John the Baptistic (2).
I am grateful to have been reminded that Adult Baptism is not without some controversy. Back in 1979 I joined a pioneering charismatic church in Bradford which had very clear views on adult baptism. (Incidentally isn't it curious how such churches could be quite legalistic?)

They took the view that only Baptism by "full immersion" was valid. It was suggested that the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" (that's another story!) might be hindered by disobeying God's ordinance. I remember querying this with one of the elders; "what if you don't quite immerse [the candidate] completely? What if you stumble at the key moment and don't quite immerse them, you know.... a bit of their head is still showing... would their baptism be invalid?" I don't recall ever getting a satisfactory answer beyond a withering "stupid boy" look! which I took to mean "I'd make sure I did it right!" So I'm still unclear what they ever meant by 'valid'.

It did make me think that, maybe unwittingly, this particular church had an overly sacramental view of the ordinance.... by which I mean, not performing the ritual correctly could materially affect one's relationship with God! It struck me then to be a denial of God's grace, and I still consider it to be a denial of God's grace now. I note that the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith states "Immersion, that is to say, the dipping of the believer in water, is essential for the due administration of this ordinance" (Ch 29, part 4). This seems to me to be way too prescriptive. Why and in what way is this mode essential? "Essential" is a very strong word to apply, particularly if they actually meant pertaining to the essence of Baptism! It strikes me as ridiculous to dogmatize about the mode of Baptism. Don't get me wrong, my instinct is toward "full immersion" because that fits the symbolism (of burial & resurrection) better but my greater instinct is not to make a ritual a barrier to fellowship with a believer who takes a different view!

Incidentally I recall William Taylor, the rector of St Helen's Bishopsgate, making exactly the same point about "full immersion" during a Sunday morning sermon and how legalism on this point can be a sign that we are more Galatian than Christian!

Since 1979 and my encounter with the Bradford elder I mentioned I have been fairly agnostic on the mode of Baptism. The question really is 'what is the essence of Baptism'? It is all well and good to agree to differ on secondary issues - but what happens when one party sees it as a primary issue?