There has been a lot of discussion in recent months about baptism. We have discussed its mode (dunking), its meaning (obedience), its proper administrator (me), the correct water temperature (58◦ F), and how long the one being baptized should be held under (until there are no more bubbles). Okay, so I made some of that up. The point is, we have discussed this issue until I was sure there was nothing left to discuss. I was wrong about that.
A while back, Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota caused something of a stir in baptist circles by discussing the possibility of accepting into their membership those who were “baptized” as infants in another denomination, if they viewed that infant “baptism” as a fulfillment of Christ’s command to be baptized. While I haven’t kept up with the disposition of that suggestion, I seem to remember that they have backed away from it, and they were wise to do so in my opinion. I was pretty confident that this experience would discourage other churches from considering a move so out of step with baptist history and, I believe, with scripture itself. I was wrong about that, also.
Right here in my home state, where the wind comes sweeping down the plain, we have a church that, it seems, is attempting to go Bethlehem Baptist one better. The members of Henderson Hills Baptist Church in Edmond will vote, at the end of July, on a bylaw change proposed by their elder council (a whole other post) that would allow the acceptance of members who have never been baptized at all.
On their website, hhbc.com, you can read for yourself all of the background material and studies with which they support this change. Their pastor, Dennis Newkirk, also has a blog where he addresses these issues, and if you’re interested, I encourage you to read their materials. Here is an excerpt from one of their documents justifying this change:
We see that it would be a tragic mistake to exclude Christians from membership, solely on the basis of baptism, who may potentially have a great impact on the Kingdom of God. For example, under our current rules, great theologians such as John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Sinclair Ferguson, R.C. Sproul, and J.I. Packer would be considered unqualified for church membership
Now, I’m no expert, but it seems to me that these great theologians would clearly understand that, should they desire membership in a baptist church, baptism by immersion would likely be involved, yea, even required. And I also do not see how their “impact on the Kingdom of God” is in any way lessened by being ineligible for membership at Henderson Hills Baptist Church.
The only conclusion I can draw from this episode is that, their assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, Henderson Hills no longer desires to be a baptist church. And I certainly hope that the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, and the Capital Baptist Association will interpret this move, should the congregation affirm it, as an expression of this desire, and take appropriate action. Yes, in case that was too vague, I am hereby calling on their local association and their state convention to refuse their contributions to our cooperative efforts. Not that it would be that great a loss. As you might imagine, I have reviewed their Cooperative Program participation, and their 1.3% CP participation and 0.3% associational giving will scarcely be missed.
I am drafting a resolution which I intend to submit to the 100th Annual Meeting of the BGCO this November which, if adopted, will have our convention affirming our commitment to a regenerate, scripturally baptized church membership. Please, kind reader, feel free to offer suggestions on this resolution or, if necessary, to point out the errors in any of the above.
on Jun 28th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Wes,
In my church, church membership means:
1. I get to vote on church matters
2. I can participate as leadership in church ministries
3. I’m willing to affirm our doctrinal statement and abide by our covenants.
4. In some churches (not mine) one can only participate in communion if a member.
At HHBC, which is elder-ruled, the members can’t vote on much of anything anyway. I would guess they have an open communion. And, as a congregation they have chosen to associate with the BGCO which has affirmed the BF&M2000. I suppose the only thing that membership allows one to do at HHBC that might be a problem for me is they could have leadership of ministry teams that have not been scripturally baptized.
I’m not comfortable with the idea of baptism not being a requirement for membership; but I don’t know that I’m opposed to it.
For me, the question would be: do they still see baptism by immersion as a church ordinance. If yes, I would prefer they make it a requirement for membership but I don’t think I could insist upon it.
If no, then one has to wonder why they would even want to be associated with the BGCO?
Reply
on Jun 28th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
I’m with Bowden on this. Church membership means very little today. In fact, I often wonder if church membership in the New Testament meant that a person’s name was officially listed on a roll somewhere? I also think you can have accountability without an official roll.
I also tend to think that we potentially lose more than we gain by ousting them. I do understand that it would be strange to have a fellowshipping Baptist church that does not require believer’s baptism, but I also think it is rather odd that a denomination that loudly proclaims that baptism is “only a symbol” would disfellowship a church over a symbol. I would rather think we would reserve those actions for something of substance rather than symbol. That, or we need to admit that our view of baptism is more sacramental than we have so far been willing to confess.
Reply
on Jun 28th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Gentlemen,
Thanks for your comments. First, I do believe baptism is a symbol, and not sacramental. But I believe it is a very important symbol, and a necessary one for a church that wants to associate itself with baptists.
And the way you have described the action I suggest puts the emphasis in a different place than I would put it. Our convention should not, in my opinion, take action, but rather confirm their action.
As I see it, it is HHBC that will have declared by its ratification of this proposed change, that it no longer wishes to be considered a baptist church. They say that they want to continue to be associated with the SBC, but their actions will speak louder than their words here.
If I say that I don’t wish to hurt you, but I hit you in the nose, what do my words mean? It is the same here.
