Chuck Says:
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:53 am eWes et al,
I am one of the elders and teaching pastors at Henderson Hills. It has been interesting to read your comments on this blog. Thank you for grappling with this important issue. I’d like to offer a few comments in response to what has been recorded. Please understand my goal is not to be defensive, argumentative, or stir up more controversy. My heart in responding on this blog is to try and adequately express our position, and respond in love to some of what has been said about us. If anything in my reply appears to be defensive, arrogant, or disrespectful, please forgive me. That is not my intention at all.
Let me state our position succinctly: 1) Baptism is a vital act of obedience every Christian is commanded to follow willingly. Its mode is immersion, its candidate is a believer, and its meaning is to identify with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. It should take place as close to one’s salvation experience as possible. Any mode of baptism other than immersion is not baptism. 2) Church membership is vital to the growth, health, and protection of every believer. Every believer should commit themselves to a local church, making the commitment before God and other believers to pursue spiritual transformation and help others do the same. Other than salvation, we can find no list of prerequisites or qualifications for church membership in Scripture. For this reason, any local church can determine what requirements seem best in their particular setting. We believe to deny fellowship to any genuine believer desiring membership should only be done with great caution and scriptural support. 3) We find no concept in Scripture that baptism must be a criteria, qualification, or prerequisite to membership. Even theologians most adamant about its necessity in that role seem to use little or no biblical support to assert their view. We are troubled that using baptism as an initiatory rite may downgrade its importance, confuse its true meaning, and puts some desiring membership (i.e. – believers who were sprinkled after conversion, believing this was ‘baptism’) in a situation where they might get baptized for the wrong reasons or violate their current interpretation of Scripture, therein violating their conscience. We are also concerned that such a requirement unnecessarily bars some genuine believers from our membership. In order to restore the biblical motivation for and purpose of baptism, we propose de-linking baptism from membership. In order to provide the blessings, responsibilities, and protection of membership to those not yet convinced of their need for baptism by immersion, it seems wise to us to remove this prerequisite. We also intend to discover ways to make baptism and membership even more meaningful in the life of Henderson Hills. Both are vital to the health of believers.
Please understand, we’ve not said to our church, “The Bible demands we remove this prerequisite for church membership. Here’s a list of requirements to join the local church, from Scripture, and baptism is clearly not on it. Therefore, as a church we must remove this sinful, grotesque, awful requirement, in order that our church can be restored from heresy.” I’m being a bit ridiculous to make a point. We’ve tried really hard not to communicate that the Bible expressly demands this change. What we’ve tried to say is something like this: “We’ve studied the Bible extensively, looking closely at baptism, church membership, and any biblical connection between the two. After hundreds of hours of study, we’ve come to the conclusion that Scripture itself does not say that baptism is the credential to church membership. We are concerned that using baptism as a prerequisite downgrades its importance, unnecessarily bars some genuine believers from our fellowship, and encourages incorrect motives for baptism. Both baptism and church membership are too important to ignore our current bylaws. Yes, this is a departure from Baptist history in America (we’ve found many examples of open membership in Great Britain and Australia), and we want you to know that. However, our focus here must be first on God’s authority through Scripture, not on Baptist history or current trends. We might be wrong. Please pray about this, study the issues, and express your understanding of God’s leadership in late July.” If anything other than that type of dialogue is being heard, it’s not what we meant to communicate. It’s not sinful for a church to require baptism, but I cannot say in good conscience that it is wise for our church either. I’ve talked to too many people over the years who say things like, “Alright, I’ll do it because you require me to do it to join; however, I can’t say I thought my ‘baptism’ (after salvation, just by a different mode) was wrong.” Personally, I cannot baptize someone who feels that way. It’s troublesome to me to have any church practice that puts people into that kind of situation.
Paul brought up a very important question in one of his blog entries. How do we deal with the fact that sincere believers from other denominations are coming to our churches, desiring membership, but have not been baptized by immersion? There are scenarios that happen today, that were non-existent in the first century. In order to understand our times and lead with prudence, I believe we can’t ignore these scenarios. Let me illustrate what I mean: For example: A guy named John grew up in a Christian home. At the age of 14 he accepted Christ. It was the defining moment of his life. About six months later, he was “baptized” by sprinkling to identify himself with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. It was a meaningful event in his life, which he understood as fulfilling Jesus’ command to be baptized. Now, John is 40 years old. He and his family would like to join our church. He is a godly father, husband, and employee. He wants to help his kids grow in Christ, just like his parents did for him. He spends time in the Word every morning. He and his family want to be a part of a Bible-believing church, where they can invest their time, talents, and treasures. Everything appears to be a “go” – but then, when asked about his baptism, he describes the event. He is asked if he was immersed, he replies, “No. In my church baptism was done by sprinkling, but we did not see it as salvific. I understood why I was being baptized and am so glad I took that step.” In response, we explain to him that every time baptism is discussed in Scripture, it is clear immersion is the only mode. We ask him to prayerfully consider being baptized by immersion to follow the biblical pattern. A week later he comes back and says, “My current understanding is that my baptism was valid. It would violate my conscience to be baptized here, since I believe I have already been baptized. Although it is an infrequent use of the word, I understand ‘baptizo’ can mean to sprinkle, so it seems to be that the biblical evidence is not conclusive. Although we disagree on this one issue, I still very much desire to join this church.” Under our current bylaws, we would have to decline his application for membership. This would mean John would probably either: A) Choose to be baptized to “join the church”, still believing it isn’t something he needs to do (a very awkward scenario for us as a church to put someone in); B) Decide not to join the church and leave. Neither of these seem like good answers to us. It would seem most Christian for us to accept him as a member, assign a pastor or elder to follow up with him on his need to be baptized, pray for him to come to the point of seeing he has not be scripturally baptized, allow him to sit under godly teaching (part of which includes baptism), and let him enjoy the blessings, accountability, and protection of church membership. This is the kind of situation we are concerned with. Why deny John the opportunity to be a part of a church that teaches the Bible; why deny him the opportunity to hear the biblical mode of baptism, and bathe him in prayer, sincerely anticipating that over time, he will decide to be baptized—for the right reasons? We, the elders, cannot in good conscience tell someone the Bible demands their membership be denied over baptism. Now, one might say, “In Scripture, believing and being baptized seem to happen on the same day”, and that be completely true. However, in the 1st century, there were no churches practicing sprinkling as a mode of baptism after salvation. There were no Christians having conflicting things being taught to them about baptism. So, we have to reason from what seems wise to us today. Please know we are not saying sprinkling is baptism: it is not. Nevertheless, we do not see Scripture requiring baptism as a prerequisite to membership.
