In a post on his blog, Dr. Hershael York, who is a trustee of the International Mission Board, gets the facts straight and corrects some of the misinformation concerning the attrition rate of missionary personnel:
Interestingly, the attrition rate has actually declined since the IMB passed the policies on baptism and private prayer language that some people find controversial. Another way of putting it is that the attrition rate has dropped since John Floyd became chairman of the IMB. Now, do I think Dr. Floyd can or should take credit for that? Of course not. But I think it just as foolish when some critics of his or of the board simplistically blame the board or Dr. Floyd when missionaries leave.
You can read his post in its entirety by clicking here.
I am one of the missionaries who resigned during the leadership of John Floyd. I did not resign because of either of the two issues, but let me tell you something, those are REAL issues. No so much the PPL but the baptism one for sure.
I baptized my youngest daughter while in Thailand in a hotel swimming pool, just after this unbiblical decree went out. Even though it was an Annual General Meeting and there were folks from Richmond and even trustees there, they did not attend. My own regional leader didn’t want to attend because he was afraid of what might be said of him.
I WAS BAPTIZING MY DAUGHTER!
Representatives from the Personnel Selection Department of the IMB were there, too, but did not attend the baptism. I asked them whether or not my daughter was now disqualified from missionary service with the IMB because her ordained SBC IMB missionary father had baptized her in a swimming pool instead of an SBC church in America. They told me that according to the new policies, she would have to be baptized in an SBC church in America.
YOU TRY TELLING THAT TO MY DAUGHTER!
I am HIGHLY critical of John Floyd. I called (since I have resigned) for his resignation. I called for answers regarding many different issues . He called me on the phone and had the audacity to ask me if I was tape recording his call. HE CALLED ME! He then made it very clear, by his comments, that he had my IMB personnel folder in front of him. Why would he want to make it clear to me of that? Because he was trying to imtmidate me.
You guys can hate Burleson all you want to, but you need to understand: John Floyd was a bad chairman of the Board of Trustees. He seemed to be led by personal agenda and personal bias. Get your stories straight before you start singing his praises.
Rick Boyne
Pastor
Immanuel Southern Baptist Church
Wagoner OK
918-485-5115
http://www.immanuelsouthern.com
rick@immanuelsouthern.com
Rick,
Let me see if I understand you. During an Annual General Meeting and as part of your local church’s worship service, you were performing a baptism of your daughter as part of her obedience to our Lord’s command, identification with Him in baptism, and identification with a visible, local body of baptized believers?
As to your account of your interaction with Dr. Floyd, I will leave you to your recollection. Even if this encounter took place precisely as you have described, that still does not present ANY argument for the blatant lies regarding the number of resignations from the IMB being linked as having resulted from the aforementioned policies. This ad hominem is a distraction from rather than an answer to the information posted by Dr. York.
Sola Gratia!
Let’s see…JF was a ‘bad’ chm. with a ‘personal agenda’ and a ‘personal bias’, was he? And that would be your personal opinion, unsullied by personal agenda and personal bias? Uh huh…
If we have IMB field personnel calling for the resignation of their employers, trustees of the IMB, then they should understand that they do so at the risk of their employment. Sorry, my friend, no one in the SBC elected you to set policy. The trustees may be wrong but they are doing the job that they, not you, were elected to do. I am critical of some IMB trustee decisions and perhaps would disagree with some of JF’s positions, but the SBC administrates the IMB through duly elected trustees, not through polling the field personnel.
On the baptism of your daughter – an honest question: Were you not a member of some local (in the sense of a visible congregation, not necessarily local geographically) church even while serving in Thailand? If so, is there a reason that your local church was left out of your personal, family baptismal ceremony? Is your position that the ordinance of baptism should be available for any administrator in any circumstance?
(I don’t have the baptism policy in front of me, but I don’t think it requires a church in America to be involved.)
Just asking…
BTW, I don’t hate WB, I even agree with him sometimes. I do think it is better for him not to be an IMB trustee.
rick,
another question…to go along with the ones that william mentioned…would it have been so hard to contact the authorities over you in thailand and ask them what you should do in regards to baptising your daughter? i’m honestly asking this…not trying to be mean.
david
David:
David, David, always just asking questions.
tom,
curious minds want to know.
rick,
dr. john floyd was a professor of mine in seminary. he is a godly man who has a heart for the lost. he is a man of integrity, and yes, i’d say that he’s very concerned that things are done decently and in order. as a professor, he was tough but fair. he also loves people. and, if you want to know something else….his wife is a wonderful christian lady.
david
An ordained missionary should ask permission on whether to baptize his daughter? I fear baptist identity and Christian identity may be diverging.
David:
I do not see your questions as just being curious, you always appear to me to try and be critical in a sly way, always questioning someone elses judgement.
David:
I do not see your questions as just being curious, you always appear to me to try and be critical in a sly way, always questioning someone elses judgement.
David:
I do not see your questions as just being curious, you always appear to me to try and be critical in a sly way, always questioning someone elses judgement.
I just do not see where someone gets baptized as being very important, whether it is a pool or a church. How many more rules and regulations are going to be added.
I just do not see where someone gets baptized as being very important, whether it is a pool or a church. How many more rules and regulations are going to be added.
I just do not see where someone gets baptized as being very important, whether it is a pool or a church. How many more rules and regulations are going to be added.
Tom,
In my mind it more about the in relation to whom rather than the where.
I don’t care if it’s down by the riverside as long as it is administered by the local church. That is why we, as Southern Baptists, have always discussed baptism as a church ordinance. The scriptures speak of those who accepted Christ as being baptized and added to the church…leadership from a local church is always present.
Baptism is not something done on a whim (& let everyone understand this is no slight to Rick…I have spoken with him by phone regarding his situation and while we may not fully agree, we understand each other as brothers in Christ)…when I speak about a whim or otherwise, I’m talking about accepting a baptism performed in a back yard pool by a 10 year old after he has led his 8 year old friend to Christ. I do not believe that to be scripturally valid, just as I do not consider some group of Christians getting together at someone’s house and passing around popcorn and lemonade and calling it the Lord’s Supper (no joke here. I actually know that this was done) to be valid.
I think this argument sidetracks from the focus of what Dr. York was attempting to say in his post. No one can, without lying outright, assert with any authority that the policies regarding PPL & Baptism have caused missionaries to resign in any substantial fashion.
Sola Gratia!
Scott,
It was very nice to speak with you on the phone just now. As I said on the phone, I’ll now repeat (just a bit) in writing:
I did not mean to distract from Dr. York’s information. I am glad that he is setting the record straight. My beef is that it appeared to make John Floyd a hero. I, out of personal experience, have to disagree with that assessment.
I wanted to make sure folks understand that there are real lives affected by the policies. In regards to the PPL, in my 12 years overseas (Journeyman time included) I NEVER once saw any IMB missionary with a personal prayer language or who spoke in tongues (except for real foreign languages) I don’t know why the PPL policy was ever created; it doesn’t make sense to me.
William,
The sarcasm wasn’t lost on me. Yes, I have personal bias, but I’m not too sure of what my personal agenda might be unless it is to make sure that there is a balanced perspective of John Floyd.
In regard to being critical of policy makers: put those six shooters back in the holsters, there partner. Your comment is a little over-kill, isn’t it? By the way, I said that AFTER I resigned, I called for his resignation; not while I was still a missionary. You called me “my friend”, but from the sounds of your comment, I don’t think you really think of me that way and you have never met me or spoken to me.
Now then, in regard to the my daughter’s baptism: I baptized my daughter under the authority of my church back in the US. There was no local Baptist church for us to be involved with in our city. None. There were local Thai churches, of course, but they were of the pentecostal kind and we chose not to fellowship with them. Due to some extenuating circumstances, the missionaries often met together in a loose fellowship or gathering, but we, at that time, weren’t a proper “church”. If you would like to call me and let me explain exactly what the situation was, I will be happy (and I mean that) to tell you about what the circumstances were. (My number is on the first comment above.) And, no, my position is not that baptism should be available for any administrator in any circumstance.
(This part is free for anyone who cares) I am not part of the Burleson Coalition, or whatever it is called. I’m not part of the “I-can’t-stand-Wade-Burleson-or-anything-about-him-Coalition”. I honestly don’t care. Don’t dumb me into a camp on one side or the other; I’m on God’s side.
David,
I did ask the regional leader. He said he would leave that up to me. I asked my immediate supervisor. He gave me the same answer. No one moved to prohibit me; another colleague baptized his daughter the next year at a different hotel swimming pool.
(Remember, Southern Baptist Churches only exist in the United States. Baptist churches outside of the US can be any flavor of Baptist you can imagine. For example, in Hong Kong, many Baptist churches have Cognac at their deacons meetings.)
All the things you said about John Floyd, I do not doubt. But being Godly doesn’t make him a good chairman.
Robin,
It was very nice to speak with you just now, too. Thanks for calling!
Scott Gordon:
Why even have a policy about PPL and Baptism?
Tom, that has been my question all along.
Why does anyone care how I pray in my private prayer closet? Why is it an issue?
If I speak in tongues in public? That’s a legitimate issue. I was appointed through HMB (pre-NAMB) several years ago and they were adamant about that. I assume IMB is as well.
But PPL? The first P is for PRIVATE. Why does anyone care?
I am still a little ambivalent about the Baptism thing. My associate was originally baptized Church of Christ. He was re-baptized (or baptized biblically for the first time). However, if someone came from a Bible-believing Wesleyan church (some practice immersion as an option) and had been baptized by immersion upon profession of faith, I’d have no problem with that.
Still, I have the same question about the baptism thing. I went through the missionary appointment process. I was poked and probed physically, spiritually, emotionally and doctrinally. If I was qualified in every way as a Baptist missionary (and the process is thorough), why would they care about the secondary details of my baptism.
That has been my quarrel all along. I just don’t understand why this matters. Dr. Floyd seems to think it is life and death.
I don’t get it.
One more thing. My dad also knows Dr. Floyd. Calls him a fine Christian gentleman. I am sure that is true.
It is okay to disagree with a fine Christian gentleman, right?
