In it’s services this weekend, the members of Henderson Hills Baptist Church will vote on approving the recommendation of their elder council to remove the requirement of baptism for church membership. Here is the portion of the bylaw they propose to change (PDF), with the change noted:
Membership will be granted to anyone who offers a biblical testimony of salvation,
has been scripturally baptizedand agrees to accept the responsibilities of membership.
As has been previously noted here, the Baptist Messenger, Oklahoma’s state Baptist weekly, has published several articles about this proposal. These articles are available online, and they are excellent.
What I would like to do here is to share with you some quotes that did not appear in the online edition. One page of the July 20 Messenger was dedicated to responses to the Messenger asking several pastors and associational DOM’s how they would explain their church’s belief to a person who wants to join but has not been baptized. Here are some selections:
Baptism is an issue of obedience, not an issue of church preference. It is not an act that an individual church developed as part of its membership requirements. Instead, baptism is at the heart of our obedience to Jesus as Lord of our lives…If someone wishes to identify himself with a local body of believers through church membership, we should be certain he has been obedient by identifying himself with the head of that local church, Jesus Christ, through believer’s baptism.
- Shane Hall, Pastor, First Baptist Church, Clinton, Oklahoma
Scriptural baptism requires a scriptural candidate, who is a person who has been eternally saved by grace as the result of trusting Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Immersion is the scriptural mode, and the scriptural administrator is the New Testament church. Scriptural baptism is a prerequisite to church membership.
- Otis Cayton, Director of Missions, Frisco Baptist Association
Baptism is a step of obedience to clearly identify with Jesus Christ. It is like putting on the uniform of God’s team. One is already a part of God’s team as he accepts Jesus Christ as Savior, Baptism is an open declaration that Jesus is now the Lord of one’s life. Having fulfilled these two requirements, one has full priveleges of membership in our church.
- Bob Green, Pastor, Arrow Heights Baptist Church, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma and President, BGCO
To remove baptism from the requirements for membership may also suggest that we can remove baptism from church authority. Is there an established authority for baptism? If not, anybody could go into the “baptizing business.” It wouldn’t have to be a church. A prospective member could go to a Baptizing Company, be baptized and the bring a certificate and a picture of the baptism to the church he wants to join. This would remove the necesity of giving proof of genuine conversion.
- Ralph Crawford, retired pastor, Olivet Baptist Church, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Everyone is welcome to attend [our church,] but membership is only for those who are willing to obey the ordinances given by Christ through Scripture. Church members must be willing to publicly declare their faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Church members must be willing to declare death to sin, death to the old way of life and a commitment to walk in the newness of life found only in Christ. God has ordained baptism as the way for these truths to be proclaimed publicly. Therefore, since this is the biblical interpretation for baptism, we only accept the baptism of believers of like faith.
- Blake Gideon, Pastor, First Baptist Church, Idabel, Oklahoma
Baptism cannot save a person’s soul, only faith in Jesus Christ. Those who go into the baptismal waters without a personal relationship with Jesus only get wet, and nothing more…If someone wants to join our church, but has not been baptized, we don’t ask them to do anything more than the rest of us have done: every member has professed a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and has been scripturally baptized by immersion.
- Jeff Moore, Pastor, First Baptist Church, Altus, Oklahoma
A person who wants to join our church and has not been baptized will need to be baptized to join the church…They must first receive Christ as their Savior, Then, because they have received Christ, they will want to be baptized to demonstrate what Christ has done for them. Their baptism also identifies them with other baptized believers who are a part of the body of Christ. The church is the body of Christ on Earth today. Baptism identifies them with that local body of believers as well as all believers in Christ.
- Ted Kersh, Pastor, First Baptist Church, Claremore, Oklahoma
Baptism is a public testimony of our faith in Jesus Christ, and is a testimony of our willingness to be obedient to Jesus. We believe baptism not only represents being unified with Christ, but also represents being unified with His body, the church. To be a member of the church, it is important that a person publicly identify with Christ and His church by being baptized by immersion the same way Jesus was baptized. Because Christ commanded us to be baptized, baptism is a church ordinance, and it is a prerequisite to the privelege of church membership.