The Bible does not directly address what the requirements for church membership are (except salvation); however, it does address baptism and as far as we can tell, never does so in such a way as to give any indication its purpose is to serve as an initiatory right into local church membership. If someone can show us that from Scripture, we’ll withdraw this proposal. Also, Scripture clearly gives teaching regarding being committed, active, and involved as an appendage in the local church (Rom 12, 1 Cor 12, etc). Church membership is a method to help people do that. The nature of and purpose for membership is something Scripture does speak to, even though membership qualifications do not appear. For these reasons, it seems to us we need to make this change. One of the beautiful things about the Bible is it gives us a great deal of freedom to decide how practical issues should be handled in the church. This is one of those areas where it seems we have some freedom—freedom to prayerfully decide what prerequisites are needed for church membership.
Guys, perhaps we have a slightly different view of church membership itself. My guess is that we don’t disagree, but that perhaps our semantics about membership leaves some things unclear. What is the purpose of membership? What is the nature of it? Let me explain. Several people seem to assert that since not being baptized is sin (which it is, of course), and if someone is in unrepentant sin, then it automatically follows then that he cannot become a church member. One person wrote that someone who wants membership but does not consent to baptism is “unregenerate or disobedient, and in neither case are they a candidate for church membership.” While I appreciate the heart of these statements, the logic does not seem to hold water (pun intended). Is baptism the litmus test of salvation? Can we tell if someone is a believer merely by looking at one act, or lack of act? If churches were to restrict membership from people with unrepentant sin, people who were disobedient in some area of their lives, our churches would have very few, if any, members. In other words, if we told people, “Hey, membership is only for the mature in the faith. It’s only for those who have conquered all areas of sin.” , then where would we be? Most of us would be without a church home. Do we deny membership to people who want to join but do not give financially to the church? Do we deny membership to people who are not planning to serve in an area of ministry? Do we deny membership to a person who struggles with the sin of alcoholism? I’m sure you see my point. Yes, absolutely, we are to call people to repent of their sins, come under the Lordship of Christ in all areas of their lives, and stand against easy-believism, yet isn’t a commitment to a local church (church membership) imperative in the sanctification process of every believer? Isn’t one of the primary purposes of church membership to help people grow up in their faith? We are troubled that our current bylaws prohibit from our membership some people who are clearly part of the universal Church. How could we stand before Jesus as His under-shepherds and say, “They could get into the Heaven but I’m sorry, they can’t get into this local church”? We believe if you can get into Heaven, you ought to be able to get into this church. We will then take responsibility to teach, develop, hold accountable, and so on. Baptism’s biblical purpose seems to not be to identify with a local church; it is to identify with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Paul’s baptism and the Ethiopian official’s baptism are clear examples of baptism having nothing to do with local church membership. Again if someone can show us where Scripture even implies that baptism is to be used as a prerequisite we would gladly withdraw this proposal and admit our mistake. However, to date, no one has argued that from Scripture. We’ve heard lots of arguments based on polity and tradition, but very few based on theology. This is unfortunate.
Regarding whether or not we can remain a Baptist church if this proposal is affirmed, there are a number of things I feel compelled to say here. First of all, we have no desire to depart from the CBA, BGCO, or SBC. Wes, to be frank, I find your clear statement that we are being dishonest about that troubling (“their assertions to the contrary”). It’s one thing to question on understanding of Scripture, our polity, and our process. It is another thing altogether to assert our motives are impure, mixed with selfish ambition, or dishonest. Please don’t spread that type of thing. It is gossip and hearsay. It does nothing but harm the Kingdom of God. While you might perceive our actions say otherwise, I give you my word that is not our desire and intention. Second, we do not believe this action constitutes a departure from Baptist theology and life worth dis-fellowship. I will explain below.
In one post it was said, “Our convention should not, in my opinion, take action, but rather confirm their action.” We respectfully disagree, and others in our denomination have too. In fact, a former leader in the BGCO and an annuity board representative both told us ahead of time that they did not believe this issue would come down to terminating our participation in Baptist life. Furthermore, since the proposal has gone public, we’ve had Baptist pastors tell us several interesting things: some have said this (our proposal) is what practically happens at their churches, even though the official position of the church contradicts it; others have told us that the linkage between baptism and membership has bothered them for years but they just didn’t know what to do about it. So, we aren’t the only Baptists who feel this way. We figured there would be some conflict, but the jury is still out on how this whole thing will turn out. We’ve merely asked our church to pray, read the materials, and search the Scripture to see if we are wrong. We aren’t doing away with the distinctive from which we get our name. What we are proposing is to do away with is the concept we were unable to find in Scripture — that baptism should be used as a prerequisite to church membership. It would be a huge disappointment if we can agree on the candidate (believers), mode (immersion), meaning (symbolizing the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ), and disagree on one point (whether it is best to use it as a prerequisite to church membership), and that one point be worthy of dis-fellowship. That is not our desire at HHBC at all. It is a misrepresentation and misinterpretation of our clear statements and actions to assert otherwise.