Brother Rick Boyne,
This is the first time that I have seen you comment on SBC Today. Welcome and I pray that you return often. Your arguments are very concise and articulate. I do want to say that I am sorry that you have left your service to the IMB. That is sad.
I do not want to re-visit something that is painful for you. I had the honor of being the one that baptized my daughter. Therefore, I know the experience of which you speak. If I understand your situation that you have described, you came together with other M’s at some type of M gathering. It was at that gathering that you baptized your daughter in the pool at the hotel where this M meeting was taking place. If this is the correct understanding there are some serious issues here. Baptism is an ordinance of the church. If you say that you were baptizing under the authority of the universal church, then you have one problem. That is the universal church has not been assembled. Baptism is performed under the authority of the local church body. If you had the authority of a local church there in your serving country then where were they when you performed this baptism? That is the issue that many SB have a huge concern with theologically.
Let me say what it is that I am not saying. I am not saying that you have to baptize your daughter in the local church in the US. I am not saying that you have to baptize your daughter in a baptismal pool in the church building. I am not saying that you have to have permission from your RL to baptize anyone.
Let me say what I am saying. I am saying that if you were under the authority of the local church that sent you to the mission field and your daughter was being baptized as a result of your starting a church on the mission field she has been scripturally baptized. I am saying that baptizing in a pool in a local hotel is ok as long as the local church under whose authority you are baptizing has approved this service. I am saying that the permission you seek to baptize your daughter comes from the local church not your RL or your Field Supervisor.
Allow me another question as I strive to understand your position. If you did not think what you were doing was something that was not permitted, why did you feel you had to ask your RL and FS if they had any problems? One more thing concerning this issue. Does your RL and FS not standing up in support of you tell you anything concerning this action?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim Rogers:
In my reading of your comments it sure sounds like you are saying to Rick Boyne that he must have done something wrong since the RL and FS did not support his actions. Could it be that they were wrong? I just don’t understand all these rules and regulations to baptize someone.
Brother Tom,
You fail to point something out. I did not say any such thing that you allege. It was Brother Rick that pointed out the RL and FS did not support his actions. There is a such thing as collegiality.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Rick,
I encourage you to read Dr. Thomas White’s post on Believer’s Baptism.
Blessings,
Tim
As important as baptism is (and it is VERY important to me), I am far more concerned about the ongoing existence of believers bereft of participation in a church. Especially if we expect those believers to be mature spiritually and to be offering leadership in ministry, we ought to want them to be receiving the encouragement, exercising their gifts, and laboring under the accountability of an ekklesia.
If there’s not one, a group of missionaries ought to be qualified to start one, right?
Bro Tim,
To be honest, it is hard to tell what you are saying and what you are not saying by saying what you are not saying and by saying what you are saying.
I actually read this blog every time it has a new post. Nothing ever really prompted me to comment until today.
Why do you sat that it is sad that I left my service with the IMB? I had a very clear, very personal call from God to be released from overseas service to pastor a church in NE OK. There is nothing sad about it.
I NEVER said my RL and FS did not support me. They did not attend the baptism because they were wary because of the new policy and there were trustees at this missionary meeting. No one knew where all this was really headed. The RL spoke to me on several different occasions afterwards with explanations on why he did not attend, all pertaining to the new policy. I never asked either of them “permission” as they do not have the authority to grant permission to baptize. I asked them for their opinion; their counsel. They both told me that under the circumstances, they knew of no BIBLICAL reason I couldn’t procede with the baptism. A year later, they both attended when my colleague baptized his daughter in a different swimming pool.
As I said in my earlier comment, there was no local church. In a similar manner as the Ethiopian eunuch, my daughter (in not so many words) said, “Here’s water; what prevents me from being baptized?” If you would like to discuss this over the phone, I “should” be in my office by 9 am CDT tomorrow. My phone number is on the original comment #1 above.
Please find one generation of missionaries who have not baptized someone on the foreign mission field in the absence of a local church. I challenge you to that.
Quite frankly, despite your welcome to the site, I really don’t feel welcome here. I wrote a comment about something I felt very strongly about and have been met with condescending and patronizing comments directed toward me. I’ll be the very first to say that I am not perfect. I am fallen. I am broken. It is by God’s grace alone that I stand. However, these attitudes toward a new commentor have a tendancy to limit dialogue to site-friendly subjects only.
Rick,
Well done and congratulations on your daughter’s faith and baptism. The authority to baptize was given to you by Christ alone. Thank you for your service.
Rick,
Do you believe what Bill has stated to you in comment #21?
cb
Rick, you said that you “baptized my daughter under the authority of my church back in the US.” If this was not acceptable under the IMB’s policy, then I would join you in protest. If folks from IMB personnel selection still maintain that this is not acceptable, then I would be quite surprised. I don’t doubt your word that such was said at the time.
Brother Rick,
No one has spoken to you in any condescending way, neither has there been any patronizing going on in any of the comments that I have seen.
You said; “Not so much the PPL but the baptism one for sure.” after you said; “I did not resign because of either of the two issues, but let me tell you something, those are REAL issues.” You then go into a comment seasoned with, what appears to be some bitterness, as to how neither the RL or the FS would attend your daughter’s baptism at the hotel swimming pool where all of the M’s were together for their meeting. It leads one to believe the policy on baptism played a role in your seeking stateside service as a pastor. I praise God with you that you have been called to pastor in OK.
Allow me to take your scenario and apply it to stateside. I am going to Indy this year and plan to arrive on Saturday. I like doing this because we enjoy the Pastor’s Conference and attending the COSBE Worship service on that Sunday morning. I meet with other pastors and tell them that my daughter accepted Christ and I am going to baptize her in the pool at our hotel. I do not have the authority from the church that I serve to perform such a baptism. I can do it if I want, there certainly is nothing stopping me from do such. However, it is not a scriptural baptism as it is not under the auspices of the local church. Have you asked your leadership in your current place of service if something like this were to happen at a gathering of pastors if they would see anything wrong?
It is the local church that Jesus left the authority to baptize. Who was Jesus speaking to on that hillside before he ascended back into heaven, just people standing around? In Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye (KJV), other translations say Go, therefore, is speaking about the group, it is not speaking about individually. While we witness individually, we are responsible to get the person into a local church. We are not to go out witness to them, lead them to Christ, Baptize them in their backyard swimming pool, then leave them to fend for themselves.
As for calling you, I will try to call you later on today. I believe I met you at the Small Church Conference. If not, I may have you mistaken with someone else.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Rick,
I posted my comment #24 before without reading your comment #11.
Allow me some latitude and I promise you that I will call.
First you say in that comment; “Now then, in regard to the my daughter’s baptism: I baptized my daughter under the authority of my church back in the US. There was no local Baptist church for us to be involved with in our city. None. There were local Thai churches, of course, but they were of the pentecostal kind and we chose not to fellowship with them.” You, my Brother, have a scriptural baptism on your hands. If you, as a Missionary, have been granted authority by your local church in the states to baptize on the Mission field, then you are doing what they have sent you there to do.
Second, your RL and FS need their hindparts hung up to dry because they would not attend and support this ordinance. You should have called them to task, much like Paul did Peter, a year later when they attended your colleague’s daughter ordinance of baptism. They did not attend your daughter’s because they were afraid of the Trustees that were there for the meeting? How baloney eating, boot lapping of your RL and FS.
Third, here is the bottom line for me. If your initial comment was meant to be a slam at the policies of the IMB, you have not presented the whole case. In your initial comment you never said you were baptizing under the local church authority here in the states. It was presented as a group of M’s getting together and one of you baptizing their daughter in the swimming pool. That is an un-scriptural baptism. However, if you are getting together and acknowledging that this baptism is taking place because we have not planted a church yet and we are going to baptize her under the authority of the church back home, then you have a scriptural baptism.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Your comment to Rick in#25 is to be applauded. Thank you for the grit to do it.
Bill,
God gave the church the mandate of Baptism and the only vested authority to perform it. It was not mandated to Rick, you or me.
Rick’s problem seems to have arisen because men of God sought political safety rather than biblical purity. Tim has well spoken.
Rick,
I am sorry that you went through what you did. Those who should have supported you failed you and I know that is a painful thing. Of course, Jesus knows it better than all of us and I am sure you will agree that we all have failed Him. I thank Him for His mercy. I also thank Him for saving your daughter. His grace is everlasting and totally sufficient.
cb
Tom,
In response to your question in number 12…
Why even be Southern Baptist as part of the IMB?
SOLA GRATIA!
Scott Gordon:
In response to me in number 27, can you elaborate.
Scott Gordon:
In response to me in number 27, can you elaborate.
Scott Gordon:
In response to me in number 27, can you elaborate.
CB: I, Rick, and you are part of the church.
CB,
Nope. I don’t entirely agree with Bill’s statement. Jesus gave the authority to the church.
Tim,
Yep. I’m human. There is still some bitterness, but I’m working on it.
I think we did meet at the Small Church Conference. It was great, wasn’t it?
The purpose of my first comment is that I disagree with the assessment that John Floyd is to be exonorated as a “good chairman” and that even though a lot of folks disagree with Wade Burleson, he still has some real truth to what he said, specifically regarding John Floyd.
To be sure, I am NOT bitter at my RL. He, too is human and did what he thought he had to do. (after trying to re-read all of my own comments above with a pounding sinus headache, I now realize I was in error about my FS not attending the baptism. He DID in fact attend my daughters baptism service)
+++
Now, let’s get something else clear as mud: since Floyd left, the policies are now guidelines. That ought to tell us something right there. I seriously doubt that my daughter’s baptism will disqualify her from missionary service under the “guidelines”; it very well could have under the policy.
I love the IMB. It is filled with wonderful Godly folks whose desire is to see the Kingdom of God advanced on earth. I love my RL, FS, colleagues, and yes, I even love John Floyd. I just don’t happen to like him a lot right now. (But I’m still working through that). I miss being a missionary. I didn’t resign because of a policy, or a inter-personal relationship gone sour. I resigned because God, in His infinite wisdom, wanted to pick me up out of the foreign mission field and plop me down in a hurting local church in the buckle of the Bible Belt. I had ALWAYS thought I would retire with the board. I NEVER thought I would pastor. When I asked God about it, He said “don’t ask, just obey”.
