Category archive - baptism

Chuck Says: July 2nd, 2006 at 7:53 am e 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 by following this link. Statement of the historic Baptist conception of the nature and function of confessions of faith in our religious and denominational life… (2) That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time. (3) That any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so. (4) That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience. (5) That they are statements of religious convictions, drawn from the Scriptures, and are not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life. Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches. Those who accuse us of being un-Baptist because we are proposing a slight conflict with the BF&M (which we concede), are actually in slight conflict with it themselves as well. That document was never meant to be creed by which exact belief is required in every Baptist church. I’m afraid we are on a slippery slope if we begin to use it in a way never intended. Our hope is that in the end these wise words from the preamble will still be heeded. Our desire is to continue to stand alongside you, brothers, as HHBC has done for 42 years. We had a great deal of respect for our heritage. I was saved in a Baptist church, baptized in a Baptist church, called to ministry in a Baptist church, met my wife and was married in a Baptist church, ordained in a Baptist church, attended a Southern Baptist seminary, dedicated my daughter to the Lord in a Baptist church, and serve in a Baptist church. There are many things about Baptists I love. I love our commitment to Scripture. I love our commitment to the priesthood of the believer. I love our commitment to reaching people for Christ — no matter what it takes. I love our commitment to biblical baptism. I love our commitment to the autonomy of every local church. But, as I hope is true with all of you, when I’m cut, I bleed Christian, not Baptist. My core identity is a follower of Jesus Christ, whose name I bear. My allegiance is ultimately to Him and His Word. But please don’t misunderstand me, our hope is that you all would not see this proposal as a stepping away from Baptists, but a desire to help our church interpret and apply Scripture in a way that remains faithful to the text and relevant to the circumstances we find ourselves in. We simply want to be a church that is constantly reforming into more and more of a biblical church. We aren’t there yet, but we believe this is one more step in that direction, for us. We do not and will not judge any other church for not taking this step nor for disagreeing with us. Let’s stand together for the sake of the Gospel. If you’ve not yet done so, I’d encourage you to go to our website, listen to the sermons, and read the documents. We’ve tried to do this in the open so it would be clear we have nothing to hide. Again, please read our proposal closely. If you disagree, that is fine. As we are telling people in our church, “If you read the material, search the Scripture, give this issue to God in prayer, and you vote no to the proposal, we will be very satisfied with how this process played out in your life. This is something we can agree to disagree on.” In a spirit of love and unity, we would say the same thing to you. Please pray for us as we seek God’s leadership. We have no desire to stir controversy, be disobedient to the Lord, or miss His guidance for our fellowship. Have a great Lord’s Day, Chuck Kevin Bussey Says: July 2nd, 2006 at 9:06 am e Chuck, Thanks for sharing your story. It helped me see things a little differently. Blessings to your church! Wes Kenney Says: July 2nd, 2006 at 9:08 am eChuck, First of all, thank you for taking the time to read the discussion here, and to comment so extensively. Much good must necessarily come from our having a more complete understanding of your thinking and process. Let me say that I did not intend to make any assertion about your motivation in this. You said, “It is another thing altogether to assert our motives are impure, mixed with selfish ambition, or dishonest.” If I have said this, directly or indirectly, I apologize. I do not question your sincerity in seeking to be true to your interpretation of scripture. I simply meant to communicate that if your interpretation leads your congregation to forsake the distinctive of a regenerate, baptized church membership, which baptist confessions have articulated since at least 1644, then that action will speak louder than any professed desire to remain a part of a group or groups with which you have declared such fundamental disagreement. Again, I truly appreciate your willingness, and that of your brother, to engage in debate in these forums. Your willingness to follow your convictions is an example for leaders throughout the body of Christ.

I have always believed and been taught that baptism is, in addition to being an identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, identification with the local church and its doctrine. When the new policies were adopted, I was somewhat surprised at the outcry that resulted. I have since been exposed to many faithful, lifelong Southern Baptists who reject such an idea, believing identification with Christ to be the sole significance. By this logic, virtually any circumstance in which a person was immersed after a profession of personal faith, not trusting in this immersion for regeneration, would constitute a legitimate baptism that should be accepted by any Baptist church.I have been compelled to search the scriptures in search of the truth, and the conclusion I have reached is that the Scriptures are free enough of specifics in this area to allow for both of these interpretations. It seems clear to me that baptism should be administered under the authority of a local church. While anecdotes can be offered that would seem to call for exceptions, I think that they are quite rare. For those 'in the field' occasions, it seems to me that someone who knows they are likely to be in such a situation could seek beforehand authorization from their church to baptize converts. I can't speak for the average church, but as a pastor I know I would be thrilled if someone approached me seeking such authorization, and would wholeheartedly recommend to my church that it be granted, assuming the person requesting it was known to be sound. Because I believe baptism must be administered under the local church's authority does not mean that only ordained men can administer it. A local church can authorize their janitor to baptize if they wish. It only means to me that there is accountability for the administration of the ordinance. As to the question of identification, as I said, I believe that the secondary identification is a defensible position, and I make this defense based on the following text from the book of Acts [emphasis added]:

So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about 3,000 people were added to them. - Acts 2:41 (HCSB)

It seems a fair inference that if acceptance of the message was the prerequisite to baptism and being "added to them" at the founding of the church, it is a fair test today. And it seems only logical for the preservation of order that we not accept those who profess faith in Christ based on that profession alone, but first obtain assurances that their professed faith is consistent with what the local church believes. If a person believes that a "second blessing" or speaking in tongues is normative or even required proof of salvation, we would be inviting chaos if we simply baptized them on that profession and accepted them into membership. They would have either to violate their conscience or to disrupt the order of the church, neither of which is acceptable.I am presently reading Why I Am a Baptist, which was edited by Tom Nettles and Russell Moore. I am enjoying immensely this collection of essays by Baptists past and present. In the essay by Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., which is titled Being Baptist Means Conviction, he says the following:

In a Baptist congregation, every believer is in covenant with brothers and sisters in Christ. Believer's baptism by immersion, faithfully following the example and instruction of our Lord, is the sign of that covenant, and is prerequisite to membership. (p. 64)

What Dr. Mohler ably articulates leads me to wonder: How can this baptism be a sign of that covenant if the administering church believes very differently about such an important doctrine as salvation? If someone presents themselves to us having been baptized in such a fellowship, is it too much to ask of someone wanting to covenant together with us to submit to baptism as, in Dr. Mohler's words, a "sign of that covenant"? This leads me to consider my conclusions in light of the aforementioned controversy. Wade Burleson recently proposed replacements for the newly adopted policies on tongues and baptism, but as I argued in the comments on the tongues policy, it seems to me that these are vulnerable to the same objections as the current policies, specifically that they impose restrictions where the Baptist Faith and Message is silent. As to solutions in the current controversy, the only thing that suggests itself to me is for the trustees of the IMB to implement a policy that makes the local church which recommends a candidate the sole determiner of the validity of their baptism, allowing the IMB to ask no questions beyond determining whether the recommending church has validated their baptismal experience. I don't know what the unintended ramifications might be of such a policy, but anything else would, it seems to me, require setting policy that necessarily exceeds the BF&M, and that apparently isn't acceptable, either. Please feel free to correct me (gently, please) if you feel I am in error with any of my conclusions here. I said at the beginning that these are conclusions I have reached. In reality, they are conclusions and not yet convictions. I am open to being moved from them if I am convinced by Scripture and conscience to do so. I continue to pray that our convention will focus on positive, constructive debates that sharpen our minds and deepen our faith in God and our love for one another.