Prior to taking this issue before our congregation, we met with the executive director of the BGCO, the executive director of the Capital Baptist Association, the director of missions in our area, and several others. We expressed our respect for them, desire to stay affiliated, and process by which we came to this proposal. If we did not wish to stay affiliated with the SBC, BGCO, and CBA, we obviously would have taken none of those steps. Out of respect and courtesy, we informed denominational leadership, so that they would not hear of it second-hand. Our hope and prayer is that no matter what the outcome of the proposal, we can stand shoulder to shoulder with fellow Baptists for years to come. We aren’t doing away with baptism, and in fact, we are working at discovering ways to make it even more meaningful. There’s no loss of the Baptist commitment to baptism by immersion, for the purpose of identifying with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ in our plans.
Brothers, at our core shouldn’t the first question be: “What does Scripture say?” not, “Is it Baptist?” Isn’t that very question the thing that has united us around the Book? What I love about Baptists through the ages is our love for Scripture. We are famous for our commitment to the Book. If at any point we superimpose Baptist tradition over the text of Scripture, we are in big trouble. It is very Baptist to go the pages of Scripture, see what it says, then change as necessary. For our local church, we simply don’t find the scriptural meaning of baptism to be an entrance requirement into the local church. We believe baptism ought to be lifted out of that and placed back on the beautiful ground of proclaiming the death, burial, and resurrection of our Savior. That is our heart. We may be wrong, but it is only out of an intention to try to be a thoroughly biblical church. All of you have the right to interpret Scripture, and all it implies, in your own setting. We are not telling other churches what they need to do, only what seems right to us for Henderson Hills.
Based on the above, I would ask you who seem to want us dis-fellowshipped: On what basis do you believe it is a godly, scriptural, and Baptist course of action to aim to remove us from the BGCO? Some are appealing to the Baptist Faith and Message. We could do that too. I’d encourage you to read the preamble if you’ve not does so recently. It is true that the proposal we are praying over does differ with the Baptist Faith and Message at one point: that baptism as a church ordinance is a prerequisite to church membership and the Lord’s Supper. We simply don’t see that concept in Scripture; however, that doesn’t mean it is necessarily sinful or unwise. In fact, there may have been a time in history when it was important to think of membership in that way. There may be churches where it is still important. Nevertheless, if Scripture doesn’t give a list of qualifications for membership, then we should be free to disagree on them and still fellowship together. The Baptist Faith and Message was never intended to be a creedal document by which we all must agree with every word in order to remain Baptist. Here’s a portion of the preamble, written in 1925, and used in every revision since then. You can view this by following this link.
Statement of the historic Baptist conception of the nature and function of confessions of faith in our religious and denominational life…(2) That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time.
(3) That any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so.
(4) That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.
(5) That they are statements of religious convictions, drawn from the Scriptures, and are not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life.
Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches.
Those who accuse us of being un-Baptist because we are proposing a slight conflict with the BF&M (which we concede), are actually in slight conflict with it themselves as well. That document was never meant to be creed by which exact belief is required in every Baptist church. I’m afraid we are on a slippery slope if we begin to use it in a way never intended. Our hope is that in the end these wise words from the preamble will still be heeded. Our desire is to continue to stand alongside you, brothers, as HHBC has done for 42 years. We had a great deal of respect for our heritage. I was saved in a Baptist church, baptized in a Baptist church, called to ministry in a Baptist church, met my wife and was married in a Baptist church, ordained in a Baptist church, attended a Southern Baptist seminary, dedicated my daughter to the Lord in a Baptist church, and serve in a Baptist church. There are many things about Baptists I love. I love our commitment to Scripture. I love our commitment to the priesthood of the believer. I love our commitment to reaching people for Christ — no matter what it takes. I love our commitment to biblical baptism. I love our commitment to the autonomy of every local church. But, as I hope is true with all of you, when I’m cut, I bleed Christian, not Baptist. My core identity is a follower of Jesus Christ, whose name I bear. My allegiance is ultimately to Him and His Word. But please don’t misunderstand me, our hope is that you all would not see this proposal as a stepping away from Baptists, but a desire to help our church interpret and apply Scripture in a way that remains faithful to the text and relevant to the circumstances we find ourselves in. We simply want to be a church that is constantly reforming into more and more of a biblical church. We aren’t there yet, but we believe this is one more step in that direction, for us. We do not and will not judge any other church for not taking this step nor for disagreeing with us. Let’s stand together for the sake of the Gospel.
If you’ve not yet done so, I’d encourage you to go to our website, listen to the sermons, and read the documents. We’ve tried to do this in the open so it would be clear we have nothing to hide. Again, please read our proposal closely. If you disagree, that is fine. As we are telling people in our church, “If you read the material, search the Scripture, give this issue to God in prayer, and you vote no to the proposal, we will be very satisfied with how this process played out in your life. This is something we can agree to disagree on.” In a spirit of love and unity, we would say the same thing to you. Please pray for us as we seek God’s leadership. We have no desire to stir controversy, be disobedient to the Lord, or miss His guidance for our fellowship.