We should not “disfellowship” churches, but if churches declare a willingness to declare that they no longer hold to the distinctive that gives us our name, they are the ones breaking fellowship.
That’s how I see it, anyway. Again, thanks for the discussion.
Reply
on Jun 28th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Wes,
I went back and read the BF&M on baptism: It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper. I don’t think I realized we spelled it out so clearly.
My initial reaction was similar to yours. Since the proposed changes at HHBC are so clearly contrary to what we clearly say we believe I suppose I would agree with your recommendation.
Where I’m getting hung up is the concept of church membership: I would hate to see us force the hand of a church that (giving them the benefit of the doubt) is striving to make membership meaningful, while giving a pass – as we did at the SBC Annual Meeting when we did not consider Ascol’s resolution – to so many other churches who seem to take membership lightly.
Of all the things that need to be done to strengthen the meaning being a member of a church, I’m not sure I would start with this one.
(How’s that for landing on both sides of an issue?
Reply
on Jun 28th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Artfully done…
I’m right there with you on the integrity issue. One of the things I’m looking at doing is some serious preaching on the issue, followed by an intentional move toward some “reclamation evangelism” among the 150 or so “members” I’ve never seen.
But to continue in cooperation with a church that has rejected baptism as “prerequisite to the privileges of church membership” would not be helpful in teaching all that we mean about membership, and that’s why I’m speaking out on this.
Reply
on Jun 28th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Dear Brother Wes,
I’m glad something came along that you can be against!
You won’t be in the minority on this one, however.
If a saved person refuses to be baptized (for whatever reason), he is not ready for church membership. That has been the position of Baptists ever since the 1600s.
I can’t vote at the BGCO, being ineligible by 5 miles
, but if Icould, I would second your motion. That church has every right to make whatever decision it wants to make. But Baptist churches also have the right not to count them among if the do.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Reply
on Jun 28th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
Of all the things about which I am not sure, I am most certainly sure that you could be counted on to speak, into any available microphone, to that which you believe…
Thanks for your comment.
Reply
on Jun 28th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
How are you a baptist if you don’t baptise? Let’s just make it easier on people to join. Why don’t we skip salvation too! Please!
Reply
on Jun 29th, 2006 at 7:12 am
I especially like the integrity of telling people that we refuse their CP gifts.
I am all for broadening the tents among Baptists, but it seems that if they follow through on this, they have ceased to be Baptists, at least in any generally accepted use of the word.
Reply
on Jun 29th, 2006 at 10:37 am
Wes, I wrote a comment but lost it so if this comes up twice I apologize.
I do agree that as a Convention, Association, or even a local Church, we have a right to agree on a certain standard that identifies us and if one chooses to go a different way it is their choice to do so. We are only to love them and applaud them as Kindom folks going a different way than are we. But they’ve chosen to not be identified with our particular group.
But for years now I’ve believed that baptism is a Kingdom thing with a biblical definition. That being a right candidate, mode, and motive. So the candidate would be one who has responded to the gospel by faith in Christ, then the mode by immersion, finally, as a testimony of their union in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection accomplished at their baptism by the Holy Spirit into Christ which was experienced at conversion.
The local Church is responsible for examining that testimony and baptism as to it’s being biblical by that definition and receiving them into fellowship. If, for whatever reason, it is not found to be biblical then baptism is administered. This “could” be seen as a door into church membership but I’ve always seen the examination as the door not the baptism itself. This would make biblical baptism a Kingdom thing as well as a local church thing but not exclusively one or the other. I think this would clear up some of the disagreement we have in SBC life at least to a degree. And this is what I find consistent with the biblical text.
Just my thoughts and I sure stand to learn from other opinions. Good discussion going.
Paul Burleson
Reply
on Jun 29th, 2006 at 10:43 am
Paul,
Thanks for your contribution. I agree, to the extent that baptism is only a symbol, and it is the inside of a man about which God is concerned.
But it is an important symbol, essential for obedience. To allow someone into membership who refuses baptism is to accept a member who ought to be under discipline for unrepentant sin, in my view. That just seems silly to me.
Your first paragraph captures perfectly my view on this situation.
Reply
on Jun 29th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Wes, I agree. I not only think it is silly but unbiblical. While the text of scripture doesn’t equate baptism with redemption at all, [except in a couple of verses that need to be studied in the original laguage very carefully] it certainly does equate it with the first step of a lifetime of obedience. Let’s not get off on the wrong foot with this thing of obedience by not fully investigating and pressing for the first step to be taken.
Paul Burleson
Reply
on Jun 29th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Kevin, be sure to check out the links. They still baptize and are, in fact, looking for ways to make baptism more significant. They simply don’t find a biblical basis for associating baptism with an initiatory rite to local church membership. I confess that I don’t find that either.
In fact, that is my whole problem with the IMB policy change. Baptism is identification with Christ, not with the local church. While associating with a local church was assumed, I don’t see an example where baptism was the necessary doorway to the local church. IMO, the BF&M gets that part wrong. It’s an historical argument, not a biblical one.
