Reading: Methods, Chapter 9: Training for Baptism and Ordination

Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours?
By Roland Allen

Chapter 9: The Training of Candidates for Baptism and Ordination

We have tried to discover what teaching St. Paul gave to his converts. This teaching followed, it did not precede, baptism. For baptism, apparently very little knowledge of Christian truth was required as an indispensable condition. St. Paul baptized the jailor at Philippi, for instance, upon his bare confession of belief in Jesus as Saviour, after an instruction which only lasted an hour or two in the night. Under such circumstances he certainly could not have taught the man very much of the life and doctrine of Christ. He was satisfied that a spiritual change had taken place; there was some sign of repentance, some profession of faith, and that sufficed. Apparently, any one who was prepared to confess his sins and acknowledge Jesus as Lord might be baptized. This seems to be the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the account of the baptism of whole households. The head of the house accepted Christ as the Saviour; the household did so too, following their natural leader. They were all alike baptized, and then instructed as members of the Christian congregation.

But it does not follow that the great body of converts were baptized without any careful instruction. We know that very early in the history of the Church a complete system of training was provided. Even if we suppose that many of St. Paul's converts were baptized without much teaching, it does not follow that the rite was carelessly and indiscriminately administered.

There is nothing in the evidence before us to show that St. Paul would have approved the practice of some who have baptized multitudes of uninstructed people in order to secure that their children might receive a Christian education, with the hope that the second generation would become Christian in thought and deed. There is still less to show that he would have approved of the practice of others who have baptized multitudes of heathen on their own undivided responsibility, simply because they have thought that they had evidence that their words had gone home and that the hearts of the people had been touched, and thereafter have only too often left them, an isolated, unorganized group of individuals, baptized indeed, but wholly ignorant how to walk as becomes the Gospel of Christ.

On the other hand, there is nothing in the evidence before us to support the somewhat stiff practice of many of the Anglican missions were a definite and very long period of probation in the classes of hearers and catechumens is prescribed, and exceptions can only be made with the special permission of the bishop. We have adopted this practice in some form or other, more or less rigid, in order that the reality and sincerity of converts may be thoroughly tested, and that they may receive the fullest possible education in Christian doctrine and morals before they are admitted into the company of the faithful. By this means we have undoubtedly restricted the number of our converts, and it is not certain that we have succeeded in attaining an exceptionally high standard of morals and education. We have also run a great risk of confusing the minds of the converts as to the true meaning and the nature of baptism. We have taught them that union with Christ is the source of strength, we have taught them that baptism is the sacrament of unity, and then we have told them that they must prove their sincerity by practicing virtue in their own strength before they can be admitted to the sacrament by which they are to receive strength to be virtuous. In other words, we have taught them that the one great need of men is Christ, and that without Christ men cannot attain to righteousness, and then that they must attain to righteousness by themselves in order to receive Christ.

The evidence in the New Testament here, as elsewhere, will not provide us with a neat, ready-made rule, which we can follow without thought. What it does show is that in St. Paul's teaching the requirements for holy baptism were repentance and faith. The moment a man showed that he had repentance and faith he was baptized into Christ Jesus, in order that Christ in him might perfect that repentance and faith, and bring it to its full end, holiness in the Body of Christ.

The question of difficulty is, Who is to decide whether the candidate is honest in his confession of repentance and faith?

In some cases it is certain that St. Paul himself was the sole judge of the reality of the spiritual change, and of the truth of the profession, but it is equally certain that this was not always the case. The majority of the Christians were baptized in his absence; and even when he was present, he did not always baptize them himself. The saying in the first Epistle to the Corinthians that Christ sent him 'not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel', has surely a wider reference than to that one city. It is a general truth expressed in general terms. I cannot reconcile this statement with the common assertion that St. Paul, or his companions in travel, acting on his authority, made it a general practice to baptize all the early converts. Professor Swete, for example, says that it is probable that St. Paul's companions generally baptized, and this opinion is commonly taken for granted. But there is really no evidence by which to support it.