Have a great Lord’s Day,
Chuck
Kevin Bussey Says:
July 2nd, 2006 at 9:06 am e
Chuck,
Thanks for sharing your story. It helped me see things a little differently. Blessings to your church!Wes Kenney Says:
July 2nd, 2006 at 9:08 am eChuck,First of all, thank you for taking the time to read the discussion here, and to comment so extensively. Much good must necessarily come from our having a more complete understanding of your thinking and process.
Let me say that I did not intend to make any assertion about your motivation in this. You said, “It is another thing altogether to assert our motives are impure, mixed with selfish ambition, or dishonest.” If I have said this, directly or indirectly, I apologize. I do not question your sincerity in seeking to be true to your interpretation of scripture.
I simply meant to communicate that if your interpretation leads your congregation to forsake the distinctive of a regenerate, baptized church membership, which baptist confessions have articulated since at least 1644, then that action will speak louder than any professed desire to remain a part of a group or groups with which you have declared such fundamental disagreement.
Again, I truly appreciate your willingness, and that of your brother, to engage in debate in these forums. Your willingness to follow your convictions is an example for leaders throughout the body of Christ.
on Jul 2nd, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Chuck:
That’s a thoughtful and seemingly well-motivated dissertation. I would comment only on two things.
One is that, having spent 10 adult years as a Methodist, and another 10 as a Presbyterian, I never heard of baptism by sprinkling as representative of the death, burial, and resurrection. It was always stated as being representative of the coming of the Holy Spirit .. which accounted for why the top of the head is sprinkled, and not the shoulders (or some other part).
Second, I am not sure I see “membership” as we have it, today, in the Bible at all. Maybe it’s stated somewhere, but I’ve not seen it. In fact, Acts 2, verses 41 and 47 refer to souls being added to the church, and 47 specifies it was God who did the adding.
My personal opinion: The “church” (local) as we have it is in a form we’ve invented, so I guess it is indeed up to the local gathering to determine how that should be.
Reply
on Jul 2nd, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Church discipline is in the Bible; therefore, church membership is in the Bible. How can one exclude from membership if there is no membership from which to be excluded? Case closed.
It is possible to have a solid biblical case for something even if you can’t say, “III Corinthians 32:12 gives us the qualifications and steps for church membership.” The biblical case for church membership is as good as the biblical case for the Trinity. It involves a little something called SYSTEMATIC theology.
Today we are reaping the fruit of a century spent deliberately ignoring the study and teaching of ecclesiology. I wish that I could hold every Baptist pastor at gunpoint and force them to read Stan Norman and John Hammett. Hey, maybe that’s an SBC presidential campaign idea that I could go over and post on Wade Burleson’s blog!
Oops! I’m ranting. Sorry about that.
Reply
on Jul 2nd, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Wes,
I am glad Chuck allowed you to post his comment in this manner. There should be a measure of clarity and charity evident in the obvious wrestling through one of the most important issues facing us today – ecclesiology. Too much speculation led to confusions and criticism. Whether one draws the same conclusions as HHBC or not may not really be the issue. Honest wrestling with an important issue in such a way is indeed inspiring.
You have done a great job moderating once again.
Bart,
So, church membership as praciticed today is deduced from church discipline in the Scriptures?
Reply
on Jul 2nd, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Heaven forbid that I should defend “church membership as practiced today.” Practiced by whom? Where? How?
Instead, I am merely asserting that church discipline is incomprehensible apart from some idea of church membership.
Reply
on Jul 2nd, 2006 at 9:24 pm
But historically speaking I’m not sure that church discipline is necessarily tied to local church membership. Martin Luther was not called to give account to his local church but to the larger church. Many of the debates regarding the Trinity and Christology in the early church were not matters simply for the local church. The issues facing the council of Jerusalem in Acts were not necessarily issues the Jerusalem church itself was facing but dealt with questions coming in from local churches elsewhere. Those Gentiles and those other churches were submitting to the larger church body and particularly the apostles.
Certainly church discipline is carried out on the local level as well, but not exclusively so. Surely those people saw themselves as “members” of the larger body of Christ though that didn’t include listing their names on a church role nor did it necessarily give them nor prevent them from leadership roles in the local church.
I’m just unconvinced that church “membership” as we practice it today is anything that the apostolic church would recognize if they saw it. Of course, I’m open to learn.
Reply
on Jul 2nd, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Dear Brother Chuck,
Thank you for such a lengthy, thoughtful post on this subject.
I take issue with your case study at a couple of points:
1. You instruct the good Christian man on proper baptism by immersion. He refuses to obey. But then you get pragmatic and say, “What will he do?” I submit that it is not ultimately your concern to make sure the disobedient man does any certain thing. You have been faithful to instruct him, and he has rejected your Bible-based teaching. The next step should not be to accept him into membership!
2. You and others among your elders keep saying that the alternative to your position is for baptism to be viewed as an initiatory rite into church membership. No it is not! The alternative is for your church never to immerse anyone who sees it that way!
Dear brother, you have no responsibility to provide for the spiritual nurture of believers who refuse to be baptized when you have showed them from the scriptures that they must be.
I agree completely that we must adhere to scripture rather than to Baptist tradition, but in this case Baptist tradition is scriptural!
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Reply
on Jul 3rd, 2006 at 9:28 am
“I wish that I could hold every Baptist pastor at gunpoint and force them to read…”
[irony alert]
The above is so contrary to 350 years of Baptist thought regarding the priesthood of the believer, soul competency and local church autonomy that I will be bringing a resolution to the SBC next year recommending the de-Baptistification of Bart Barber. I hope that his state convention, local association and local church will do likewise.
