationship between the sign (water) of baptism and what it signifies (redemption and regeneration for example)? To what extent can the baptismal sign be minimized (as in partial immersion, pouring or sprinkling) before it loses its theological significance? Early Christian text (like the Didache) seems to imply that the precise volume or nature of the baptismal water did not determine the validity of a baptism (204-205).
I was particularly intrigued by the bit about a sign being "minimized" to a point of losing "its theological significance." I've often felt that way about communion: It's talked about like it's a feast when really it's a minuscule piece of often tasteless bread or cracker followed by watered down reconstituted grape juice. If anything it makes you wonder why you bother rather than being a sensual connection to the sacrifice of the Son of God.