So, here I sit, 8 months later watching God restore a church which has had 2 splits in the past five years, with 2 different pastors. I’ve watched God DOUBLE our attendance in that short amount of time. Let me tell you what: it is an exciting time! And the best par? God gets all the glory for it.
I agree. God gave the authority to baptize to the church. I haven’t said anything contrary to that.
rick,
i agree with tim rogers and cb in thier answers to you in #’s 25 and 26. your daughters baptism ought to be looked upon as valid. i, too, have baptised in a swimming pool before….the man was paralyzed and in a wheel chair, and the college near us had a handicapped lift on thier pool. our church went over there after worship one sunday night, and we sang and baptized that man in the swimming pool at a secular college. a lot of my members remarked that it was one of the most inspiring baptisms that they’ve ever attended.
God bless you, bro. God bless your daughter. i’m glad that she’s saved. also, like tim r., i didnt see any condescending remarks made your way, and i hope that you will comment more often. you sound like a good guy.
cb, when you really get down to it, the most liberal person in this blog may be tim rogers. did you know that he dances???? a baptist pastor dancing!!!! :) did you know about that, cb?
david
My apologies for an error. (I’d like to blame a sinus headache please)
The IMB policies were changed to guidelines BEFORE Floyd left his office.
I apologize for the former inflammatory innuendos created by my comment.
cb,
also, what makes matters worse about tim dancing, from sources that i have in north carolina, he really doesnt dance that well,either.
david :)
Brother David,
If I can ever figure out how to place something on a blog you will regret that you made those last two remarks.
:>)
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Rick,
Dr. Floyd is still Chairman of the BoT with the IMB. Dr. Chitwood’s office does not begin until the end of the convention.
Blessings,
Tim
Bro Tim,
Thanks for the clarification.
I seem to be striving to uphold my comment above: “Clear as mud”.
Can someone tell me what these comments have to do with the article?
I’m glad to read Dr. York’s statistics, but probably for different reasons that most here.
I have been told more than once by an m who is not supportive of New Directions that personnel are leaving, not because of the guidelines, but because of New Directions and because of Dr. Rankin’s leadership.
So rather than to try to spin Dr. York’s numbers one way or another, I”ll just go on the record as being glad to know that the attrition rate is not on the increase and that those personnel who are leaving don’t appear, by and large, to be leaving for ideological reasons.
tim,
please no. we really dont want the image of you shaking your groove thang to be stuck in our heads. so, please, please, please do not put any video of you cutting a rug on you tube, nor on your website. thanks in advance.
david :)
People will resign for many reasons, but leaving because of Dr. Rankin’s leadership sounds like more of an excuse than a real reason. The biggest single factor in the past 10 years for ideological resignations is the requirement that missionaries must re-sign the BF&M. If you have any idea what a person must go through just to be appointed then you will know that it was an affront to be made to sign the BF&M2K or face termination. That was a HUGE mistake on behalf of the BoT.
You will always have disgruntled people, for we are all human. But to continue to be upset with Rankin simply doesn’t make sense. Most of the folks who are upset with new directions (which certainly isn’t new anymore) were involved with institutional missions and who had to get out of their offices and “do” missions. At least that is my perspective.
New Directions had a HUGE effect on me and my family. The very job we were appointed to do was eliminated by ND. Did I quit? Did I get mad? Did I hold a grudge? No! If you are called to missions, you ARE CALLED to missions. And let me tell you, international missions isn’t for everyone. A nice 10-14 day mission trip is not an accurate picture of what it is to live day in and day out in a foreign culture.
Blaming leaving on Dr. Rankin? Sounds like a good excuse as any to leave. Very convenient to blame the leadership. That way, you can pretend that you are resigning on principles.
Brother Rick,
Last comment today as I have to get busy doing what God has called me to do–study His Word.
You referenced your new place of service in comment #30. Congratulations on the increase that God is bringing your way. Also, I am sorry that you are experiencing a sinus headache at this time. Those can hurt immensely and also make you say things you believe is one way but when you go back and read it is not what you were saying at all.
As for your daughter’s baptism, were you authorized by the church that you were out of to be an agent from their local body to baptize on the mission field? I am asking this because as an agent of my local church, my deacons would be all over my head for attending a pastors gathering somewhere and baptizing my daughter in a swimming pool in the hotel.
Blessings,
Tim
If your deacons are all over your head for baptizing someone in a pool maybe you need new deacons.
Rick:
Amen!! The baptism policy is unnecessary.
Rick:
Amen!! The baptism policy is unnecessary.
Rick:
Amen!! The baptism policy is unnecessary.
Brother Rick,
You miss the point. It has nothing to do with baptizing in the pool. It has everything to do with the proper agent performing the ordinance without the proper authority. The authority of the local church bestowed on the agent is not given for the agent to perform ad hoc ordinances.
Blessings,
Tim
If I am reading some of the comments above, and they believe that individuals can baptize anyone, outside of the authority of a local church, then it is clear that we need the baptism guidelines changed back to a policy.
The Lord’s Supper and Baptism are ordinances of the local Church, not for us to practice as individual believers. Anything less than that is clearly not Biblical and equally clear not Baptist. Anyone practicing such has no business being supported by Baptists as missionaries anywhere.
That said, I completely agree with Tim about Rick’s baptism of his daughter. So long as it was done under the authority of a N.T. Church then it was Biblical.
Ron P.
Bill,
Thank you for your clarification in comment #31.
In truth there are many that do say things contrary to the church having authority to baptize.
cb
Tim,
Rick made it plain that his church “back home” gave authority for him to baptize his daughter in comment #11.
End of story. The IMB guys should have backed him up. You said so yourself. Why are you asking him this again? Do you have any new reason to doubt what he has already said and what you have already supported?
cb
Uh, I didn’t answer the question in comment number 43. That was another “Rick”.
I’m going to answer you with an answer I’ve given before, then I’m going to bow out of this comment thread:
There was no local church in Thailand. I baptized my daughter because I had the authority from FBC, Vinita, OK.
God Bless.
Rick Boyne
Rick B.
I didn’t say I agreed. Just that ND was the reason given. My larger point was that I’m glad the statistics don’t support that notion any more than they support the notion that droves are coming home because of the new guidelines. I’m glad statistics don’t really support any notion of m’s leaving for ideological reasons.
Vol,
Tim once danced 500 feet out of a plane without a ‘chute.
Lynard Skynard was so impressed with his dance they wrote a song about him called: FREEBIRD.
:-)
cb
CB,
I gathered from Rick in #43 (not Rick Boyne) and Tom in #44 that they thought Tim’s example of baptizing someone at a gathering of Pastors was not problematic and not unbiblical. If I misunderstood them, I apologize. But I think their comments suggest otherwise. If so, their views are clearly outside the parameters of Scripture and Baptist history, beliefs and practice.
Ron P.
Ron P,
I am not sure as to their reference as to whether one was speaking of a swimming pool as not being improper as to body of water and the other was not just taking issue with the Baptism policy, but just in case…..
Christ Jesus our Lord mandated the church to baptize all who professed themselves as His followers as an act of public obedience. The church He spoke to at the time constituted both the church local and the church universal. Thus,….
Local NT churches are the only entities on earth having the authority to carry out the mandate of Christ to administer Believer’s Baptism. Therefore, any and all persons acting independently of a local NT church in administering Baptism are failing to function in a biblical manner.
Example: Pat Boone baptized Wilt Chamberlain in his own swimming pool many years ago without benefit of a local NT church’s authority. Wilt’s baptism was not biblical. Of course, in all probability, according to his autobiography several years later, neither was his profession of faith.
cb
Sad but true
CB,
Well done.
Ron P.
Well, I emailed IMB and asked about such a baptism done overseas under the authority of the stateside local SBC church. The answer was:
“Your question was about someone who is baptized by an SBC missionary who is working under the authority and permission of his stateside SBC church. As I understand the guidelines we would accept that baptism. The same principle applies to someone who is baptized in the military by and SBC endorsed chaplain.”
While I don’t doubt Rick that some of the imb folks were a bit flummoxed about the guidelines or policy, as he described his actions Rick was perfectly sound in his practice. I am unclear as to the differences between ‘policy’ and ‘guideline’ in this matter nor am I clear on how John Floyd should be involved in Rick’s criticism of this incident.
At any rate, the guideline seems sound to me and would not prevent the normal, biblically sound baptismal practices that our field personnel have always dealt with.
Brother CB,
As I love correcting you, I have found a point of correction in your comment to Volfan in comment #51. I fell 500 feet in a collapsed chute in 1978. I believe the Lynyrd Skynyrd plane crash was in 1977. Therefore, the late Ronnie Van Zant did not have me on his mind when he began words, “If I leave here tomorrow, would you still remember me? ‘Cause I must be traveling on girl, there too many places I have to see.“, he did not have me on his mind. :>) But, hey, I do remember many nights sitting in my trailer with my stereo blasting while air guitar playing to the break.
Blessings,
Tim
CB: You said Jesus gave His command to baptize to the local and universal church, and then you go on to say that only local churches have the authority to baptize. That seems to be a discrepancy.
I said that the authority to baptize belongs to the church. I just want to clarify what I meant so I’m not giving a false impression. I was talking about the universal church. I am a strong supporter of the local church and I don’t believe in approving or encouraging “lone ranger” Christians. I believe every disciple has a responsibility to associate with a local body of believers. I am not, however, prepared to declare all baptisms performed by a genuine believer as invalid if they haven’t been explicitly given such authority by a local body. I think it’s the best way, but I can’t accept that absolute.
Is this really an issue with SBC missionaries? Do we have missionaries who don’t have SBC authority to baptize? My bigger concern would be the landmark-ish policy for prospective missionaries but that’s probably an argument for another time.
Brother Rick Boyne,
Thanks for clarifying comment #43 was not you. As we have seen from Brother William, the IMB has concurred as to what we have said all along about the baptism policy.