[/irony alert]
Reply
on Jul 3rd, 2006 at 10:09 am
Brother Jeff,
As I read it seems to me that you may be missing the point the elders at Henderson Hills are trying to make. You seeem to me to be suggesting that if they follow through with their proposal that it will create a situation where they have intentionally disobedient, and thus sinful, members regarding baptism. I still wonder if you allow folks in your church who do not give to the Lord’s work, who do not regularly attend worship and who do not personally seek to fulfill the Great Commission. I’m hoping you will answer that question.
Nevertheless, there is a subtle condemnation of other denominations inherent in your suggestion. You are essentially stating that any denomination that does not practice believer’s baptism by immersion is intentionally disobedient and in sin. Is that what you mean to say? Could it be that other simply understand the same Bible that you and I read differently than you and I do? Is that necessarily disobedience? Is it necessarily sinful?
I’m going to assume that God has the perfect eschatology. I think you will agree. However, is that eschatology premillennial, amillennial, postmillennial or something else? If I am amillennial and you are premillennial and you come to join my church, let’s suppose that I sit down with you and we go over the Biblical passages and I do my best to convince you that the amillennial position is the Biblical position. But let’s say that you simply disagree. You don’t read it that way. You see the relevant passages differently than I do. Are you in sin? Are you being disobedient? No. We simply see the relevant material differently.
Is it not possible that a person could sit down with the elders at Henderson Hills and come to a different conclusion regarding baptism as they both read the Biblical material? Keep in mind that Henderson Hills is not advocating that people not be baptized altogether. They are also not allowing such a person to hold a leadership position in their church. The church is maintaining its Baptist beliefs about Baptism. Nowhere have they rejected believer’s baptism by immersion as Biblical baptism. They have only rejected the notion that it is the doorway to the church. You have said that such a view is the Biblical view. They have asked that someone show them where it is the Biblical view – that is, that baptism is an entry requirement into the local church. So far I haven’t seen anyone do that.
Reply
on Jul 3rd, 2006 at 12:46 pm
Okay, I think we are ignoring the obvious here and rushing to defend something that really needs no defense. Scripture speaks clearly and concisely to baptism and it\’s proper mode as all involved on both sides of this issue have asserted. Here is what most have missed with I think the exception of one of the individuals above.
Scripture does not speak to local church membership at all that I can find.
When I look at Romans 12 or I Corinthians 12, I see many members and ONE body. One body of Christ. In Ephesians 4:1-6 we see one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism and one God.
While individual groups of believers are addressed based on their locations ther are never referred to as separate bodies.
I have difficulty setting a practice that has merit and value (local church membership) but no specific, explicit Biblical support ahead of one (baptism) that has ample explicit Biblical mandate.
Local church membership only provides the levels of blessing, involvement and protection to the same extent at which we limit it to non-members. Legally it has merit and even necessity because of the tax status we would find ourselves in otherwise. But we are the ones who decide what benefits, protection, and levels of involvement / responsibility, those who we accept as members receive.
As a Pastor in a SBC, BGCO, and CBA church I think we should have a local membership roll but not because of a biblical mandate rather we should have one because of a practical necessity.
Reply
on Jul 3rd, 2006 at 12:55 pm
I have also posted to Dennis Newkirks blog recently under \”Putting out fires\”.http://dennisnewkirk.blogspot.com
Reply
on Jul 3rd, 2006 at 2:08 pm
I’m glad Bro. Paul caught my irony. I’m no Jay Leno. Sometimes my attempts at humor or hyperbole don’t work in print.
Dear Brother Paul, you are entirely correct when you note that historically, church discipline has not always (or even usually) been the province of the local church. Yet church history is not scripture, and Baptists have generally regarded those epochs of church history as dark ages of error. I concur with the Baptist tradition in this regard.
I think it would be difficult to construct a notion of supercongregational church discipline from the New Testament. Paul admonished the Corinthian congregation, not a supervisory body or another congregation somewhere, to expel the guy who was shacking up with his stepmother. If church discipline is the responsibility of an archbishop somewhere, then the entire Baptist movement is a mistake and a sin, and we all ought to compose a corporate letter of apology to the Vatican and prepare for about a billion years in Purgatory.
Reply
on Jul 3rd, 2006 at 2:31 pm
And I forgot to comment on Jerusalem. It scares me to think that I’m getting nothing but older and more forgetful from here.
How does one come to the conclusion that the Jerusalem Council in Acts was an exercise in church discipline?
Reply
on Jul 3rd, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Bro. Bart,
Let me take the last comment first. I’m not saying Jerusalem was an exercise in church discipline, but it was an exercise in church polity. The Jerusalem pronouncement became authoritative for all of the local churches to which it went out [dang! I still ended that in a preposition, didn't I?].
Regarding the historical issue, I included the Jerusalem Council as a way of showing that it wasn’t simply a historical matter, but a Biblical one as well. Yes, the Corinthian church was responsible for discipling the sinning man, but it was the non-Corinthian church member Paul who made them do it. They obviously weren’t acting on the matter by their own autonomous selves. And had they not acted on it I can’t hear the good apostle saying, “Well, after all, it is a matter of local church autonomy.” And surely you wouldn’t come to the same conclusion on the historical data when we’re talking about the Council of Nicea or Chalcedon, would you?
By the way, I’m not saying that church discipline is either local or, as you put it, supercongregational. It seems to have been both/and.
Reply
on Jul 3rd, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Dear Rich,
If I read you correctly, what you’re really talking about is local church autonomy. Your line of reasoning sounds like: “There is one universal church. The Bible never speaks of individual unit churches. Therefore, there is no distinguishable local unit of which people can be members.”