- Buddy Hunt, Pastor, Immanuel Baptist Church, Duncan, Oklahoma
Dennis Newkirk, Pastor/Teaching Elder at Henderson Hills, has been the recipient of some ungodly, shameful personal verbal attacks by fellow pastors in recent weeks, and for that I am ashamed and sorry. I have communicated this privately to him.
Let me be clear: I wish no ill toward the elders or members of Henderson Hills. I believe that the proposal on which they are voting is an error, and if they affirm it I will advocate their removal from our fellowship, so foundational is this doctrine. But in no way do I believe this error makes them any less Christian, or any less a church, for that matter. It just makes them less Southern Baptist, and I’m sorry about that. But I believe their leaders have truly sought God’s will in this matter, and that they are sincere in their desire to follow. It is difficult to fault that sincerity. I am convinced that, whatever they decide, they will continue to make a significant impact for the Kingdom.
Remember this great church in your prayers this weekend as they make this important decision.
on Jul 28th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
So .. let’s see .. if we confess Jesus as LORD (Supreme authority) and then refuse to be baptized, we’re still saved. That is, if baptism (there’s only one kind .. immersion) is commanded by Jesus, which it would be in order for baptism to be a matter of obedience to Him. Shane Hall seems to have said that.
Something about that doesn’t gel in my mind. If we have to do that to be obedient to Him, it seems it might be more important than a church ordinance.
If it’s just an ordinance, then refusal would be disobedience to the local church, or the overall “Body of Christ”. Whichever, it can’t be both ways, to me.
Hmmm.
Reply
on Jul 28th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Pastor Kenney,
I spoke with an official with the BCGO today. I’ll keep his name anonymous, because you probably know him.
I asked him what he thought about the situation at Henderson Hills, and he said that he would probably NOT support the change to the bylaw personally, he also would respect the decision of Henderson Hills, and NOT advocate disfellowshipping them from the CBA and/or BGCO.
I’d like to ask you something…
How can you reconcile this? “I wish no ill towards the elders or members of Henderson Hills… if they affirm it [the bylaw change] I will advocate their removal from this fellowship.”
(1) How can you reconcile those two statements — advocating a church’s disfellowship from the CBA or BGCO IS wishing ill towards a church — this reasoning seems rather contradictory to me, and it is borderling hypocrisy, really.
(2) Isn’t what you are suggesting interfering with the autonomy of HHBC as a self-governing organization???
(3) Why can you not just respect their decision without advocating for them to be removed from the CBA and/or BGCO???
I said to my official-acquaintance from the BGCO office today. I know people (young people) who attend Henderson Hills. I read on a blog somewhere that young people are leaving SBC churches because they see infighting with the leadership. This minister I briefly visited with today completely understood why the young people are leaving the SBC… we agreed the fighting must stop.
Unfortunately, you desire to put up a fight and cause division by desiring the removal of HHBC from CBA/BGCO… no wonder young people are leaving the SBC… you put the denomination to a shame by advocating HHBC’s removal.
Reply
on Jul 28th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
Jonathan,
I appreciate that you have taken the time to read what I have written, and to comment so thoughtfully. I will attempt to address your questions.
(1) The charge of hypocrisy is a serious one, and I don’t take it lightly. I do not think it applies here, however, because I recognize that a church can exist outside the Southern Baptist Convention and still make a great impact for Christ and His Kingdom. It is my sincere wish that HHBC continue to make the impact it has in the past, regardless of how it decides this issue. My statement about not wishing them ill is my attempt to distance myself from those who have made very personal and very hurtful personal attacks on Pastor Newkirk and others because of this situation. While continuing in disagreement with him, I have come to respect Pastor Newkirk greatly. There is no place for such shameful behavior in this debate or in the body of Christ.