Wes, I noticed that they identify a number of beliefs that they consider Baptist distinctives. They also affirm them. What is it that makes Baptism as a prerequisite for local church membership the Baptist distinctive? I’m sure you’re aware that many early Baptists did not immerse, but sprinkled. Were they Baptists? Historically they were…or at least we count them as our forefathers.
Henderson Hills still believes that baptism is an ordinance of the church and should be practiced for believers and by immersion. Their stated goal is that those who might join having been sprinkled or padobaptized would eventually grow to an understanding where they are immersed. I’m struggling to see how that is un-baptistic.
Reply
on Jun 29th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Paul,
That may be their stated goal, but the practical effect would be to put into place a policy that would allow someone who has never been baptized at all into their membership. While that may not ever happen in reality, the allowance for it is certainly un-baptistic in my view.
Reply
on Jun 29th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
I would agree that allowing an unbaptized person into membership is un-baptistic, but I don’t think that’s the question they’re asking at Henderson Hills. They are asking, “Is it unbiblical?” If we’re going to call ourselves “people of the Book” then that should be the question we are all asking, wouldn’t you agree?
Reply
on Jun 29th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Yes, but I think that asking that question in that way is why there are no musical instruments in your friendly neighborhood Churches of Christ.
Logic leads me to believe that a person refusing baptism is either unregenerate or disobedient, and in neither case are they a candidate for church membership. Throwing that logic out the window makes little sense to me.
Reply
on Jun 29th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Dear Paul,
When the HHBC folks say they reject using baptism as an initiatory rite for church membership, I agree completely. But that’s not the historical Baptist position, neither is it our BFM doctrinal statement. We consider baptism a prerequisite. I would never tell someone he had to be baptized to become a member of our church. He needs to be baptized to obey Christ and profess his faith in Him. But if he refuses to do that, or for some reason “is not ready,” then we simply don’t believe he is ready to ask for church membership.
I am not mincing words—there is a big difference here.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Reply
on Jun 29th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Jeff and Wes,
I don’t think there is a big difference at all. I’ll assume you’ve read through HHBC’s supporting documents which means that you know they are not advocating complicity with disobedience. The primary issue at stake is the matter of those who are joining from other denominations who come in with a different understanding of baptism. Their initial refusal of baptism isn’t, for them, disobedience at all, but a matter of differently understanding the Biblical teaching. HHBC has stated that the goal is to teach them about baptism so that they might come to what we consider a biblical understanding of baptism, and thus submit to that baptism.
I’ll say this, if R.C. Sproul did apply for membership it would be a very strange argument to make that his was simply being disobedient. When a person comes to a Baptist from another denomination and applies for membership they know that Baptists are known for our particular beliefs regarding baptism. I think that implies that they are open to being convinced. Otherwise they would have never visited in the first place. R.C. Sproul, for instance, would never visit HHBC or your churches or mine because he knows up front that he will not bend on the baptism issue.
The other point I would make relates to the obedience/disobedience issue. Firstly, I think it is a wrong expectation to expect that every new believer, or every old believer at that, is going to be obedient in everything that they do. New believers have to be brought along, and baptismal candidates are normally new believers by definition. Let me ask it this way: do you require new members to tithe? Do you allow people to be members of your churches who do not tithe? Do you allow people to be members who do not actively and personally seek to fulfill the Great Commission? Of course you do. Nearly every SBC church has a roll full of such people. But we don’t kick them out of our associations and conventions for it.
In some ways this reminds me of the alcohol resolution. We are more than happy to come down hard on people who drink because we, by and large, don’t have that problem ourselves. But we refuse to even present a motion on gluttony because we’d be speaking against half of our Sunday crowds and probably at least that many who stand behind our pulpits. If we’re going to stand on obedience then let’s be sure that we cover our own hind ends before we start aiming at someone else’s.
Sorry to get so carried away.
Reply
on Jun 29th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Very interesting (proposed) policy, and very interesting comments. I will add just a little: the New Testament passages re: baptism were written with the presupposition that all those uniting with the church were coming from either Jewish or pagan backgrounds, and had no prior life in Christ Jesus. Many of the people we welcome into our churches–i.e., those from other denominational backgrounds–already have a relationship to Christ, just a history in another denomination. So to “fit” these passages into our polity, we have no choice but to regard baptism as an entrance rite. And while the cultural and traditional part of me is uncomfortable with offering membership to those who have not been baptized by immersion, another part of me is uncomfortable with what I percieve as us “bending” the context of the New Testament into our very different context. My wife has been a Christian since she was 12, but from then until age 25, she was a Methodist (UMC). She was sprinkled as an infant and confirmed when she jopined the UMC; when we united with a Baptist church, she was subsequently baptized by immersion, and says that act was most meaningful to her. So for her, it was (1) initiatory (as Hershell Hobbs described it) but also (2) a way of deepening her faith and commitment to Jesus Christ. But that’s the way it was for her; I do not want to universalize her experience for all who come to a Baptist church from another denomination.