If that is indeed what you are suggesting, how would you respond to the biblical basis for local church autonomy as put forward, for example, in Stan Norman, The Baptist Way; and John Hammet, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology? Or, if you have read neither of these, can you identify an intelligent presentation of the biblical basis for local church autonomy and membership that you are refuting?
I don’t mean to be snitty. It’s just that Baptists have collectively done such a poor job of passing down the robust biblical arguments that our forefathers made for these concepts, and many people (not necessarily you) are rejecting the biblical case for these concepts without ever actually having heard the biblical case for these concepts. I’m just looking for some reassurance here that this is not the case with you when you say that you find no biblical support for these ideas.
On the off chance that it is the case, I highly recommend the two books mentioned above. They are excellent.
In Christ,
Bart
See, Paul, and I didn’t even need my gun!
Reply
on Jul 3rd, 2006 at 3:18 pm
We do not share the same interpretation of the Jerusalem Council, neither do we see Paul’s action the same way with the Corinthian church. Paul did still, after all, require that the congregation assemble together in a (business?) meeting to make the disciplinary action official (I Cor 5:4-5). But to bark over that bone will chew up who knows how many KB on a blog that does not, after all, belong to either of us.
I would simply say that I agree with the arguments presented in both books that I recommended above as well as with the arguments presented for various forms of local church congregationalism in Chad Brand & Stan Norman, Perspectives on Church Government; and Paul Engle & Steven Cowan, Who Runs the Church? You’ll find a good treatment of the significance of the Jerusalem Council in these articulated in depth and presented better than I could do it.
With regard to the topic at hand, even if I concede that church discipline is not exclusively local (which I do not), I think all that is necessary for my original point to be valid is that some local component of church discipline exist. For example, even if Paul could unilaterally exclude the man from the Corinthian church without the consent of the congregation, what effect would Paul’s exclusion have upon the man’s relationship with the Corinthian church? Beforehand he was considered a full part of the congregation; afterwards he was not a member. For any church anywhere at any time to exclude a person on disciplinary grounds, it must necessarily acknowledge that there are people who are members of that church and people who are not, since exclusion is, by definition, the movement of a person from the category of persons who enjoy unbroken fellowship with that local congregation into the category of persons who do not.
So, doesn’t even your idea of church discipline as both local and universal require (for the local component) some concept of local church membership? If so, aren’t our other disagreements extraneous to the original point I made?
Reply
on Jul 3rd, 2006 at 3:20 pm
The previous comment was intended as a reply to Paul.
Geez! Can’t I make a single comment correctly in one try?
Reply
on Jul 3rd, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Bro. Paul,
I forgot to respond to your question regarding Nicea and Chalcedon. I regard the decisions of these councils to be correct because they square with the Bible. I do not, however, acknowledge that they have any intrinsic authority over our local congregation. To the degree that they represented the comingling of religious decision-making with the power of the state, I believe that they do, indeed, belong in an age of error.
But hey, I expect to see them in heaven, and then they’ll point out my errors, too.
Reply
on Jul 3rd, 2006 at 3:49 pm
GREAT discussion!!
For me, the most arresting statement in Chuck’s comment is this:
“How could we stand before Jesus as His under-shepherds and say, “They could get into the Heaven but I’m sorry, they can’t get into this local church”?
Now that’s something to think about, IMO.
Chuck,
Thanks for your clear articulation of your thoughts, and the Christlike spirit in which you have communicated them. Glad to hear of yet another Baptist honestly committed to biblical thinking and practice, even if it means challenging the status quo. I have to confess, I’ve never thought this issue through from the perspective you express. Thanks for making me think!
Bart,
Is it possible that fellowship is the biblical word (and concept) connected to discipline rather than membership?
Jeff,
Seems to me Chuck & HHBC are doing as you suggested at the convention — grappling with the sufficiency of Scripture. (BTW, Jeff, hearing you make that statement almost made the trip from CA worth it!)
Reply
on Jul 3rd, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Jeff (and Chuck),
I should clarify … I don’t mean grappling with the sufficiency of Scripture in the sense of is it sufficient or not; I mean grappling in the sense that since it is sufficient, what should we do?
Reply
on Jul 3rd, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Ok, so it took Steve to enter the fray to make my point actually make some sense. Yes, Bro. Bart, I concede church “membership.” I am, however, trying to make sure that when we talk about church membership that we are meaning the same thing.
If we’re talking about membership in a generic sense, yes, I see that (as Steve pointed out we could, perhaps, more rightly call it a fellowship. That seems to be a more Biblical word, at any rate). But did that membership mean that someone’s name appeared on an official roll somewhere? Was the real discipline part of the discipline that brother in Corinth was subjected to that his name would be removed from such a roll? [Warning: full-on facetiousness to follow] Or could they have simply made him an “inactive” member? Perhaps he might have been upset at the church action against him and moved to, say, Colosse and become a non-resident member at Corinth. Would the Colossian church have accepted his church letter in that case? [End of facetiousness]
I rather imagine that they veiwed themselves a part of a local expression of something larger than their local fellowship. And would they have required something locally that was more restrictive than what was required to be a part of the larger fellowship of believers?
I must confess that I think denominationalism has seriously clouded our ability to see things as they were in the New Testament. But we’ll press on as we try to overcome that denominational bias.
Reply
on Jul 3rd, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Hi, Steve,
I’ll gladly consent to any terminology anyone wishes to employ, I’m merely trying to defend the concept. Indeed, fellowship is one benefit of membership. But member is a biblical word as well. I think that accountability is as much a part of membership as is fellowship.