(2) It is impossible for me to interfere with the autonomy of that church. The only way for that to happen would be for Dr. Tim Russell, CBA’s Executive Director, or Dr. Anthony Jordan, BGCO Executive Director, to attempt to force them into taking a particular course. I’m in no position to do that, and neither is anyone else. Public discussion does not, and cannot, infringe on the autonomy of a local church.
(3) Ultimately, I do respect their decision, and believe fully in their right to make it. I have said that I would advocate their removal from our convention, but I say that only to be economical with my words. What I would advocate is that our convention recognize that by abandoning this treasured Baptist distinctive they have declared their desire to remove themselves from our fellowship, and that our convention simply ratify that declaration.
Your last paragraph seems to suggest that I have picked a fight. I don’t agree. I did not instigate the suggested change, and while I don’t mean to suggest that it was done to pick a fight, it should have been apparent that one might result. I do not relish the controversy, and the negative image it projects, but I believe that this distinctive, for which many Baptists have given their lives, is worth fighting to preserve intact.
Again, Jonathan, I appreciate your participation here. Disagreements force me to think, and for that I thank you, sir.
Reply
on Jul 28th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
Pastor Kenney,
I have some follow-up questions for your response. I thank you also for taking time to respond to these concerns. Believe me, this issue of what Henderson Hills is discussing affects more than just Baptists… it could very well affect my church personally if disgruntled individuals leave HHBC and flock to where I go to church.
First of all, I did not charge you with hypocrisy. When I said “borderline hypocrisy,” I mean such a position that you are taking is questionable, and could arguable be construed as hypocrisy by someone.
Second, I do not see how your threat of a resolution to remove HHBC from the CBA, BGCO, etc. does not constitute interference or intrusion on HHBC’s self-governing autonomy. In other words, I am asking why the threat is not interference or intrusion on the internal affairs of HHBC?
Third, you stated “by abandoning this treasured Baptist distinctive they have declared their desire to remove themselves from our fellowship.” Isn’t that putting words in the mouth of Pastor Newkirk and the elders at HHBC? If it isn’t putting words in their mouth, how would characterize that??? And if it IS putting words in their mouth, how can you justify that based on Scripture???
Lastly, I want to clarify my previous paragraph. By saying “you desire to put up a fight,” I was speaking, and am speaking, of your resolution. Desiring to remove a church from the convention is engendering conflict. Rich Dunbar has said himself somewhere that the process within the CBA would take at least a year. Why would that be so? Because such a resolution, as you would suggest and advocate for, would be highly controversial, divisive, and the source of conflict within the convention, would it not? Thus, you are instigating a fight by proposing such a resolution as you describe, and by potentially putting words in HHBC’s mouth. On this same point, I think you contradicted yourself in the last sentence of your last major paragraph when you said this distinctive is “worth fighting for…” – if I am not mistaken, I interpret that to mean you are picking a fight.
Reply
on Jul 29th, 2006 at 12:43 am
Jonathan,
I understood what you said in your first comment related to hypocrisy, and that you were not making that accusation. I just wanted to make sure you understood that I did not take that lightly, and as we are all prone to it from time to time, I want to be very careful about it in this instance.
As to your question of interference, I’m not sure how else to state it. It is definitionally impossible for me to interfere with their autonomy. The autonomy of the local church is the principle that a church makes its decisions under the Lordship of Christ and free from any outside ecclesiastical authority. I’m not an ecclesiastical authority; I’m a guy with a blog. If I influence anyone, it’s because they choose to read what I post.
You asked if I am “putting words in the mouth of Pastor Newkirk and the elders at HHBC.” I understand that it certainly seems so, and I may be guilty of that to some extent. They have expressed a desire to remain in cooperation with the CBA, the BGCO, and the SBC. I hate to resort to a cliche, but what I am intentionally doing is saying that their actions, should they approve this recommendation, will speak louder than any words that might be uttered.
Finally, you mentioned that I said this distinctive is “worth fighting for.” I stand by that, and I don’t think it should be interpreted as my “picking a fight.” If my house is broken into, there are things I would allow to be taken, such as replaceable property, and things I would fight to defend. I see this distinctive as the latter. I did not select this battle, but I am willing to fight it.