In Corinth, we know that St. Paul baptized only three or four people, one of whom was a man of influence and authority. We know that when a brother was excommunicated, St. Paul did not act alone, and that he did not ordain without first obtaining the approval of the brethren. The inference seems to me irresistible that St. Paul and his fellow-workers admitted first only a few people of known reputation, who showed unmistakable signs of faith, and thereafter left the duty of accepting or refusing candidates very largely to these men, who were themselves from the very nature of the case in a position to possess or to acquire sound knowledge of the character and motives of those who offered themselves for baptism. But whether he did this whilst he was present or not, it is perfectly certain that his speedy departure threw this responsibility upon the local church.

I cannot help thinking that here we find one of the most important elements of his success. By leaving the church to decide who should be admitted, he established firmly the great principle of mutual responsibility. The church was a brotherhood, and the brethren suffered if any improper person was admitted to their society. They knew the candidates intimately. They were in the best possible position to judge who were fit and proper candidates. That they might make mistakes, and that they did make great mistakes, is sufficiently obvious; but if they made mistakes, they made them at their own peril. In this matter of mutual responsibility, a little practical experience is worth a great weight of verbal teaching.

In our modern missionary practice we have constantly, almost invariably, violated this principle. We have constantly thrown the whole responsibility for the administration of baptism upon a foreign teacher who, as a stranger, is in the worst possible position to judge the real motives and character of those who offer themselves for baptism, and by so doing we have done much to weaken the sense of mutual responsibility among our converts. We have taught them that the church is a brotherhood, and that they must all work together for the good of the whole, but in practice we have denied their right and their duty to exercise that responsibility, and that at the most vital point.

It is true that we commonly require native sponsors. But it can hardly, I think, be said that we have by that requirement succeeded in throwing the real responsibility of admission upon the local church. If a man has been prepared, or examined, and accepted by the priest in charge, the mere fact that he has been so accepted exercises an overwhelming influence over the minds of an oriental congregation. They will not appear to resist the authority of their spiritual masters; and where, as is sometimes the case, the priest claims, or readily accepts, sole responsibility for the administration of the sacrament, they naturally allow the claim. It is a very extreme action to oppose the baptism of a man, whom the priest in charge has declared his willingness to accept.

Many a man has been baptized who would not have been admitted if the whole body of the church had realized that the responsibility for his admission rested with them, and had had the opportunity to express their opinion in their own way. Even as it is, men sometimes fail to find sponsors, though we can at the moment perceive no reason why they should fail; but such cases are, I fancy, rare. I cannot see what we gain by assuming responsibility and acting on our own authority in these matters. We are often left to act in much doubt and perplexity. The unworthy are not always rejected or sent back for further teaching; the worthy are not always accepted. We do not avoid the dangers of mistaken judgments, we rob the people of the right and duty of expressing themselves and so exercising and realizing by exercise their mutual responsibility one for another. I should like to see it accepted as a general principle that converts should be presented by members of the church to the church, and accepted by the church and baptized on the authority of the whole local church acting as a church.

As with the admission of converts, so with the appointment of elders, there was some responsibility recognized by the brethren. I cannot here enter upon the question of the meaning and form of ordination in the early Church; I am dealing only with the method which St. Paul practiced in the appointment of elders in the churches of his foundation. There is no doubt that he did appoint elders; and it seems to be equally clear that he did not appoint simply on his own initiative, acting on his own private judgment. This is borne out by the constant emphasis laid upon 'good report', and by the term which St. Luke employs to describe his action. As in the case of 'the seven' at Jerusalem, so in the Four Provinces, there was some form of election.