The other matter that occurs to me is that we are in danger of loosing the historic understanding of baptism. The Baptists of the early days–the 1600s and 1700s–understood that the first and most important meaning of baptism was that it represented a conscious decision to follow Christ. That is why the earliest Baptists did not immerse, but baptized by effusion (pouring): they understood that the mode was secondary. It seems to me that we sometimes emphasize the mode of baptism–immersion–over and above everything else. Maybe that is all HHBC is trying to do: reclaim the earliest Baptist understanding. As I said earlier, they are doing it in a way that I am not comfortable with, but maybe it can help the rest of us learn to “major on the majors” instead of the minors.
Reply
on Jun 29th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
I know that it is not Biblical to say someone has to be baptised to be a church member. But just because it is not in the Bible doen’t mean it is not a good idea. Any church is free to have people join as they choose. It just doesn’t sound very Baptist to me. I may be off base, but it makes no sense to me.
On another note, could members from this church be appointed with NAMB or IMB?
Reply
on Jun 30th, 2006 at 8:01 am
Wes,
I have not seen your blog since you switched over; it looks very nice. A friend told me you were blogging on this topic. I have also been blogging on the issue, albeit from an historical perspective; a case study of eleven churches in NC that embraced open membership in the 1970’s. A generation later, almost all the churches are in a place theologically that most of us wouldn’t want to go. Baptist churches are not perfect, but one thing we do have right is our historic view of the ordinances. If we choose to be disobedient in this area where the Bible is so clear, who knows what area we will choose to be disobedient in ten years from now.
Reply
on Jun 30th, 2006 at 8:45 am
Nathan,
I know that one thing Dennis Newkirk, the pastor at Henderson Hills, has asked is for someone to help them see the biblical basis for making baptism the initiatory rite into the church. Since you say that the Bible is clear on this could you post a comment here on the clear Biblical basis for making baptism the initiatory rite into the local church?
Thanks!
Reply
on Jun 30th, 2006 at 9:40 am
“I know that it is not Biblical to say someone has to be baptised to be a church member. But just because it is not in the Bible doen’t mean it is not a good idea. Any church is free to have people join as they choose.”
Kevin, do you really mean that? Are we really free to require what the Lord himself does not require?
Reply
on Jun 30th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Wes,
I too hope that the Capital Baptist Association will take action on this issue. The Henderson Hills Baptist Churches needs to be honest enough to leave this association and if they will not leave willingly, they need to be voted out. I know of several other Southern Baptist associations (throughout the U.S.) that voted out similar churches
Also, Bro. Paul. Can you give me one example of a Christian in the New Testament would became a church member without being immersed? If not, this debate is over.
Reply
on Jun 30th, 2006 at 10:24 am
That should be: Can you give me one example of a Christian in the New Testament who became a church member without being immersed? If not, this debate is over.
Reply
on Jun 30th, 2006 at 11:15 am
Ben, can you give me an example in the New Testament where a person came from one denomination which had one practice related to baptism to join another denomination that practiced baptism differently?
Or, can you give me an example where a family had a foster child who trusted Christ but who’s biological mother refused to give him permission to be baptized and where the court refused to overrule the mother?
If not then the debate is still open.
Reply
on Jun 30th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Paul,
I think your first answer to Ben’s question misses a crucial point. There was no other baptism practice in the NT besides immersion, so the scenario you mention would never happen. As to the second question, I am unclear how it relates to the debate about immersion and church membership. If the mother refuses to let the child be baptized, then he does not become a church member until he is an adult and can make such decisions independently of her. If he in turn refuses to be immersed when he is an adult, he never becomes a member of the church. The church can still minister to the child’s spiritual needs without him being baptized. The issue is formal membership, which requires baptism.
Reply
on Jun 30th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Nathan, I didn’t miss Ben’s point. My point is exactly what you describe – the New Testament doesn’t specifically speak to our current situation (multiple denominations where people who have been saved for years join another denomination whose baptismal practice is different). That is why we have to continue to have this discussion. You can’t simply declare that the case is closed. We have to struggle with the biblical interpretation and meaning of baptism in our own context.
And I’m saddened by your second point because according to your interpretation that young man, who is eager to be baptized, by the way, cannot partake of communion which is a vital element of the Christian’s union with Christ. The matter is out of his hands and we set up rules that bind him which the Bible does not set up.
Reply
on Jun 30th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Paul,
are you saying that taking the Lord Supper is a vital part of a person’s relationship with Christ, but that obedience to His command to be baptized is not.
It seems to me that the moment a church stops expecting baptism to be biblically administered, they have ceased being Baptists already.
Reply
on Jun 30th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Paul,
Where does it say what the requirement is for membership? Are we just to let anyone in? I’m sorry I even got in this discussion.
Reply
on Jun 30th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Where does the Bible even address membership?
Reply
on Jun 30th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Tom,
No, I’m not saying that at all. Please, please, please, go read the documents that Henderson Hills has on their website that Wes links to. They are saying that baptism is vital. But let’s not confuse the two issues I mentioned. On the one hand there are instances where believers come to a Baptist church from another denomination – let’s say they were Presbyterian and were sprinkled as infants. They have a certain theological construct for their beliefs about baptism. However, the very fact that they want to join a Baptist church seems to indicate that they are teachable – otherwise why didn’t they simply join another Presby church? But they need to be convinced. They haven’t grown up with a Baptist understanding of Baptism. They have a covenantal view of baptism. The goal of Henderson Hills is to teach them about baptism from a Baptist perspective with the view of immersion in the future. Meanwhile, they are born-again believers in Jesus Christ and members of the universal church of Christ. The question HHBC is asking is on what basis are they a part of the universal church yet disqualified for the local Baptist church based upon baptism? Where in Scripture does it teach that the occasion and mode of baptism is “the” initiatory rite into the local church?