Blessings,
Tim
i have listened to the lynyrd skynyrd song “freebird” probably more than anyone else on the planet. tim, i like you, can remember many nights with freebird blaring on my stereo system. anything by skynyrd was great in my book.
david
Bill,
It would take far to much time and space to compare Landmarkism with Baptist: theology, history, practice and policy.
All I can say here is that they are not the same. Although, Landmarkism does “favor”what I will call “baptististic principles.” It is due to this “favoring” of the two that people get confused when Baptists begin to speak of historic Baptist ecclesiology. It becomes easy to present the Landmarker accusation and muddy the conversation.
What I described is not Landmark theology. It far predates the Landmark movement.
There are differences in the Church Universal and the Church Local.
One would be that the church universal has no leadership other than Jesus, as revealed by the Word of the Father and empowered by the Holy Spirit.
Only the Trinity is accountable for a “member’s” (I use this word just for lack of a better one at the moment) entrance and a “member’s “judgement before Christ at the appointed time” (trying to stay from eschatological arguments by speaking of judgement that way).
The Trinity has given revelation as to a member’s acceptance, teaching, fellowship, and testimony, responsibilities, privileges, expulsion and leadership within the New Testament for the Church Local.
Baptism is an act of obedience to Christ, testifying to the Church, both Local and Universal and to the world-at-large that one is a follower of Christ.
Bill, who was the Great Commission given to? Both the church universal and local at the same time. Both were one and the same when Christ gave it.
The Church Universal does not determine members. That is the work of the Trinity. The Church Universal does not discipline members or judge them in this life or the one to come. That is also the work of the Trinity.
It is the Church Local which carries out the Great Commission and the mandates of Christ on this earth as decreed by the Trinity and revealed in God’s Word.
It is the Church Local who is given authority to baptize, to disciple, to discipline, to accept and to expel those who profess to be followers of Christ.
I know this is too brief, but I hope it helps you to see what I am saying and why it is not Landmarkism.
cb
Tim,
You poor TAR HEEL.
Freebird went through many changes between 1973 and 1989 when it was once again done with lyrics.
Brother, Freebird was Alabama born developed and cultured. You cannot school a Sabanite about his own music ’cause you just ain’t from SWEET HOME, ALABAMA.
:-)
cb
cb,
Your description above is great. I prefer to use the term “body of Christ” vs “Universal Church” to avoid the confusion. Yet your breakdown was indeed right on.
As per the topic and comments,
I find it odd that we keep hearing stories and then when verified, here that they are nothing more than misunderstandings or speculations once the source is gone to and the answer is listened too. Funny how the old story of gossip is true today and was yesterday!
Vol,
You are right. Tim is the most liberal person on this thread. :-)
Tim, BTW, it was Villa Rica’s brothers, Pancho and Lefty who packed your ‘chute back in 1978. Just thought you might want to know.
:-)
cb
Tim G,
Read my comments over at Peter’s place on his latest post.
There are some things I cannot back down from because I know what happened. I can’t change that. I am trying to remedy my errors by repentance and apology when necessary and it is always necessary when I am wrong in what I say. At the same time it would be just as wrong to deny what I know to be true in order to be accepted by anyone.
Tim G, trying to finish well is kinda hard. At least, it is for me.
cb
Brother CB,
You say; “’cause you just ain’t from SWEET HOME, ALABAMA.” To which I respond, THANK GOD!
;>)
Blessings,
Tim
CB, Give us proof, Wade would never do that.
CB: Although I disagree about the absolute necessity of local church authority for baptism, as I said, I think it should be the norm. But I wasn’t suggesting your view was Landmark. I believe the IMB policy/guidelines for missionary qualifications are landmark-ish. In other words, to insist upon re-baptism of someone baptized as a believer by immersion upon profession of faith in Christ in a Nazarene or Pentecostal church is outrageous.
Jeff T,
The only proof I can give you is the doctrines of ecclesiology as is presented in the New Testament.
I believe with all of my soul, heart and mind that the Church Local is the only authority for Baptism on earth. I have arrived at that position from Bible study, and the study of Biblical and Systematic Theologies both formally and privately.
If I understand Wade properly he does not have all of the same positions I have relating to ecclesiology. He does claim the same sources for his positions as do I. He has made that plain over and over.
There is no other proof either of us can give. We greatly differ here ,but we have both presented the only “proofs” a person can give with integrity.
cb
Bill,
I gave myself to the study of Nazarene theology for two years (2004-2005). I believe the Nazarenes to be a wonderful group of Christ-Followers who are great servants of God and I cherish my time among them as a gift from God during a time when I greatly needed fellowship with people who love Jesus and have a high view of Scripture. The Nazarene fellowship I was with helped me to deal with some serious things in my life before the Lord. I shall never forget those people and the Nazarene pastor who was a shepherd to me in that time.
As I said earlier, I gave myself to the study of Nazarene theology for two years. I believe with all my heart the Nazarenes are part of the Body of Christ on this earth doing a great job of spreading the gospel as is mandated by Christ in the Great Commission.
Yet, I know and they know we are not of “like faith and order with them.” There are most definitely some theological differences between them and Baptists, especially dealing with the doctrine of the church and with eternal security.
Therefore, I could not accept the Baptism of a Nazarene on the same terms as I could accept that of others of a “like faith and order.”
If the pastor I spoke of earlier were to come as a candidate for membership in the church I serve as pastor there would be several things we would have to deal with before he could become a member of our local church. One of those things (but not the only thing) would be that he would have to be baptized according to that which we believe baptism to represent.
I also know that I could not join his fellowship as a “member” unless I renounced certain beliefs I hold to as biblical. I did fellowship with them. I was nurtured by them. I will see them in Heaven. But I would not have been allowed to join their fellowship here as a member due to what I believed, especially relating to the Security of the Believer. If I were not a Baptist, I would be a Nazarene. But, I believe baptistic theology to be closer to biblical theology than any other theology on this earth. Therefore I will maintain, and protect a Baptist Identity until the day I am called home and get to be with my brothers and sisters within the Body of Christ who just as strongly maintain and protect their identities and theology as Christ-Followers.
cb
CB: I respect your convictions. I believe that anyone baptized as a believer upon profession of faith in Christ has been obedient to Christ’s command. I would not diminish that obedience by re-baptizing them. I find the very idea (not you) offensive.
Bill,
I understand. I am in no way offended, as I was not offended with my Nazarene brother. Nor should I be. I am speaking of Baptist distinctiveness and not the fundamentals of the Christian faith. There is a difference.
My adherence to the fundamentals of the faith identifies me as a Christian. My adherence to a Baptist distinctiveness identifies me as a Baptist and in my case a Southern Baptist.
The first identity is primary and we are able to fellowship as brothers within the orthodoxy thereof.
The second is secondary and we can fight about that while we fellowship in the primary until Jesus comes and straightens us both out. :-)
cb
Bill,
One more thing.
Naturally, I would not call it “re-baptism.” I would call it “biblical Baptism.”
:-)
cb
CB: Just so we are clear: John Q. has professed Christ as Lord and Savior and was baptized by immersion as a believer in a Nazarene church.
Has John, in your estimation, been obedient to Christ regarding baptism?
bill,
jane smith gets baptised by immersion into the mormon church…is this a biblical baptism?
little johnny b. gets baptised by his mother in the backyard, above ground swimming pool…with no one else around but her other two children. it was by immersion, though. is this a biblical baptism?
edward “lucky” snickers gets baptised by immersion by a non-trinitarian, lose your salvation pentecostal. is this baptism biblical?
aunt floradine gets baptised by immersion by benny hinn on a trip to israel. would you consider this a biblical baptism?
i really want to know your answers to these, bill. i’m not just trying to be funny. although, some of my scenarios might be considered funny by a few. i would still like to hear your answers.
If he is baptized as a believer by a Nazarene fellowship (church) I can assure you ( if it is not a Nazarene church which has become lax relating to their specific theological distinctiveness) they would consider him to be obedient to Christ and I would have no problem in working with him to advance the Kingdom or in Christian fellowship with him.
If he were to decide he wanted to become a member of the Baptist church I serve he would have to be baptized (but only after other differences are dealt with and unity is achieved theological as is specific to Baptist distinctiveness) in obedience to what we, as Baptist, believe to be a biblical Baptism.
Bill, I am not trying to be complicated. I am trying to answer you to the best of my understanding as one who is an adherent of the fundamentals of the faith and as one who is distinctively Baptist.
cb
cb
Bill,
I must leave this conversation now. I am to go and teach the way of salvation according to the fundamentals of the faith.
If you or my Nazarene friend were to be with me, I bet you a $100.00 neither of you would disagree with one thing I will say. That is due to our adherence of the fundamentals of the faith.
Until later.
cb
CB: I’m not talking about what the Nazarenes think. I think I am hearing that you do not consider John to have been obedient in following Christ’s command to be baptized. In effect, you consider him un-baptized. Am I being fair? And what makes his baptism invalid is the (in your view) incorrect doctrinal beliefs of the administrator regarding eternal security. I am trying to tease out the meaning of your words without doing injustice to them.
I am very concerned about the attitudes on baptism that we have seen on this thread. I don’t want to sound arrogant or disrespectful- maybe if we were face to face I would not perceive the things I think I am perceiving. So, with that unhelpful intro here goes.
Baptism is an ordinance given by Jesus to his people. When Jesus stands on the mount and says ‘All authority in Heaven and earth is given to me’ he does not then say, ‘And now it belongs to you.’ Jesus never has abandoned his position as the head of his Church. There are zero verses giving the qualifications of the baptizer. There are zero verses in the Bible that talk about the authority of the local church in baptism. What we have are logical inferals. CB has already said that when Jesus gave his disciples the command to baptize that they were pretty much all the church there was. Logical inferal number one: The Church is the entity that baptizes. We also have this big unruly discussion about the Universal church verses the local church. Well, the universal church is big and I can’t get a hold of it, I can’t control it, and I can’t really fellowship in it so we need to emphasis the local church. Logical inferal number two: The local Church is the church. Oh, and by the way, the local church consist of the organization that I have registered with a constitution and a tax-exempt status with the US Govt. So, some have then come to the conclusion that because of logical inferals number one and two therefore unless Rick Boyne has the express permission of his back home organization to baptize his daughter then he should not do it- and if he does she is not SCRIPTURALLY baptized. I challenge you all to believe that this is not true. And furthermore, it is dangerous. By establishing small organizations that you control and calling them the CHURCH and then demanding submission and obedience you are usurping the place of Jesus. It is arrogant and it is not tolerable.