But it may be argued that the evidence for election is not sufficient and that St. Paul did in the first instance appoint elders simply on his own authority and judgment. In that case, the parallel to his administration of baptism will be even more exact. For, as we shall see later, the elders appointed by St. Paul had authority to ordain as well as to baptize. If then the first elders were appointed simply by St. Paul they must be compared with the first converts who were baptized by St. Paul. Just as he baptized three or four and then committed the responsibility for admitting others to those whom he had baptized; so he ordained three or four and committed the authority for ordaining others into their hands.

There is not a shred of evidence that any congregation created its own elders by-election alone. There is evidence that congregations did have some say in the election of elders. There is evidence that St. Paul did commit authority to appoint elders to others (notably to Timothy and Titus), and that this authority very early became concentrated in the hands of a single local bishop. But the right of the congregation to have some say in the appointment is manifest throughout the period with which we are dealing. By this means the principle of mutual responsibility was again made prominent.

Furthermore, this principle was maintained by the fact that St. Paul ordained as elders members of the church to which they belonged. He did not establish a provincial school to which all candidates for ordination must go, and from which they might be sent to minister to congregations in any part of the province, at the bidding of a central committee or at his own. The elders were really of the church to which they ministered. They were at home. They were known to the members of their flock. If they received any pecuniary support, they received it from men who supported them because they felt the need of their undivided and uninterrupted care. Thus the bond between the elders and the church to which they ministered was extremely close.

This is of the utmost importance. It makes a great difference if the ministers feel some responsibility to those to whom they minister, and if the general congregation feels some responsibility for the character and work of those who are set over them. Where candidates for the ministry are selected by the superior order, where they are ordained solely on the authority of the superior order, and are appointed to their posts by the sole direction of the superior order, those who are so appointed are apt to lose any sense of responsibility to the congregation among whom they minister, and the congregation feels no responsibility for them. The result is an inevitable weakening of what should be the strongest support, both to clergy and laity. Where the superior order consists almost wholly of foreigners, the result is often deplorable. The catechists, teachers, deacons, and priests, so sent out, are wholly independent of the one authority which they really understand, native public opinion; solely dependent upon the one authority which they seldom can understand, the foreign missionary. Consequently they are always striving to act as they think will please the foreigners, they imitate them as closely as possible, they fear to take any independent action, whilst the members of the congregation on their side feel that they have nothing to do with their appointment. They accept their ministrations so long as they are not seriously offended; they tolerate, but they do not support them; and if anything goes wrong, they disclaim all responsibility.

The elders so appointed were not young. They were apparently selected became they were men of high moral character, sober, grave, men of weight and reputation. When St. Paul ordained younger men, as Timothy, he took them away with him to act as his assistants and ministers that they might receive from him deeper lessons of Christian doctrine and practice than they could learn at home; but, in the provinces, he ordained, to be the first leaders of the Church, men who thoroughly understood the condition and requirements of their congregations, men who were respected by the congregations for their moral and social position.

They were not necessarily highly educated men, they cannot have had any profound knowledge of Christian doctrine. It is impossible that St. Paul can have required from them any knowledge of Hebrew, or of any foreign language. From the evidence set forth above, it seems unlikely that he could have required any great acquaintance with the life and teachings of Christ. It is not probable that he expected or demanded any profound knowledge of Greek philosophy. It is inevitable that he must have been satisfied with a somewhat limited general education, and with a more or less meager acquaintance with the Septuagint and with his mystical interpretation of it, with a knowledge of the brief outline of Christian doctrine set forth in the Epistle to the Thessalonians, and some instruction in the meaning and method of administration of the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper.

The qualifications of elders were primarily moral. If they added to moral qualifications intellectual qualifications so much the better, but high intellectual qualifications were not deemed necessary. Very early there grew up a class of teachers who by virtue of their spiritual insight into the meaning of the Old Testament, or the sayings of Christ known to them, occupied a place of great importance in the Church; but they were not necessarily elders. This is the state of affairs depicted in the Didaché, and the Didascalia agrees with this. 'If it be possible let him (the bishop) be a teacher, or if he be illiterate, let him be persuasive and wise of speech: let him be advanced in years.'