Secondly, in relation to the Lord’s Supper and baptism, I thought I spelled out the circumstances pretty clearly. This young man wants to be baptized, but he’s currently a ward of the state. The judge has declared that he must have his mother’s permission to be baptized. She has refused to give permission. His obedience to baptism is neither in his control nor in the church’s control. But the church can offer him communion – oh, except that he hasn’t been baptized and is not an official member of the local church, so he can’t take communion after all. I’m asking where is the Scriptural basis for all of this? Let’s either be people of the Book or let’s be people of our Baptist tradition. But if we’re going to be the latter then let’s quit saying we’re the former.
Reply
on Jun 30th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
Kevin and John,
Those are good questions. I think they are relevant to this discussion. Did the church in Corinth have a “membership roll?” Did people come forward to be voted in by the others? What were their criteria? It’s easy to say, as Al Mohler has said, that the church throughout time has viewed baptism as a part of church membership. But since the advent of denominationalism the situation is different. In the early church we can assume that everyone was baptized the same way. That’s not true today. In addition, for the majority of church history people have been baptized in some way other than believer’s baptism by immersion. What were those people a part of? A religious society? Where was the church? Was it, as I assume Bro. Stratton would tell us, only present in the little corners where believer’s baptism was being practiced? I have a hard time affirming that the Presbyterians and Methodists are nothing more than religious societies. I have a hard time saying that John Calvin, Martin Luther, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, R.C. Sproul, D. James Kennedy and a host of others were never a part of a true local church, but only religious societies because they were never baptized a certain way. But that’s where we inevitably end up if we keep following this line of thought.
Reply
on Jun 30th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Paul,
Fair enough. I know Willowcreek didn’t even have members until a few years ago. I just am uncomfortable with it. I’ll get over it.
Reply
on Jun 30th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Paul,
I understand fully the discomfort caused by some of the conclusions for which we are arguing. But what I am left with is the knowledge that Presbyterians, Methodists, and even members of Churches of Christ are themselves accountable for the light God has given them, and I am accountable for myself.
As Christ’s undershepherd, I will also give an account for how I have led the congregation with which He has trusted me, so I must stand for the convictions to which He has led me without necessarily trying to reconcile them to the convictions of others. That I must leave to them.
Reply
on Jun 30th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Wes, am I to assume that means you are NOT going to be making that motion at the BGCO, then? IOW, are you going to let them stand before God to give account or are they going be called to stand before you at the state convention?
Reply
on Jun 30th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
No, what I mean by that is that I would never presume to go into a church that believes so differently from what my congregation believes and tell them that they are not a true church.
But I won’t hesitate to offer an opportunity for our convention, ostensibly composed of churches of like faith and order, to speak clearly to what we believe and what it is around which we base our cooperation. What I will offer is a resolution, which is non-binding by definition. The fact that the members of my congregation contribute together with this church we believe is in error require that I take this stand.
I don’t say that any congregation is accountable to me, but I believe that if HHBC confirms their leadership, they will have declared that they no longer wish to be accountable to our convention, and the convention should treat them accordingly.
Reply
on Jun 30th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
I think that’s unfortunate.
Reply
on Jun 30th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
I chose to delete a comment by Todd Littleton for reasons that I will not share, because he gently challenged my reasoning, and his challenge made sense to me. Here is his comment:
Reply
on Jun 30th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
Paul,
The debate over baptism and the Henderson Hills Baptist Church is not about whether baptism is the door into the church, or whether baptism is a local church ordinance, or whether pedobaptist churches are true New Testament churches. The debate is over whether Christians who have never experienced believer’s immersion should be allowed to join a Baptist church. The other issues are important, but we need to keep our focus on the main issue with the HHBC and other similar “Baptist” churches.
Now the facts are:
1. Believer’s immersion was the ONLY form of baptism in the New Testament.
2. EVERY church member in the New Testament had experienced believer’s immersion.
Every Baptist will say “amen” to these two facts. Those who have infant baptism or have been sprinkled need to be willing to submit to believer’s immersion if they desire to join a Baptist church. If they are unwilling to do this, they need to be honest enough to go another type of church.
Your example of a child whose parent will not allow them to be properly baptized reminds me of a Southern Baptist church in Kentucky that saw a handicapped man become a Christian. This man wanted to be baptized, but was unable to be immersed, so the church poured some water on his head and called it baptism. This was wrong and so would it be to allow any person to join our churches who do not have biblical baptism. Let us as Baptist stick to the New Testament pattern and form with the ordinances.
Reply
on Jun 30th, 2006 at 10:18 pm
Ben,
I’m glad you’re in this conversation. If you weren’t, I might be on the far right of this issue, but there’s no danger of that with you around.