Now, I do think that people who are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ought to be a part of a local fellowship. That is excellent practice. There are lots of verses of scripture that talk about how we as Christians must live in community and love. But Baptism is into Christ. He is the head of the Church- local or universal is all the same from his perspective- and he is the sole authority. He tells me to baptize and I baptize period. I love the local church. I plant churches. But they are only SCRIPTURAL churches if Jesus is the head. It is hard for me to see how Jesus is the head if we think we are in the postision to validate someone elses baptism or not.
I am in agreement with Strider. Baptism is the visible entry into the universal church. It can, at the same time, be the entry into a local body. But it is not a denominational membership initiation. Requiring someone who has obeyed Christ in believer’s baptism to be re-baptized makes it a denominational membership initiation. There is nothing in scripture that requires adherence to eternal security as a requirement to be recognized as an authority to baptize.
Brothers Strider and Bill,
Please tell me where this universal church was when Jesus told us to bring a member to the forefront for discipline in Matthew 18. If Jesus was speaking of the universal church then every time one comes before the church for discipline, then we have to bring them to every organized local body.
Brother Strider,
You do have some good points but you have a serious flaw. You are making the mistake that it seems our Brothers and Sisters in the Emerging (I cannot always remember the difference between Emergent and Emerging) movement are making. They desire to remove everything, theology, historical councils, and everything else and go back to scripture. The other group Emergent, I believe, sees wisdom in retaining the historical understanding and theological truths hashed out in the councils. The flaw I see in your Logical inferal number one: The Church is the entity that baptizes., is in relation to whom Jesus was speaking. If I follow your argument, then I cannot make the logical inferal that Jesus was speaking to me today. If I am bound not to make the logical inferal that the goup of people standing there were not the first local body of believers, as well as the seed of the universal church, then we are stuck with saying that Scripture must speak only to those living at that time. Once we venture just a tad down that trail, we must accept that the Scripture cannot be valid as the Word of God that speaks to us today.
Blessings,
Tim
I don’t see the problem. There is the universal church and there are local churches. Some instructions are given to the universal church and some are given to local churches. Tell me this: Do individual Christians have to be invested with the authority of the local church to preach the Gospel? Jesus uttered both commands (preach, baptize) in the same breath to the same people.
The question is not rhetorical.
Bill,
Christians most certainly must be under the authority of the local church to be accountable for the veracity of the Gospel message they are to proclaim. To claim otherwise invites trouble.
Case in point, I know of a man in Oklahoma, Les Feldick (see his ‘ministry’ website here), who lauds the universal church and deplores the local, visible expression of the church. He prides himself in not being associated with any local church. He also prides himself for preaching what he calls “Paul’s Gospel”–as contrasted to Peter’s and even Jesus’ Gospel–a ‘gospel’ in which one need not repent of sin…only believe. His aberrant, heretical view of multiple ‘gospels’ (see this site here for further details of Mr. Feldick’s problematic teachings) continues precisely because he is not under the authority of any local church which Scripture commends and commands to be the pillar and ground of the truth. We are all commissioned with the message of the Gospel within the framework of the accountability of the LOCAL & VISIBLE body of Christ, the church.
As Tim has well said, if the local church is irrelevant, then the church discipline passages and practices evidenced in the Bible make absolutely no sense.
Sola Gratia!
So Christians who have not yet joined with a local body, or are between churches, or are in an area where there are no local bodies, must not present the Gospel to the unsaved?
Our differences boil down to the distinction between what should be vs what must be. I fall into the “should be” camp.
Strider,
As I said and you seemed to agree; this is bigger than what blog threads can express.
With that in mind; I must say, it is my opinion you have missed much of what I did say if I understand what you are say. Because what you say I said is not what I said. Not in any way.
cb
Sorry, but I need to post anonymously since I am overseas in a closed area of the world.
I have enjoyed this discussion about the authority for baptism. I especially enjoyed seeing how the “heat” was dissipated as you began to understand each other. Obviously, for Rick, this is an emotional issue, and for good reason, imo.
I do think we should try to appreciate one fairly unique aspect to Rick’s situation. As he stated, he was overseas without the benefit of a local church of like faith and order and the options available to him were really not clear-cut like they might be in the States.
I understand his situation as I can illustrate by the following information. Before I came to the field, I was a local church pastor. My oldest child accepted Christ and I baptized her in our local S. Baptist church as her pastor. That is the “traditional” way if you’ll allow me to put it that way.
My second child was saved while we were on the M field and I also baptized him, except I did so in a river, along with four other nationals who had been saved recently. One other national was also baptized that day by a different M who had led him to the Lord. This area was some 2 hours from my national Baptist church in the city which doesn’t have a baptistry anyway. There was no local church in the immediate area. However, I did invite my local Baptist church from the city to attend and some members did attend. I also asked my national Baptist pastor to talk to my son before he was baptized. I mainly did this out of respect for my pastor and so that my son would have another point of contact regarding this special day that he would remember later on.
I didn’t “ask” the national church to give me permission specifically, but I would say that they gave their blessing in an overwhelming way. I assumed that as an ordained Baptist minister who has been commissioned by the IMB as an M and who has also been commissioned by my local SBC church in the States to come to the M field that I have been given their authority to perform baptisms on the field.
My third child accepted Christ while we were on stateside assignment and went forward requesting baptism in the local SBC church we were attending during stateside. That was not our “home” church but we did transfer our membership there during our stateside assignment. After my daughter went forward, I was contacted by a minister from the church who asked me if I would like to perform the baptism myself. I was elated and accepted their invitation to baptize my daughter. When I baptized her, I acknowledged the authority I had been given by that local church.
So my three children were all baptized in different circumstances. As far as I’m concerned, all three were equally valid, although very different. Under the new guidelines, perhaps my son couldn’t be appointed with the IMB. I think he could, but am not really sure. While I am not excited about that thought, I am not mad or worried either. The IMB has the right and authority to decide whom they will appoint, but they do not have the authority to say what is biblical baptism and what is not. I may be wrong, but I think that is what Bro. Rick is trying to say.
Sometimes we Ms do not have the luxury of doing everything exactly the way we might do it in the States. The best we can do is try to be respectful of authority placed above us and follow the Bible as best we understand and as closely as is possible under the circumstances.
I will just say that if IMB Ms who have been commissioned by our SBC churches and appointed by our mission board can not assume that we have the authority to baptize our own children on the M field, then we are in a world of hurt, because very few baptisms on the M fields where I have served are as cut and dried “by the book” as most people back home seem to assume they are.
Please don’t take these comments to imply that I don’t think biblical teaching on this issue is important because I do. Also, I write this from a very conservative point of view. Finally I must say that I personally know John Floyd to be a wonderful, godly man and I know his sole concern is that we all be faithful to the Word. I am not for “every man does what is right in his own eyes” kind of theology. But I do sympathize with Rick and understand that sometimes the application of policies is not as clear-cut as might be assumed.
I have written too much, probably too late. I just thought I would mention the practicality issues that Rick faced which others commenting here may not have to face when serving stateside.
EA IMB M
Brother Anonymous,
Thank you for this heart story that truly presents a picture of the difficulties you all have doing the work God has called you to do. I understand that everything is not as neat and sweet as the policies identify.
I feel, however, you make an overstatement concerning my position, I would say our but I do not want to place words in another’s mouth. It seems that you are assuming that I believe a baptism has to occur in a ‘traditional’ baptistery in the local church. That is not what is being said, though you may feel it is being communicated. The child that you say you have doubts over whether the IMB will view it as a scriptural baptism meets all of the criteria. Everyone understands that M are commissioned by the local church to go forth. Your jobs are to lead people to faith in Jesus Christ and baptize them planting churches. As I understand your task, you are to be planting churches and for you to be faithful to the Scripture you must baptize converts. Also, to be faithful to the Scripture you are to connect that convert to a local body of believers, be it a full fledged church that meets in a church building, or a house church that meets in a home. We all acknowledge that and understand that.
What I do not understand is the seemingly responses that give the apperance that if I am on vacation and witness to a person on the beach and that person gets saved. I am then free to take that person into the ocean and baptize him/her and leave that place and move on. That person then can wait for 5 or 6 months, years, or decades, and go to the local church and join that church on profession of faith and baptism by immersion. that church accepts it without even questioning the candidate and then this person feels called to be a M. During the interview process it is discovered and the IMB is supposed to accept it as such, because a local church did not question the candidate as to their conversion and their first step of discipleship.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim Rogers,
I like the analogy that has been brought up several times…..
If you (a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ) did happen to be on vacation and had the privilege to clarify an Isaiah passage to a young man that was sitting on a bench a couple of blocks from the ocean at Myrtle Beach, and during that conversation you discussed with him the great gospel passages in Romans concerning the burial and resurrection of Christ and our participation with Christ and how water baptism is a command and depiction of that great reality.
You realize that this man’s travels are coming to an end and he has to get back to the Airport in a few hours to catch a flight to Africa where he and his family live in the midst of the Islamic world. After hearing the gospel with clarity and precision and through what you perceive as genuine repentance he has been convinced by the Spirit of God of his new birth in Christ and as he stands to embrace you realizing his close proximity to ocean and says “there is water, what would keep me from being baptized”?
How would you answer him? And what if anything would impede his request to Christ’s command?
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Thanks for this great hypothetical. I think Tim’s gone to bed, so I’m going to answer for myself, and perhaps he’ll come along and straighten me out.
I, as “a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” would happily baptize that new believer in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then and there. At my next opportunity to stand before the congregation I serve, I would report the details of this encounter.