Thanks again for reading and participating.
Reply
on Jul 29th, 2006 at 7:18 am
“Adding Fuel to the Fire”
I believe that baptism is a believer’s first public profession of faith. What is the first sign that a person has truly become a believer? They are willing to be baptized. I believe baptism is by immersion, but I have question that I don’t think has been addressed. So I may be adding fuel to the fire.
I agree that a person can’t be a church member without being baptized, but can a person be baptized without being a church member? The reason I ask this question is because there is such a division among Southern Baptists on this issue.
Several years ago at Falls Creek, the preacher for the week got the idea to go ahead and baptize the kids that had received Christ up to that point. So they did. There was a big uproar by some pastors who said that it was unbiblical and that the youth would have to be rebaptized in their church once that got back from camp.
We also have the situation in Iraq. One of our troops gives his life to Christ and wants to be baptized and is. Does this count? It wasn’t for church membership, but as a testimony that he belongs to Christ.
I wonder why there was such a big deal made about it at the SBC Convention this year. Surely everyone remembers that before each baptism a person announced over the intercom, “The person baptizing them represents the church they will attend.” Did it matter?
Now I do feel that 99% of Christians that get baptized in a church want to be members of that church, so this may be a very small issue. Would your church receive someone into church membership who hadn’t been baptized into church fellowship, but had been biblically baptized?
Hope this discussion continues to bring baptism to the forefront and sheds some light on my question, “Can a person still be Baptist and believe that you don’t have to be a church member to be baptized?”
OKpreacher
Reply
on Jul 29th, 2006 at 9:56 am
Dear OKpreacher,
I have encountered that position, but I do not understand it. I hope someone more familiar with Baptist views on church membership will explain it, because I have wondered about that, also.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Reply
on Jul 29th, 2006 at 10:49 am
I have to weigh in here with some thoughts. To be forthright, I am a paedobaptist. I also believe from study that baptism is into the UNIVERSAL CHURCH (catholic) not a prerequisite for local church membership. My position on this subject is based on the question…….what would the SBC’s postition be had John been preaching in the Negev or Sinai rather than in the Jordan river valley…..would Jesus’s baptism have engendered the SBC to declare that sprinkling with water from a wineskin been the requisite baptism. The Christian act of baptism is from the Jewish rite of mikvah or ritual bath. It was appropriately performed in the synagogue or temple……may I point out that Jesus’s baptism was in NEITHER. I recently visited with an Hassidic rabbi on a flight……his position was that a jew was a jew was a jew regardless of whether he is conservative, orthodox or hassidic. Can we no less proclaim truthfully that a christian (one that has professed Christ as Son, Saviour & Lord) is a christian is a christian…..regardless of his baptism.
Reply
on Jul 29th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
Dear Brother Jake,
Thank you for your good questions. I’d love to converse with you on this.
You have started with “what would . . .” I’m afraid we can’t discuss this issue accurately from that starting point. Instead, we must start from what actually happened. God did not send John to preach and baptize in the Negev or Sinai. God sent John to baptize in the Jordan river specifically because baptism, at least from that point onward, needed to be by immersion only. Please note at one point in the text where it is specifically stated why he is preaching and baptizing at the Jordan River.
(John 3:23) Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized.
He was baptizing there because there was enough water for immersion.
So, I’ll be happy to exchange ideas on this subject with you, but we’ll have to start with what really happened, rather than “what if.”
Dear Everybody,
I hope you will join in prayer for HHBC and Brother Dennis. The big vote is tomorrow—unless they table it!
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Reply
on Jul 30th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
I know there is an interesting discussion going about hhbc. My brother goes there and attends the sat night services. From what he said they post poned the vote because elders were given a question by a member that they hadn\’t considered yet. Dennis and four other elders met from 8 am to 3 am last wed with some theologian. any way they have postponed the vote.
Reply
on Aug 2nd, 2006 at 12:04 am
Tabling the vote was wise. I would like very much to know what new insight came to light. Maybe someone thought to asked WWJD?
Reply