I do wish, however, that you hadn’t introduced the example of the handicapped individual, because it strikes me as legalism. If the desire of his heart was to be obedient to a correct understanding of baptism by immersion, but he was medically prevented, I think that unique situation would allow for some variation in mode in order to accomodate his desire for obedience.
Reply
on Jul 1st, 2006 at 8:47 am
I’m going to agree with Wes on this one Ben. That was the proper thing for them to do in that case. If a person becomes a Christian but because of medical reasons can’t go under completely, or is restricted to a certain position, hand me the garden hose or pitcher of water. I’m not going to endanger a person’s life because of a legalistic attempt to baptize someone.
Reply
on Jul 1st, 2006 at 10:36 am
Wes, I spent the entire afternoon yesterday [six full hours actually] reading every document on the hhbc website as well as every verse in the scriptures that relates in any way to the church. I came away with three questions…
Question one…Can anyone show me a single instance in the NT where a person is examined an then joined a local church?
Question two…Can anyone show me in the NT a particular behavior that is required of any christian because he/she has joined a local church?
Question three…Is it not correct that all behavior enjoined upon any believer in the NT is because he/she has been joined to Christ and to every other true believer?
My answers I came to are…No…No…Yes…
My answers to those three questions do not take into account Baptist history, logical thinking, or traditions.
This is creating some cloudiness in my present way of thinking and I may be faced with some necessary tweaking.
I do believe the modern church organization is a phenomenon that could not have been conceived of by the NT Church. So getting back to the way the NT Church did things may be a myth of sorts. Being redeemed people in the present age as redeemed people are to be is a possibility and a need no matter the shape our Church organization takes.
Wes, you, Paul, Kevin, and all the others are to be commended for thoughtful conversation as is Henderson Hills Church as they have attempted to get to the scripture and have gracefully brought the people along to make the the final decision whatever that may be.
I do believe tradition, history etc., are legitimate even if the scriptures don’t speak on a particular subject, but I would find it difficult to make that tradition or history as authoritative as scripture itself. Therefore, the charge of heresy would not apply since scripture is not in play.
Just some contemplative thoughts on a very serious subject.
Paul Burleson
Reply
on Jul 1st, 2006 at 10:52 am
Ben,
In all Christian love, I feel compelled to ask a question about the two facts you based your subsequent comments on. You say the “facts” are that “believer’s immersion was the only form of baptism in the NT,” and that “very church member in the NT experienced believer’s immersion.” I would gently suggest that we assume these are facts, because they are not explicit in the New Testament. Personally, I have little problem with the first, although occasionally I wonder–re: Acts 8:26 ff, Phillip & the Ethopian were out in the desert, and would there have been enough water for full immersion; that not withstanding, I agree that immersion is the Biblical mode. the second though presupposes several things that may or may not be true–one of which is that NT churches had membership rolls, or understood it in the same ways that we do. Whether my assertation is true or false, your #2 seems to me more of a conclusion based on scant evident than a fact. Either way, I appreciate you calling it believer’s baptism, because in focusing on the mode, we sometimes vere away from the meaning of baptism which is at the 16th century bedrock of the baptist movement: that a church is composed of those who have made an conscous adult decision to follow Jesus.
Reply
on Jul 1st, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Wes,
Thank you for the re-post of my comment.
Todd
I believe Paul Burleson illustrated something of the development of issues as they relate to HHBC and this particular conversation.
I like many of you have often heard, “Let’s be a NT Church.” My thougthts in recent years run along the lines of, “Which one?” Some of what we read both describes and corrects problems as the Apostles saw them. We make attempts to connect the dots with those didactic moves when we can find no one to one correrlattion. When we come to a personal conclusion it may well be best to assert it is a personal conclusion based on one’s own reading and wrestling in hopes the Spirit of God brings the authority of God to bear on the issue as we seek to understand. However, when we press beyond that to dictums and points expressed with absolute certainty, we must at least be intellectually honest to advise our readers of our own presuppositions in the matter. As much as we would like to think the Enlightenment project freed us to be “autonomous knowers”, the reality is we are dependent knowers. Our context, education, culture all play in the mix and we might be careful to call our conclusions on “second order” issues the “standard” for all.
Attempts to evaluate the HHBC decision here is very healthy. I am wondering at what point the “major’ baptist distinctive (at least for our day) will come into play. HHBC is an “autonomous” lcoal church. While I have some personal nuances I believe should be considered, it may be better for us to not only take the six hours Paul Burleson took to explore the issue, but maybe fire off our concerns and take to Dennis Newkirk or some of the elders for better understanding. After all, we are not privy to “everything” and so to draw hard conclusions without the equally hard investigative work seems a bit uncharitable.
Reply
on Jul 1st, 2006 at 1:14 pm
And what Todd has mentioned is what really, at the heart of it all, bothers me by your proposed resolution. There is a lot of misunderstanding about what Henderson Hills is and is not saying and proposing for themselves. I have noticed that misunderstanding in the comments on this thread and I have heard them from the lips of my fellow church members. In fact, it was put to me by one such member that there was a church in OKC that was “doing away with baptism.” If you bring such a resolution to the floor of the convention I would guarantee that it would pass, but I would equally guarantee that the primary reason it would pass is because people who vote will be largely uninformed or misinformed. That’s not dealing fairly with Henderson Hills or with this issue.