Because of my ongoing, accountable relationship with this congregation, I would be confident that, had they had prior opportunity, they would have given joyful assent to this exercise of their authority as the body of Christ. I would not view my actions in conducting that baptism as a presumption upon their authority, but a legitimate exercise of it, because I am in that ongoing, accountable relationship. So I would give an opportunity for an ex post facto expression of congregational approval, due to the extenuating circumstances presented.
Thanks Brother Wes,
I agree that you certainly should baptize.
How would you handle the man going back to his home country that is Islamic…or would that make any difference at all?
Once Tim wakes up,….he will have fun with this one.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I would first of all make sure he had a Bible, confident as I am that, as someone has said, if you give someone with no prior knowledge but a desire to study a Bible, you’ll get a Baptist everytime… :)
While that’s somewhat tongue-in-cheek, if no further contact were possible, I would not lack for confidence that the Holy Spirit would lead the man into the truth. With communication being what it is, I would hope that some avenue for further discipleship could be established, such that he would eventually, through his own witnessing and baptizing (which I’m sure my church would be happy to authorize :) ), see the formation of a local church where he lives.
CB- If I have misunderstood you then I apologize. I am sticking to my understanding of baptism however.
Tim- Logical inferals need to be made but know they are dangerous because our logic and God’s are nearly never the same. But on this issue I do not understand why we make it so hard on ourselves. There are truckloads of verses that specifically describe how we as believers should love one another. Loving one another occurs in community which is called church. This is not a mystery. But we, taking our cue from the Catholic church have made baptism our initiation rite into the Church. The Bible never says this. We are baptized in the name of the Trinity. By not separating these two things we inadvertantly make the Church equal with God- the Catholic mistake in my humble opinion. The truth of my words here are born out in the IMB policies. Speaking as a former pastor I can not imagine anything that would make me angrier than for the IMB to tell me who can and can’t be a member of my church. Let me explain. Let’s say you have a member of your church called into M work and you send them to the IMB. Now, the IMB may come back and say to you- Hey, this guy believes some really wierd unbaptist things. Please disciple him some more. Or they may come back and say, Hey, this guy is not emotionally stable. We can’t use him. Ok, you say, I understand we will work with him. But under the new baptism policies what you have is the IMB coming back and saying, Hey, we have decided that you made a bad decision in accepting this guy for membership. The Baptism BY EMERSION that you think is ok is not ok. Personnally I would hit the roof. Now again, if their complaint was that this candidate’s theology was out of wack then I would say, Wow, thanks for pointing this out let’s work on that. But they are saying, this candidate’s theology is fine but the theology of the baptizer is wrong so we think you made a mistake in accepting his baptism. My response to that. John 4. Jesus was baptizing by the Jordan, but not Jesus but rather his disciples. If Jesus thought it was ok for Judas Iscariot to baptize then the position of the baptizor must not be too important. Logical inferal 3.
Brother Tim,
I agree with you completely. I didn’t think you or others held that baptism must be done exclusively in a baptistry in a church. Sometimes the written page doesn’t allow me to communicate clearly. Sorry about that. I think you understand the gist of my post and I think you understand my point about baptism on the M field not always being “textbook” shall we say.
I also completely agree with you that no one should “willy-nilly” (is that really a word? :-)) go around baptizing people without benefit of a local church just because they want to. Every reasonable effort should be made to perform the baptism in front of witnesses and then to plug the new believer into some body of believers who identify themselves biblically as a local church.
I might add that, while I think baptizing new believers ASAP after their conversion is both biblical (Ethiopian) and practically beneficial, sometimes in our zeal, we could (could, mind you) give people the idea that baptism is a requirement for their salvation. By that I mean, if we just rush to get it done regardless of the place, time, audience, etc. it could occur to some people that baptism is part of the salvation itself. Maybe I’m wrong and no one has ever thought that. But I see baptism first as an act of obedience to Jesus’ command and personal example. Second, I see it as symbolic of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. It seems to me, that the purpose of baptism, in great part is to let it serve as a witness to others of what has really happened in the new believer’s life. He has been buried with Jesus in baptism unto death and raised to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4).
I think we are on the same page and I greatly appreciate the discussion in this thread.
EA IMB M
Strider,
In short let me say I never spoke of an “organization.” I never spoke of governmental registration.
I never said “the church local” was The Church.
There are local (visible, manifested, etc) NT churches.
Remember Baptist Doctrine 101? There is no Baptist Church. There are Baptist Church(es).
You have superimposed ideas upon what I said which totally confuse the substance of my comment.
It is the Church Local which has authority to baptize. The term “Church Local” actually refers to local, visible, NT churches.
I define NT churches as those which adhere to the fundamentals of the faith.
Baptist churches are NT churches. (In some cases that also is questionable due, simply to the fact that not all Baptist churches adhere to the fundamentals of the faith, thus revealing they are not NT churches)
At the same time Baptist churches have and manifest a Baptist identity due to Baptist distinctives.
I am simply saying if a person is going to represent Christ as a Southern Baptist he should adhere to that which is distinctively Baptist.
Otherwise why be a Baptist?
Strider, if I understand correctly you are a missionary serving Christ under the auspices of the SBC. If that is correct, then you should adhere to a Baptist identity. Otherwise, you should not serve Christ as a SBC missionary. You should serve Christ as a missionary serving under the auspices of whatever local, NT, fellowship(church) you most believe is closest to Scripture.
In doing so you are not denying the faith, You are not less than a NT Christian adhering to the fundamentals of the faith.
You would simply be a NT Christian who is not a Baptist fulfilling his call from and before Christ under the auspices of whatever fellowship (church) you (to the best of your understanding and ability) believe to be following, most closely, New Testament Christianity as revealed in the Word of God.
If such were the case, I could work with you to advance the gospel of Christ anywhere. I could fellowship with you.
I would just simply understand my Baptist distinctiveness was not yours. I would also understand the distinctiveness of your fellowship (church) would not be mine.
We could work in the kingdom together. We would be members of the Church Universal (Body of Christ. Maybe TimG’s term is best suited here) together. We could fellowship as believers together. We would go to the same Heaven together.
The only difference would be we are not of the same local church distinctiveness.
None of this may make any sense to you. It does to me. Maybe we can come together for several days in some place other than Blog Town and work through this with all of our faculties in use at the same time. It is very possible we would better understand each other then. Maybe not, but I surely wish someone would try.
Maybe LifeWay and SEBTS will sponsor a conference on the Doctrine of Baptism similar to the Building Bridges Conference they jointly sponsored a few months ago at Ridgecrest.
Strider, I hope I have not, in any way offended you here. Believe me it was not my intent to do so in this correspondence between us. I appreciate your engagement and I hope you will give grace to mine.
cb
SBC TODAY, boys. I realize this comment thread kinda got away from the specific subject of the post. I know you guys have some kinda rule about that.
I am also glad you did not strictly enforce it this time. I think that what could have turned into just another blog fight (which I often start, I realize) has become a good and somewhat fruitful exchange between folks who adhere to the fundamentals of the faith, yet differ to a degree on certain distinctives of Baptist identity.
Anyway, I hope that is the case. :-)
cb
You know, I realize I use far too many commas and often in the most strange and grammatically wrong places, but, I, just like to use them, because that really is how I talk. I am just sorta a comma type of guy.
:-)
cb
Brother CB,
You have made a very lengthy comment #93, then 10 minutes later you came back and made comment #94, after five more minutes of crickets chirping you made comment #95.
Brother, I love you so that is the reason I am telling you this. You do realize that you are talking to yourself again, right? :>) :>) :>) :>) :>) :>) :>) :>)
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Chris,
It seems that you have followed Brother Wes and me enough to tell that we are in slight disagreement on certain areas. Please do not misunderstand what I am saying. Brother Wes and I are not in disagreement on theology here, we are just in disagreement on him allowing you to pull him into a first century setting to speak to a 21st century issue.
You see, Brother Chris, my analogy of Myrtle Beach is an analogy of a setting today. Phillip’s time with the Ethiopian Eunuch was in the first century in the infancy of the church. What Phillip did was baptize someone that was heading back to Ethiopia and had not means of communicating with anyone in Ethiopia. In today’s setting I have means of communicating with someone in Africa. As a matter of fact, it appears that I am already in communication with someone from East Africa. :>)
In today’s society, here is what I would do. I would express to this individual his need to follow through in Baptism in a local church setting. Why? Because they are the ones that know him and will hold him accountable to his decision. Remember, Baptism is not salvation and has nothing to do with anyone’s salvation. It is the first step of obedience to Jesus Christ. Let’s use the example of me seeing my child born and taking her home. Let’s say that she pointed to a big juicy steak in my plate and by all actions seemed to want to eat it. What would I do? Would I give her that steak? No, I could choke my child on that steak. I need to give her milk, or formula, or some other baby food. It is the same with a new convert. Let’s say this hypothetical convert told me in Myrtle Beach he wanted to be baptized in the ocean. I would not merely pick myself up and go to the ocean. With today’s communications I would get all of the information from him and contact the IMB to find a church in this person’s homeland. That is how I would handle this in the 21st century. Had I been Phillip in the first century, I would have baptized him. Remember Phillip was raptured away from this Ethiopian Eunuch. If he hadn’t been, I personally believe Phillip would have discipled this man all the way to Ethiopia.
Brother Strider,
First, it is good to dialog with you again. It has been awhile. How are things where you are serving?
Second, you say; Now, the IMB may come back and say to you- Hey, this guy believes some really wierd unbaptist things. Please disciple him some more. Isn’t that what these guidelines are doing? If the IMB, after an in-depth interview, finds that this person’s baptism would not be considered Scriptural by the majority of SB, and sends their recommendation back to the pastor, how would that be offensive. Are they not merely saying that we need you to disciple them some more and help them with an understanding of Scriptural baptism?
Brother CB,
You are correct, we owe Dr. York an apology. :>) This post began as a link to his post on the attrition rate of IMB personnel and had found a rabbit to run on Baptism. It is very revealing in deed.
Blessings,
Tim
I still have a problem with someone baptized as a Christian (the Nazarene example) having to be baptized again as a baptist. This belittles the ordinance.