They were not an inferior order. 'Upon the whole,' says Professor Gwatkin, 'their position and duties (apart from the question of a possible superior) are not unlike those of the priest as described in the English Original. Their duty was to look after and care for the general well-being of the body, and to administer the Sacraments. The Sacraments unquestionably were administered in the churches founded by St. Paul; and I take it for granted that they could not be administered indiscriminately by any convert. In saying this I do not wish it to be supposed that I deny that prophets and inspired men celebrated the mysteries and exercised very wide powers. I am simply asserting that the elders appointed, either by St. Paul or under his direction, did exercise these powers. The importance of the ordination of elders lay in this, that when a church was equipped with elders, it possessed not merely leaden, but men properly appointed to see that the Sacraments, without which it would have been starved in its spiritual life and crippled in the work of expansion, were duly performed.

They were indeed of an order different from that which we now call priesthood, and in one respect higher. They not only administered Sacraments: they ordained others; for there is no suggestion that St. Paul ever ordained a second time in any church of his foundation. Moreover, we read that the churches grew in Paul's absence, and we know by name at least one organized church of which St. Paul himself says that he had not seen the members. There is no reason to suppose that these new churches were destitute of ministers and sacraments, nor is there any account of special ordinations of special ministers for them. Either, then, they received the sacraments at the hands of spiritual persons who were recognized as spiritual pastors in virtue of their charismatic gifts, or their ministers were appointed by those whom St. Paul had ordained in the churches directly established by him. Without excluding the possibility of the former alternative in some cases, I think that the evidence inclines us to accept the latter as the general rule. Later in his career St. Paul specially appointed Timothy and others to exercise what we should today call episcopal functions; but in the ten years now under consideration we hear of no such apostolic bishops. Nevertheless the practice of St. Paul himself, and the inference to be drawn from all the known cases of ordination, lead us to believe that it was an accepted principle that authority to administer Sacraments was not left to the individual claim of any person who might assume it, nor given by mere election, but was definitely conferred by those who could show that they themselves had been appointed by the Lord to perform such acts. Consequently, it seems to be an irresistible conclusion that the elders appointed by St. Paul were definitely appointed with power to add to their number and thus to secure to new churches a proper order and certainty of sacramental grace.

Finally, St. Paul was not content with ordaining one elder for each church. In every place he ordained several. This ensured that all authority should not be concentrated in the hands of one man. It ensured the possibility of frequent administrations of the Sacraments. The infant church was not left to depend for its spiritual sustenance upon the weakness of a single individual. Responsibility was divided and many were enlisted in the service of the church. Thus the whole body grew together. As the general knowledge increased, the older men died, and younger men, who had grown up with the new generation and shared their education and experience, gradually took their place and became the natural leaders and the ordained successors of their fathers, whilst young teachers who had a gift for preaching found their opportunities and their experience in the open services of the church.

In our day, on the contrary, there has been a tendency to concentrate all functions in the fewest possible hands. The same man is a priest and teacher and administrator, sometimes architect and builder as well. We have set up a purely artificial standard of learning as the necessary qualification for the ministry. We have required a long and expensive college education as a preparation even for the office of deacon. We have taken the youngest men and trained them to occupy the position of authority, such very limited authority as a native may exercise under the supervision of a foreign priest-in-charge.

The examination test is made the real test of fitness for the priesthood. Moral qualifications may suffice for the office of catechist, but if a man is to proceed further he must pass an examination of a very artificial character. In other words, we select by examination. That system has long been tried, and is already being seriously questioned at home, and it does not seem to appeal to oriental minds as reasonable. In an address presented to the Lieutenant-Governor by the leaders of the Muslim community of the Punjab in 1904, they said:

Of course in our selection of candidates for Orders, we do not rely wholly upon examinations. The candidate must bear a good moral character. But the fact remains that we have made too much of the intellectual test. That objection has been repeated by many missionaries -- not only evangelistic, but educational. When we are constantly engaged in criticizing the method of our Civil Governors in such a matter as this, it seems absurd that we should continue to imitate what we so often condemn.