Reply
on Jul 3rd, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Bart,
Yes, I am well read and studied, thanks for not being “snitty” cough cough! I have a BA in Biblical Studies from the Criswell College in Dallas and graduated with honors. I have heard and studied the Biblical case for these concepts. I hope that offers the assurance you are looking for.
Is it necessary that I refute someone elses inferrences that they make from reading various passages in order to have a valid point with regard to this topic? If it is I have Millard Ericksons, Christian Theology second edition handy if need be.
No I am not speaking of church autonomy. I am speaking of local church membership just as it is being discussed by everyone else on any number of blogs simultaneously. I will spell it out though so that one can make an “intelligent” decision about what I am saying.
When I speak of local church membership, I am not speaking of being part of the body of Christ. I am not speaking about being a christian in general. I am speaking soley about having your name recorded and stored in a computer or file cabinet as a member in good standing of said 501c3 non profit organization, acting in the capacity of a religious entity otherwise or commonly known as a church in legal terms. That is it and nothing more.
Of course we are identifiable by the local place in which we fellowship together and in an informal sense could be called “members” of that particular local gathering. I believe in scripture we see individuals distinguished by the place (city, region or country) they come together referred to not as individual members of said congregation but rather as individual members of the ONE body of Christ. They however make themselves accountable to that local gathering with which they have fellowship and come under the authority that God has set up within the members of the Body of Christ. But I do not see explicitly anywhere in the passages mentioned so far by anyone a purely biblical case for the type of local membership we utilize today. I find it valuable and even necessary to ensure the integrity of holding a common Holy Faith. I find the concept of local church membership valuable and even necessary in the legal climate in which we find ourselves. I find it practical and beneficial in matters of organization and administration. But I do not find it explicity Biblical that we have any obligation of receiving any individual regardless of their profession, baptism, conscience or otherwise into the afore mentioned file cabinet or computer database record.
Dennis Newkirk himself has repeatedly stated that they can find no qualifications for local church membership in scripture. That is because the organization formal is one that we have set up for practical purposes. Do we recognize said self professing believer in Jesus Christ as part of the Body of Christ (if they are in fact sincere)? Of course we do. Are they members individually of the One body of Christ then? Of course they are. Scripture is explicit in those matters. However do we add them to the rolls of the legal corporation so that they have equal standing in decision making with the rest of the said members and officers of that corporation? Not unless they can affirm like faith, belief and practice. To do otherwise would be reckless and irresponsible.
Bart,
I don’t mean to sound preturbed at the implications and inferences you make in your post but… I AM!
Reply
on Jul 3rd, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Church membership:
At our last business meeting, we received a letter from a church in another state for a couple that had left our church in the early 1980’s.
I guess that’s “membership”, particularly in light of the fact that the motion to bring integrity to “membership” was shot down in Greensboro.
Oh. Ok. Why all the fuss about THAT?
Reply
on Jul 4th, 2006 at 1:34 am
Chuck,
Thanks for your clarification on the position of HHBC.
We were just back in Edmond for a week, and of course heard the whole discussion about “HHBC’s new position on baptism”. I have to admit that my first response was surprise and confusion.
But I also got to hear some amazing testimonies of what God is doing through your church, We have several close friends and supporters who attend or are currently visiting HHBC.
First of all, it is exciting to hear how you really are reaching many unchurched, and about the depth of teaching, true worship and genuine community that you have. I know what a tough cultural environment Edmond and OKC are.
Secondly, some of your points on baptism really make sense, and have made me want to go back and look at it biblically but with a different mindset. We have faced some of the same dilemmas in the area we serve in up North. So many cases are just not as cut and dried as we wish they would be.
So you have left me challenged and thinking. You have also evoked people all over the city and even across the nation to think further about what they believe about baptism. That is just cool.
Keep us posted on what God is doing at Henderson Hills. We’re praying for you guys.
Reply
on Jul 4th, 2006 at 7:38 am
Rich,
Articulate your position all you like. Support it from the Bible and you’re fine. You have no need to have read Professor So-and-So’s revered text in order to have your own opinion. However…
When you move from supporting your own view to saying that it is patently obvious that those who hold another view have absolutely no support for their view in the Bible, then you bring upon yourself the obligation to have done your homework. Because frankly, some people have indeed built a pretty doggone good case from the Bible for the other view. And it isn’t in Erickson. And I’m still not sure that you’ve ever read it. And I’m just asking you to read one of the books I mentioned above before you categorically accuse us of having made the whole thing up without having consulted the Bible.
And then you can say something slightly different, but even more effective: “I know that others have made a biblical case for people being members of local churches. Some of the points are worth considering, but overall I find their arguments unconvincing.”
Reply
on Jul 4th, 2006 at 7:59 am
Good morning, Paul,
You know, I think we aren’t that far apart here. I agree that there has always been some supercongregational aspect to church discipline, and therefore, to church membership. Because even traditional Baptist theology and practice includes an expectation that other local congregations will honor the disciplinary actions of a local church. That’s the purpose behind the old “transfer of letter of recommendation” system…so a church won’t unwittingly accept as a member someone who’s been disciplined out of another congregation.
Yet the part that keeps it primarily (even almost-entirely) local is the fact that this is an expectation rather than a requirement. For example, there was a big fight years ago in the First Baptist Church of Nashville, TN. Both sides claimed to be the real FBC Nashville and kicked out the other group. J. R. Graves led one faction and R. B. C. Howell led the other. In normal cases, other local churches ought to honor the discipline of sister churches, yet in this case the discipline was obviously a petty exercise in personal nastiness. Other churches ignored what the various factions of FBC Nashville did, as they should have. No overarching supercongregational discpline obligation hampered them from doing so.