Brother Tim and Wes,
The differences in both of your views and how you would practically carry out the order to baptize is instructive and is indicative of how one understands the gospel.
Every time the conversation on baptism comes around….I am reminded of the one and only time in the New Testament that baptism is seen correctively leading back to the gospel. It seems for the most part it is revealed as advancement, but one time it is carried as a warning not to stray from the lover of our soul.
Jesus said…..Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. (19) “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
The book of Acts demonstrates the command over and over…..
Paul then rebukes…..
1 Corinthians 1:11-24 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. (12) Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” (13) Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (14) I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, (15) so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. (16) Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. (17) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. (18) For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (19) For it is written, “I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.” (20) Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (21) For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. (22) For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; (23) but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, (24) but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
Paul was in the midst of the birth of denominational church splits….His solution was not to divide, but to set straight the truth of this command…. “I am of Paul” (Baptist),… “I am of Cephas” (immersing Methodist’s) …. “I am of Apollos” (immersing Presbyterians…there are a few). His rebuke is highly instructive to the arrogant ministers of God’s gospel…. “Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”
Paul did not have a problem with baptism….Paul had a problem with those straying from the gospel. Baptism is not part of the gospel! Baptism is “servant to the gospel” and as the Apostle Paul as told us by inspiration of the Spirit of God …. “don’t miss the power of God unto salvation”. In other words, Christ is leading us back to him. I like what “cb” intimated earlier….that there are some “Baptist” churches that actually baptize to the glory of God and there are some that do not.
Baptism is no different today than it was the moment we heard it tumble off the lips of our Savior to his disciples. Christ commands us to baptize, not for the sake of ecclesiological certifications, …….but in an understanding of our Saviors command,….in a manner that obeys our Lord, ever pointing to the gospel (as Paul knew so clearly)….to the glory of God forever and ever!
And Tim, I say this with all due respect and love for you as a faithful minister of God, (you must know I love you brother)…but if there is a hesitancy in our step to follow Christ,…it is not because of obedience to Christ,…hesitancy is most often formed out of obedience to ecclesiology. We all (that includes me more than others) should never let our wisdom supersede the wisdom of God.
Blessings,
Chris
To All,
I had to be 100 on this one.
Tim
As for the point of the post…..
I’m not sure that the “attrition rates” of missionaries should be attributed to the success or failure of the published “rules of baptism”…… nevertheless, the biblical doctrine of baptism stands above the fray and is a sweet command and fellowship with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Blessings,
Chris
The Nazarene does not have to be baptized again, if he remains a Nazarene.
If he determines we (Baptist) are closer to the Scripture as followers of Christ and wants to join us, then, I am sure he would willing be baptized accordingly.
He is asking to join us, not we him.
cb
CB: Has the Nazarene obeyed Christ in Christian Baptism? Forgive me but I can’t help but think that you are viewing baptism as a denominational initiation ritual.
Will someone please tell me if Christians from the Nazarene, Weslyan, Trinitarian pentecostals, etc are baptized or not?
Is Baptism a denominationally subjective experience or is it an objective act of obedience and visible entrance into the invisible church?
CB- I am a Southern Baptist. I signed the BFM 2000 and I mean it. But my problem with the baptism policy is that it can- not must- but can lead to belittling baptism to an initiation rite of the local church instead of obedience to Christ. Your last comment here once again called on folks from other denoms to be rebaptized. But you say this based on the fact they are Nazarenes etc. You are not asking what they believed when they were baptized. You are not asking what their understanding of and relationship with Jesus Christ is. You sole criteria is their organizational affiliation. That is what I find offensive. Now, hear me on this. If a Nazarene comes to my church in West Virginia and says he would like to join I start asking questions. If he indicates through his answers that he has completely misunderstood the purpose and meaning of baptism and I explain through the scriptures the truth then I expect him to be not rebaptized but baptized in earnest. If he says, hey man I don’t know what the guy who baptized me believed but I believe exactly what you are saying then why would I rebaptize? Because my organization is demanding it. I think that is wrong. I agree with having theological principles to stand on. I agree with adhering to baptist distinctives. But this policy has placed an unbaptistic requirment on the baptism issue, namely that the theology of the baptizer is what is important- even more important than the theology of the one professing Christ. It is not in my view parsing words, it is a fundamental shift away from Biblical truth. I do not believe that this was the intent of the BoT when they passed this rule- now guideline.
Oh, and as for the importance of the post that Dr. York wrote- it is very important. In ANY organization low attrician means good leadership. With Dr. Rankin and the great Regional Leaders and VPs we have we are blessed. But know this, SB churches are discipling and producing remarkable people to come out and join God in the work He is calling us to. No amount of turmoil will stop us from fullfilling His call on our lives. I am in this for the long haul and I am thankful for the tremendous support that SBs give me when I am here and when I am on homeleave.
To Bro. Tim or CB or those that know more than I:
If I have a 50 ish very Godly woman that was raised devout Presbyterian but now comes to our Baptist church. She now wants to join our church but was sprinkled and not immersed. Do we allow her to join or does she have to be water immersed first in order to join?
Dear Bill & Strider
I fully realize the neither of you have addressed anything to me, but I would humbly ask your permission to address the issue of baptism as it relates to the IMB guidelines and several of the comments you (plural) have made.
Bill you ask, “Will someone please tell me if Christians from the Nazarene, Weslyan, Trinitarian pentecostals, etc are baptized or not.” In my opinion – no, they have not been scripturally baptized. The reason is not because of the method employed (immersion) but because of the doctrines to which they assent. Each of these brothers hold certain doctrines which are contrary to the scriptures (speaking as a Baptist). Doctrines that you would certainly object to I’m sure (works based salvation, issues with eternal security and others). Salvation is by grace alone – but these names (Nazarene, Wesleyan and Baptist) mean something. They mean that there are certain doctrinal standards held (including differences on issues related to baptism itself) which the believer assents to at their baptism. For example, if a person believes in the eternal security of believers, why would they be baptized by those who don’t?
Brother Strider, this also speaks to your objections when you write: “You sole criteria is their organizational affiliation.” These organizations mean something – just as the SBC does (or at least should). You further write “I agree with adhering to baptist distinctives. But this policy has placed an unbaptistic requirment on the baptism issue.” Actually, this has been a Baptist distinctive from the beginning. While we have always confessed the symbolic nature of baptism, we have also confessed it’s identificational (sorry about making up a word) nature as well.
As a pastor, I learned several yeas ago to question the baptismal experience of anyone who comes for membership – including those from other “Baptist” churches. I don’t ask anyone to be “re-baptized.” If their baptismal faith and/ or experience is deficient, I simply ask them to submit to baptism.
Grace,
Wes
Wes: I understand the viewpoint. I just disagree. So my baptism isn’t valid if my pastor doesn’t believe in eternal security? That cannot be defended biblically. It doesn’t matter what I believe as much as what my baptizer believes?
I suspect that Nazarenes and Weslyans would object to the characterization of their faith as works based salvation.
Brother Strider,
I think what “cb” is saying…. That in order to be a “Baptist” missionary, you must comply with the Baptist rules whether those rules reflect the principle of a biblical doctrine or not….. That is what makes this type of thinking on believer’s baptism a “Baptist Distinctive”. The Baptist distinctive, in the minds of a majority of Baptists is formed by the “course of action”, not explicitly by the biblical doctrine or principle of baptism.
I have been in the “Baptist” camp since the age of nine, and I have witnessed the Baptist mindset paint baptism with a broad brush covering many extremes. Some Baptist congregations lower the meaning of baptism to demonstrate membership instead of identification with Christ, while others have seen baptism as the act granting privileges within the church proving acceptance by the onlookers. These types of distractions and adaptations assigned to the meaning of baptism have caused confusion in the minds of those undergoing discipleship. But, not all churches that associate to the SBC attach a disparate definition or readapt the simple command of baptism to meet their manufactured ecclesial demands.
I will always encourage this healthy conversation to continue throughout the SBC and its churches, because baptism is a doctrine that the Baptist care about. The more light that shines on these waters will help to diffuse the arrogant ways of some and reveal the beauty of the doctrine of baptism and its practice to the Glory to God.
Blessings,
Chris
Bill,
First, please accept my apology. I didn’t necessarily mean that Nazarenes and Weslyans themselves held to a works based salvation. Truth is, I’m not sure as to their soteriology. Those were names being used. My point was that their doctrinal beliefs (as with any other denominational group) are different than ours in the SBC. That’s all.
I would like to understand something. You write “So my baptism isn’t valid if my pastor doesn’t believe in eternal security?” Do you consider eternal security to be a part of the gospel – or would you consider it a secondary issue?
Preacherman,
Don’t know that I would be classified in the group your addressing with your question – but, from what you have written, this “very godly woman” hasn’t been baptized. Being sprinkled isn’t baptism; immersion is baptism. Do you accept as members in your church people who have not been obedient to this command of the Lord?
Grace,
Wes
Chris- you said that you thought that CB was saying:
I think what “cb” is saying…. That in order to be a “Baptist” missionary, you must comply with the Baptist rules whether those rules reflect the principle of a biblical doctrine or not….. That is what makes this type of thinking on believer’s baptism a “Baptist Distinctive”.
Baptist 101 is that we are people of the Book. Maybe I missed everything else but I got that much. If we have distinctives not based on the Word of God then they are cultural ideas to be respected but discarded as time and culture no longer require them. Baptism is not such an issue.
As for Wes’s comment that Denom names mean something, I agree. That is why I would ask questions and make sure that a person was Baptized into Christ alone and not any shred of works righteousness marred the beauty of our Lord’s sacrifice for us. As an SB M this issue does not directly affect me. I am working with Muslims and analyzing their baptism is not much of an issue! But as a former pastor I can not help but perceive arrogance from the IMB in saying that they know better than I, the candidate’s pastor, if a person needs to be baptized or not. Again, the new policy does not address a candidates own beliefs but those of his former church. All I can do is repeat again that once an SB pastor has personally counseled with a person about their baptism and found it to be a genuine scriptural event then it is arrogant in my mind for the IMB to step in and say that that pastor erred to allow this person to become a member of his church. That kind of interference ain’t baptist.