I e-mailed Dennis Newkirk just to tell him that I was praying for him because I was pretty sure that his e-mail in box was full of rebukes and his phone was probably ringing off the wall with people scolding him. He mentions on his blog a fellow blogger that has disagreed sharply with their proposal. I assumed it was you he was referring to and so I simply told him that I hoped that you reconsidered your resolution. He said he didn’t know who you were. That told me two things: 1) you are obviously not the only one to disagree in the blogosphere and 2) that you hadn’t personally talked to him about these issues. I think if you are going to make such a proposal you at the very least owe him that much.
Reply
on Jul 1st, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Ben, I am much more concerned with people who are joining New Testament churches than Southern Baptist churches. I am more concerned about people qualifying to be members of a local New Testament church than a Southern Baptist church. Let’s build the kingdom rather than simply a denomination.
As an analogy regarding baptism, I totally agree with you that every beliver in the New Testament that was baptized was baptized by immersion as a believer. But let’s look at the other New Testament ordinance, the Lord’s Supper. Does your church practice the Lord’s Supper exactly like the New Testament churches did? Not if you use grape juice and serve little unleaven wafers. It seems pretty clear that the Lord’s Supper as Jesus instituted it was a regular meal of sorts and that they used wine in addition to other common foods at the table. How else could there have been people in the Corinthian church who were gorging themselves to the exclusion of others who came later?
If your church does not require that you observe the Lord’s Supper exactly like the NT church then why do you require people to be baptized exactly like the NT church? IOW, how is sprinkling as a mode different than using grape juice as a wine substitute, or wafers in place of a loaf of bread?
And this is about being an initiatory rite into the church, whereas baptism in the NT was an initiatory rite into identification with Christ, not the local church (see the Ethopian eunuch, for example).
Reply
on Jul 1st, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Well,
Why can’t things be easy for me to undertand? You guys are forcing me to think too much!
Reply
on Jul 1st, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Paul,
I understand your concerns; I would address them this way.
First of all, of course I also have read the supporting documents from their website. Also, I have been and continue to be engaged with Pastor Newkirk on his blog, and have shared with him my appreciation for his willingness to engage in that forum.
Secondly, I will only submit my resolution for consideration if HHBC’s members affirm this move.
And finally, though my resolution mentions no church specifically, I would certainly share the text of it with Dennis Newkirk and anyone else who is interested well before the convention.
Reply
on Jul 1st, 2006 at 9:30 pm
Paul,
Here’s the problem with your Lord’s Supper example. When a church observes the ordinance with grape juice instead of wine and unleavened bread pieces instead of one loaf, they are still picturing the shed blood and broken body of our Lord Jesus. When a church pours for baptism instead of immersing they are no longer picturing the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.
Wes, I commend you on presenting this resolution before the Oklahoma Baptist Convention. It am sure it will pass with an overwhelming majority and perhaps it will be Baptists thinking about these important issues that have been ignored for so long.
Reply
on Jul 1st, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Ben, I think a good number of sprinklers would disagree with you on that. You should read N. T. Wright’s commentary on Romans in the New Interpreter’s Bible series, Volume 10 as it relates to chapter six. Wright, as I’m sure you know, is Anglican, but he certainly affirms Paul’s words in chapter six which instruct that baptism is, in fact, a picture of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. It is no more of a stretch to say that the act of baptism by sprinkling depicts the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus than it is to say that grape juice depicts the blood of Christ. You are arguing for following the Biblical ordinance of baptism to the letter including the mode. You are not following the Biblical ordinance of the Lord’s Supper to the letter when you use grape juice and wafers. If you don’t think so then go to your next deacon’s meeting and suggest that the next time your church observes the Lord’s Supper that you use Teddy Grahams and pink lemonade. And then let me know how that goes. I’ll bet that there would be more than one who would use words like “irreverant” and “unscriptural.” Yet one is an unleaven bread food and the other is a reddish alcohol-free beverege.
Early Baptists understood this as many of them did require believers baptism, but did not require immersion, but sprinkled, instead. Interestingly, John Smythe even baptized hisself, and if 1st C. baptism was patterned after the Jewish mikvah as many church historians have suggested then self-baptism may actually be the New Testament pattern for the administrator.
Reply
on Jul 1st, 2006 at 11:47 pm
No need to reinvent the wheel here…so much has already been said. Let me just add a couple of observations:Actually, there was more than one kind of baptism in the NT. Look at Acts 18:25-19:7. Having experienced the wrong kind of baptism was a defect that required correction. Apparently, Paul held at least some standard regarding proper baptism.
It is a trivial point, but the earliest Baptists did not sprinkle; they poured.
