Rev. Dr. James A. Keeton, Jr., Contributing Writer
As a teenager, I attended a revival at an African Methodist Episcopal Church in South Georgia for one year, where a local Baptist pastor preached. During one of his sermons, he discussed baptism and advocated certain aspects of baptismal theology that our denomination does not practice. He spoke about immersion as the only “correct” method of baptism and advocated for re-baptism. Needless to say, promoting practices contrary to Methodist doctrine did not go over well in a traditional AME congregation. When the Baptist pastor heard of some members’ displeasure with the AME Church, he was more determined than ever to express his theology.
Soon after the revival, there was a large funeral in the community, with both Baptist and AME relatives. The same Baptist pastor preached at the funeral. With little to no regard for the family, the pastor spent more than 10 minutes in the first part of the eulogy expressing his Baptist doctrine of baptism. It was in these moments that I learned just how divisive baptismal theology can be throughout the Christian Church – the two most divisive aspects being the mode of baptism and re-baptism. The latter of which I will focus on in this article.
Along with the Lord’s Supper, baptism is one of two sacraments that we celebrate in the AME Church. The word “sacrament” derives from a Latin word which means “mystery.” It is a mystery because we cannot fully comprehend or articulate what God does in the waters of baptism. Baptism focuses on God’s action, not ours. It is the grace of God that invites us to the waters of baptism, and we receive God’s gifts of regeneration and incorporation into God’s family. Therefore, we do not re-baptize because that would imply God’s work in baptism is somehow incomplete or that God’s grace fades. Both of these assumptions conflict with our theological beliefs.
The Doctrine and Discipline of the African Methodist Episcopal Church (2024) says, “But in no case shall our ministers re-baptize any person. Any person who knowingly violates this prohibition shall be subject to suspension or location as the Annual Conference may judge.” The law of the church is clear. Any minister who knowingly re-baptizes someone is subject to severe disciplinary action by the Annual Conference. So, if we cannot re-baptize, what can we do?
As a denomination, when we baptize infants, we need to have a uniform confirmation class that is offered in every congregation. This class will allow young people, upon coming of age, to understand the meaning of baptism, learn the tenets of the Christian faith, and publicly affirm their baptismal vows. For adults who were baptized as infants, the “Order for an Affirmation of the Baptismal Covenant” in the AMEC Book of Worship provides an opportunity to reaffirm their baptismal vows without re-baptism. Baptism is our incorporation into the Family of God, and it is vital that we understand this sacrament and can instruct others in its significance.
Thank you for this article. The issue of re-baptism has been an underground issue in the church for generations. I am an AME “Lifer” in my 70s. In my generation we were also taught that our message is God focused. Focused on encouraging accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and personal Saviour. That will get us eternal life and into heaven, baptism or no baptism. Baptism is not a requirement for salvation. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” I really appreciate this article.
Thank you for sharing this excerpt: “For adults who were baptized as infants, the “Order for an Affirmation of the Baptismal Covenant” in the AMEC Book of Worship provides an opportunity to reaffirm their baptismal vows without re-baptism.”
Still, there are those of us who, though baptized as infants, long for the experience of being immersed in water as a personal expression of faith after being born again. The AME Church would do well to recognize this desire among its members and embrace it rather than discourage it.
Sis. Settle, I whole heartedly agree with you. The statement in the above article, “It is the grace of God that invites us….”, suggests that it is, on some level, a conscious choice. An infant cannot make such a choice. While some may be willing to accept their infant baptism after satisfactory explanation, others are indeed deprived of the personal experience. How about using the renewal of the baptism covenant and incorporating water as a symbol of said covenant renewal. Besides, unless I missed something, I don’t recall Jesus mentioning anything about re-baptism. Could it be that Jesus felt that God’s people had “bigger fish to fry” on their spiritual transformation journey than how many times they are dipped in the water?
Stephen A. Lee,
I wholeheartedly agree that we have bigger fish to fry than debating about re-baptism. A preacher once said, baptism is an outward symbol of an inward belief. The water can’t transform you it’s merely a mark that symbolizes your relationship with God and the wider body of Christ. That’s why some go down a devil and come back up a wet devil because that relationship, that commitment to Christ and holy living has not occurred. I am always reminded of the Whitney Houston re-baptism experience when I hear that statement. She was re-baptized in the Jordan River because she really desired a complete turning away from sin and her drug addition but apart from an authentic relationship with Christ repentance and renewal are impossible to accomplish on one’s own volition. Which brings me back to the issue of baptism being a symbol of our faith. While infants can’t make the decision to follow Christ, their parents can dedicate their lives to Christ raise them in the faith to ensure they are prepared to make the decision to give their lives to Christ when Christ knocks on the door of their hearts and invites them to do so.