Four very serious consequences have followed upon our action:

(1) The people have been deprived of the Sacraments. Our mission priests have often large numbers of communicants scattered over a very wide area, entirely dependent upon them for the administration of the Sacraments, with the result, that the people have the opportunity to receive the Sacraments only at rare intervals. These priests have often under them many excellent and devoted catechists who cannot be ordained, solely because they have not had a college education. Thus we deny the Bread of Life to people whom we teach to believe that partaking of the Bread of Life is the first duty of the Christian, and the first necessity for spiritual growth. It requires no great education to be able to celebrate the Holy Mysteries. We have put intellectual qualifications in the first place, with the result that the congregations starve whilst we educate a few young men.

(2) The young men so educated are sometimes, by that very education, out of touch with their congregations. They return to their people with strange ideas and strange habits. They are lonely, and they have to struggle against the perils of loneliness. They are not even the best teachers of people from whose intellectual and spiritual life they have so long been absent. They do not know how to answer their difficulties or to supply their necessities. They know so much Christian doctrine and philosophy that they have forgotten the religion of their country. The congregation has not grown with them, nor they with the congregation. They come, as it were, from outside, and only a few exceptional men can learn to overcome that difficulty.

(3) The grave men of the church, the natural leaders of the village life, and the natural leaders of the church are silenced. The church is not led and administered by the people to whom all would naturally turn, but either by a foreigner, or by a young man who has come with a foreign education. In this way a great source of strength is lost. The real elders of the community are not elders in the church, and the whole church suffers in consequence.

(4) The natural teacher, the divinely gifted preacher, is silenced. The only teacher is the foreign-educated minister. There is no opportunity for the church to find its prophets, nor for the prophets to find themselves. The prophet is in danger either of losing his gift or of leaving the church in order to find an opportunity for its exercise. This is not to say that there is no place for the foreign-educated teacher. He may be said to resemble in some respects the young ministers whom St. Paul educated in his own society by constant association with himself. Carefully selected and diligently trained, these men might go about as preachers and teachers of deeper truths and higher knowledge, the messengers of, and fellow-workers with, the white missionary, who, relieved of the overwhelming burden of personal ministration to numbers of small congregations over a vast area, could constantly be in touch with his churches, and yet have opportunity to open up new centers of work. It is absolutely essential that the founder of churches should keep in close touch with the communities which he has established, so that he may be able at any moment to intervene in any crisis or serious difficulty which may arise. St. Paul needed Timothy and Titus, and we sorely need zealous and capable lieutenants whom we can despatch with haste to any point of our missions where the less educated and less trained leaders may be in danger of falling into error. We need such fellow workers not only to help us in directing the infant communities; we need them also to help us in breaking new ground. It is in working with them in evangelistic tours that we can best train them both before and after they leave college, and in evangelistic tours, they may be of great service in instructing inquirers.

Four things, then, we see St. Paul deemed necessary for the establishment of his churches, and only four. A tradition or elementary Creed, the Sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Communion, Orders, and the Holy Scriptures. He trained his converts in the simplest and most practical form. He delivered these to them. He exercised them as a body in the understanding and practice of them, and he left them to work them out for themselves as a body whilst he himself went on with his own special work. He was ready at any moment to encourage or direct them by messengers, by letters, or by personal visits, as they needed direction or encouragement; but he neither desired, nor attempted, to stay with them, or to establish his ministers amongst them to do for them what he was determined that they must learn to do for themselves. He knew the essential elements, and he trained his converts in those and in those alone, and he trained them by teaching them to use what he gave them.