For a related, but more important point: Although it is correct to note that they did not immerse, it is not correct to deduce that they therefore agreed with what HHBC is contemplating. Such historical analysis is anachronistic. Smythe and his compatriots did not address the question of the proper mode of baptism—it was a question that had not yet come up in Baptist history. When the question did emerge, Baptists answered with a level of consensus that gathered so quickly and has endured for so long as to be almost unbaptistic.
HHBC has cited the almost-Baptist John Bunyan in its defense, thinking that by doing so they have defended the baptistness of their position. They ought to seek a more stable foundation. Bunyan denied being a Baptist, and apparently he suffered his own children to be sprinkled as infants. In John Clifford (Spurgeon’s nemesis in the Down-Grade) they find a better predecessor. I think one of the most appropriate things we could read in this day would be the pamphlets that early Baptists wrote refuting the Quakers. It seems to me that the trajectory implicit in HHBC’s actions is toward the 17th-century Quaker position.
The examples of Bethlehem Baptist and HHBC notwithstanding, we have every reason to hope that our present-day Southern Baptist brethren who are more Calvinistic in their theology are reading a good bit more Spurgeon than Piper. If so, we ought to be OK with regard to baptism.
Baptists, as believers in religious liberty and local church autonomy, have always affirmed the absolute right for any congregation to decide whether it believes Baptist theology to be biblical or not. Indeed, this is a responsibility, not merely a right. But it seems to me that one also has a responsibility—out of respect for others who are Baptist, but more importantly out of a desire to be honest and to have integrity—if one has concluded that Baptist theology is not biblical to state simply and honestly, “I am no longer a Baptist; our church is no longer a Baptist church.” What reason would one have for refusing to do so? To keep Baptist members from leaving? To maintain connection with Guidestone (as the old joke goes)? Surely it is nothing this base. Surely it is simply either the denial of reality or a sort of postmodern approach to truth that suggests that “Baptist” can mean something different for me than it has meant for Baptists for 350 years. But I think that people need to be disabused of this kind of thinking.Without duplicating the fine comments of others on this site, I will simply affirm you, Wes, for what you are doing and state publicly my admiration and agreement.
Reply
on Jul 2nd, 2006 at 12:02 am
Let me apologize regarding the strange formatting of my preceding comment. It looked GREAT when I first typed it, complete with formatted lists and other fancy HTML. The preview below the form rendered it just as I intended, so I hit submit. Unfortunately, the script stripped out all of my formatting, and the resulting comment is really difficult to read. Please accept my apologies. I’ll know better next time.
Reply
on Jul 2nd, 2006 at 7:53 am
Wes 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 at: http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmpreamble.asp.
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
Reply
on Jul 2nd, 2006 at 9:06 am
Chuck,
Thanks for sharing your story. It helped me see things a little differently. Blessings to your church!
Reply
on Jul 2nd, 2006 at 9:08 am
Chuck,
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.
Reply
on Jul 2nd, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Bart, of course there was more than one kind of baptism in the New Testament. But there was only one kind of Christian baptism in the New Testament and Christian baptism is what we are considering. John’s disciples were re-baptized because they had never submitted to Christian baptism. Our Methodist friends do not come to our churches having been baptized into the name of John Wesley but into the name of Christ. It seems to me that that makes this issue a whole different matter than what we find in Acts 19.
The rest of your argument seems to me to be more historical and/or denominational so I’ll leave that to the historians and denominationalists.
Reply
on Jul 3rd, 2006 at 10:37 am
Ben,
RE: “Here’s the problem with your Lord’s Supper example. When a church observes the ordinance with grape juice instead of wine and unleavened bread pieces instead of one loaf, they are still picturing the shed blood and broken body of our Lord Jesus.”
1 Corinthians 10.16-17 clearly states: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
What is symbolized by the common loaf, as referenced in this passage, is the fundamental unity of the Universal Body of Christ. I would submit that when we do not celebrate the Lord’s Supper this way, and with this intent, we are also being disobedient to the Lord’s command.
Reply
on Jul 3rd, 2006 at 11:45 am
“Smythe and his compatriots did not address the question of the proper mode of baptism—it was a question that had not yet come up in Baptist history.”
I’m not sure how one can say that they did not address the issue when they reflected some mode by their very practice of the ordinance. There may not have been a great debate, but that would only means that they didn’t view the matter as debatable at the time. That certainly doesn’t mean that they simply did it and thought nothing of it, as if that were even possible. They didn’t just flick water from the tips of their fingers, after all.
Reply
on Jul 5th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
At my previous church in SC, we had an older (mid-40’s) woman who wanted to join the church, but was afraid to be baptized (fear of the water itself). I’m not sure what happened with that, but my (exuberant and probably tactless) thoughts are, “If you are scared of dying, you haven’t gotten the whole salvation thing worked out!”
Reply
on Jul 21st, 2006 at 8:26 am
The use of blue type on a black background is hard to read. The white type on black is OK but please change the links setting so they do not appear in blue.
Reply
on Jul 29th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
I have to agree with Dick on this one. I read this entire page and it really burned my eyes. As an editor for a major online directory, I look at hundreds of sites per day and content is king. You have great content, it would just be easier to read if it were in a color that was easier on the eyes.
Reply