Nobody in the New Testament did anything quite as stupid as what the FBC Nashville folks did, so there’s not a biblical example of this kind of situation in the apostolic period. So, this is a weaker point in my argument.
Nevertheless, I think we can build consensus around something like this: “Christians are supposed to be members of local churches. They are also members of the one body of Christ. They are accountable to Christ in view of the entire body of Christ. It is the responsibility of their local church to hold them accountable—to enforce Christian discipline. The local congregation should know precisely who belongs within its specific sphere of accountability (i.e., who are its members). The local congregation has the scriptural obligation, after exhausting all other means, to exclude from itself those who fall under its ultimate discipline. This action, when taken, does not exclude them from the body of Christ, but it does exclude them from the membership of that local church. Unless the local congregation has in some obvious way forsaken biblical principles of church discipline, other local churches ought to honor the disciplinary actions taken by any local church.”
Does that work?
Reply
on Jul 4th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Happy 4th, Bart,
I can say that I fully agree with your most recent comment. [Whew!]
The question then seems to be, “Is a person’s understanding of baptism a matter of church discipline?” If for some strange reason D. James Kennedy were to seek membership in your church, was open to a non-Presbyterian understanding of baptism, but was not yet convinced, does the local church have a Scriptural basis for telling him that he is a welcome member in the one great body of Christ but is at this point and time unwelcome in your local body? Does the local church have the Scriptural right to deny him the Lord’s table when, were he to die on the spot, he would be welcomed at the wedding feast of the Lamb?
If a person presents himself/herself to the local church who, by all indications, lives a godly and upright life, seeks the Lord with all his/her heart, is faithful in worship, giving and serving, is spiritually mature in Christ, yet has a differing theological understanding of baptism at the moment, does the church have a Scriptural basis for denying them the full fellowship of that local congregation based solely on the mode and/or understanding of baptism, as long as their baptism was in a Christian church (not talking about Momrons or baptism into something or someone other than Christ himself)? Secondly, could you possibly help me to write a sentence that is conceivably longer than the one I just wrote?
Reply
on Jul 5th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Paul,
As far as I know Dr. Kennedy is a fine man. And as far as I know, he hasn’t been scriptually baptised. Just like some of the men at the church of Ephesus. While for a different reason, they had not been scripturally baptised either. When Paul returned to Ephesus in Acts 19 he re-baptised those. Do you think Paul would have a problem telling Dr. Kennedy that he needed to be scripturally baptised too?
But Henderson Hills’ real problem is this. They are going to require Deacons to be baptised. HH is standing on the premis that they are only following the letter of God’s word. Yet the bible makes no command for deacons to be baptised. So they have the paradigm where when the issue is church membership, they rely on a lawyerly reading of scripture….. but for being a Deacon they rely on what they think is right.
And while they take this stance, they seem offended that people accuse them of doing this just to increase their membership…… instead of their stated motive. Why would they not follow the “letter of the law” on something as important as ordaining deacons?
Reply
on Jul 5th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Paul,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Actually we (HHBC) do believe Scripture requires a higher level of accountability for leaders, so we see no inconsistency in our position. Some of the qualifications of elders are: “above reproach” (1 Tim 3:2), “able to teach” (1 Tim 3:2), and “must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9). It would certainly seem that baptism would be an imperative act of obedience for an elder, since he is called to be above reproach and must be able to teach, both by example in life and teaching. As one of only two ordinances, certainly an elder would be called on to teach baptism. This would clearly mean he needs to have practiced it himself.
Second, the issue of deacons. Some of the qualifications for deacons are “they must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience” (1 Tim 3:9) and “prove themselves blameless” (1 Tim 3:10). It certainly seems from these two qualifications that a deacon candidate must have submitted himself to the Lord in baptism. He needs to have a clear conscience on the mystery of the faith, which would include baptism.
The issue of requiring small group (Sunday School) leaders to be baptized is more difficult, obviously, since this type of ;eadership organization in the local church is simply not found in Scripture. Churches have the right to decide what qualifications they will use for such roles. We believe it is important to ensure that believers baptism, by immersion, after salvation continues to be what is taught at Henderson Hills. Since small group leaders do a great deal of the teaching in our church, it seems important to ask them to be baptized.
In summary, since there is scriptural precedence for higher standards and more accountability for leadership (different than the average church member), we believe requiring baptism for leadership is true to Scripture’s teaching.
Respectfully,
Chuck
Reply
on Jul 5th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Chuck,
Was that Ken you were responding to? If not, then Ken, what Chuck said.
Reply
on Jul 5th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Chuck, I could make your argument regarding the baptism of Deacons. The bible doesn’t specifically say that deacons should be baptised. It lists a number of things but not baptism. You’re just adding that in. It isn’t specifically in God’s word. I’m just trying to do EXACTLY what God’s word says. If someone would just PLEASE show me where the bible says Deacons have to be baptised…… then I’d believe.
Your argument could be made on a number of items of our faith. Including the Trinity.
But the reality is that you’re setting up a church with two types of members. Baptised and non-baptised. And your going to restrict the service of some of them. What if your most gifted teacher was sprinkled? What if your most gifted prophet was sprinkled? What if your most gifted giver was…… .never mind… I’m sure you’ll still let them give
But seriously…. you don’t see the fundamental problem here? There is no way your church is patterned after the Acts 2 model.
Reply