Brother Strider,
I think you got my point. Some Baptist churches seem to understand the doctrine of baptism and some don’t. If someone wants to get involved with the SBC, that is what the candidate must be willing to deal with.
The biblical doctrine of baptism is not that complicated….
Blessings,
Chris
Wes: No apology necessary. I’m not Weslyan or Nazarene. I simply chose two groups who I consider to be true biblical Christians with a different view of eternal security.
To answer your next question, I believe eternal security to be a secondary issue, although I believe it to be true. I would define a primary issue as those things, the belief of which are necessary for salvation.
David here, arriving late to the party…
This discussion has gone on and on way back since Wade brought it up more than 2 years ago now. I am sure the people involved on both sides of the Landmark controversy went around and around over the same points we are discussing here as well.
I still don’t, however, understand the biblical argument supporting the necessity of specifically local church sponsorship and administration of baptism.
I read here that because the Great Commission was given to the 11 apostles gathered together, that they were a local church, and thus, baptism was given to the local church. I am sorry, but, this is adding 2 + 2 and coming up with 5. I have heard that Philip, since he had been named as a deacon, was officially sanctioned by the Jerusalem church to baptize the Ethiopian eunuch. Once again, adding 2 + 2 and coming up with 5.
What I am asking here is, please, is there not a more solid biblical argument anywhere for this so-called “Baptist distinctive”? Someone is going to have to lay it out plain for me. Because if not, I’m not buying it.
As I read my New Testament, not once, not one single time, do we find an example of a local church gathered together to celebrate a baptism service. Neither do we find it told where a local church ever conferred to anyone the supposed authority to baptize. Can anyone show me where this took place?
Strider,
In your comment #104 I want you to know I identify with much of what you say, especially about the IMB policy. Please believe that when I was speaking to the Doctrine of Baptism I was not necessarily speaking of the IMB. I was speaking to Baptism as related to the Church Universal and Churches Local.
The IMB is neither The Church Universal or a local church. It is a para-church organization without NT authority to baptize anyone.
I am afraid though, that if I try to point those things out (that to which I identify with you in) and then comment on them, I will confuse the issue even more than I evidently have.
I hope that I may be able to visit with you in person one day and spend time conversing with you on this subject.
Also, please know again, that I was not saying you were not of the SBC.
I have no reason to say you were not. If I had I would have plainly told you. I hope you believe that to be true.
Strider and all, obviously I have failed to convey my convictions properly here and it is no doubt my lack of ability to do so. Because, for the life of me I do not see why this is so confusing to us all in relating to each other, but that seems to be the case.
I promised a guy over on Peter’s blog that if someone would email me Hershael York’s phone number I would call him and make amends for some things I said in various comment threads. It is cb5512@charter.net.
cb
Strider, you write: “All I can do is repeat again that once an SB pastor has personally counseled with a person about their baptism and found it to be a genuine scriptural event then it is arrogant in my mind for the IMB to step in and say that that pastor erred to allow this person to become a member of his church. That kind of interference ain’t baptist.”
There was a time when there was very close uniformity among our SB churches on the issue of baptism. Now, not so much – thus the reason (I believe) for the guidelines from the IMB BoT. For example, as a pastor in a church in South Texas some years ago, we had a couple come to our church from a “sister Baptist church” in a neighboring city. They came to our church “on promise of a letter” from this other “Baptist” church which we received, indicating they were members. Problem is that we later found out they hadn’t in fact been baptized. They had been immersed Church of Christ. Now, I realize that I may be painting a bulls-eye on my forehead but I don’t accept C of C immersion as baptism and called on them to be baptized scripturally. They refused and left the church.
Had that couple applied to the IMB for appointment (coming from their original Baptist church), the IMB would have been told that they were members in good standing of a Baptist church. I’m sure that the pastor that church would have called the BoT arrogant too. But that wouldn’t have been true. It is not interference for the IMB to recognize historic Baptist polity. It is a recognition that what was once the standard norm among Baptists has been in fact, watered down by many.
Bill, thanks for answering my question.
Chris, as we have discussed before, we do a lot of things as Baptists which we believe are based on scriptural principles for which you can’t necessarily quote chapter and verse. The whole concept of an International Mission Board, for example, is not found in a definitive chapter and verse. Nor is the Corporative Program (incoming! duck! heretic!). However, principally the scriptures do teach the strength and wisdom of working together for the gospel. So, while there is no chapter and verse stating “baptism is the identification of membership and fellowship,” I do believe that the principle is there – as Baptists have historically. If a church looks at baptism as only a means of membership – yes, that is a lowering of its significance. However, I don’t think that’s so much the problem. I see it as a lowering of Baptist identity issue.
Grace,
Wes
David Rogers,
That is not what I said. You are using reductionist methodologies to interpret what I have said. If I do live I do hope to be able to talk to you face to face one day. We have several things still unresolved which I pray we are able to deal with in time.
All, David and I are not at odds as brothers so please do not interpret my comment to mean so. We have had an on going communication about several things and due to our callings and ministries we have never had opportunity to speak to each other face to face.
Internet is great, but there is nothing like coffee in hand, good seating and eye to eye fellowship to discuss the Word of God and the faith we share through God’s grace bestowed upon us by the atonement of Christ of which we are all unworthy.
Can we agree on that point. :-)
cb
CB,
I am in total agreement about not being at odds with each other, the coffee, and the grace of God.
In the meantime, I have nothing against continuing to dialogue about the things we have “unresolved.”
I am sorry if I did not interpret you correctly here. I was not meaning to zero in on you. I was rather referring to an argument I have heard from others as well. In any case, it would be helpful for me if you could explain what you really did mean, and how you think I misinterpreted it. I really do want to understand this thing.
If I am off-base, or not seeing something that really is there in Scripture, I want to know, and correct my belief and practice accordingly.
Brother Wes,
Well stated….I’m not disagreeing with what you have said brother (I’ve learned my lesson a few days ago)
:)
…..and as I have stated previously, there are many Baptist churches that honor and practice biblical baptism,…so, no doubt there is the principle of fellowship as “members one of another” because of “adoption”. I am persuaded that baptism’s highest meaning is known in obedience and worship (we worship in spirit and truth) and that only the church can obey the command to baptize. To identify with Christ as head of the church is the greatest fellowship to be realized.
Blessings,
Chris
David Rogers,
Let me fling this out and tell me what you think.
The mandate to baptize was given to those who were present at the appearance of the Risen Lord Jesus on the mountain in Galilee (Matt. 28:16-20).
These included the remaining 11 apostles, right? Is it also highly possible that this was also the same occasion He appeared to more than 500 other Believers? (1 Cor. 15:6) (this is and was taught by many)
Surely you believe that Jesus regarded these (11, or 511 at least) as the nucleus of “The Body of Christ” (using Tim G’s terms here) and the initial (first) manifestation of a “local church” of which many such manifestations would follow through the ages to come and in the very present?
Would it not then be natural (using reason and logic) to infer that most of the 120 who participated in the election of Matthias to the apostolate were among those who had been present when Jesus mandated the Great commission?
Surely we can agree that the “making of disciples” is especially a responsibility of the The Body of Christ, manifested initially by that “local church” on the mountain, on that great day?
Can we also agree that many local churches have been manifested since that day?
Can we agree that the “teaching” of “newly-made” disciples is especially the responsibility of a local church which is a manifestation of the Body of Christ?
If it is possible for us to agree to all (or most) (“most” is all a blogger can ever hope for:-) of the above then why can we not agree that the responsibility to “baptize” rests specifically with local NT churches operating as visible manifestations of The Body of Christ on earth?
David, this is the best I believe I can do to present my conviction over the internet due to the fact that you cannot see my hands talk. :-)
cb
cb
Hey Chris,
Man, what a great time of fellowship we had – thanks for becoming such a good friend. I look forward to even more.
I don’t know that we really disagree about this. I accept that the greatest fellowship you and I can share together is that found in the bond we share in Christ. He is our great reward!
Grace,
Wes
Brother Wes,
Your right,…we are in agreement. I think I was even able to follow “cb’s” advancement of the church.
Thanks cb….
Blessings,
Chris
CB,
Let me fling this back at ya…
1. The text in Matthew 28 says that Jesus appeared to the 11, but says nothing at all about the more than 500. 1 Cor. 15:6 says clearly that Jesus appeared to the more than 500 after He appeared to the 12. While it is possible that He appeared first to the 12 (I am not sure if this was really just 11, or if Matthias was with them), and then afterwards, on another occasion, to the 11 and more than 500 at the same time, when He gave them the Great Commission, this is definitely a supposition, and seems unlikely to me from the wording of the text.
2. I have no problem calling either of these groups (the 11, the 12, the more than 500, or all of them together) a “nucleus” of the Body of Christ. I also have no problem calling them a representation of the Church. It is also true they were gathered together in one place. So, you could say that there “assembling” was “local,” in a sense. However, if you go beyond this to say that they were “assembled” together as a meeting of a “local church,” in the sense that much Baptist ecclesiology has defined it, I think we are stretching things quite a bit. Did they, at this time, have elders appointed among them? Had they officially covenanted together as a local, sovereign, autonomous congregation? I would think not. Perhaps later on, when the 120 were gathered together in the Upper Room (once again, we don’t know where the rest of the more than 500 were at this time), they talked about discussed some of these things. We don’t know for sure. We do know that they prayed, and that they chose Matthias to replace Judas.
3. Yes, of course, disciple-making is a responsibility of the Body of Christ. You must first be a disicple to make a disciple. And the Body of Christ is the composite of all true disciples. And yes, the group on the mountain (whether 11, 511, or another amount) were a “manifestation,” if you will, of the Body of Christ. I am not sure I would necessarily call them a “local church,” though. I would also agree that the various “local churches” that have come into being since that time, are also “manifestations” of the Body of Christ.
4. I would agree that normally disciple-making ministry is a locally-based activity. They did not have such things as telephones and internet back then. So, in order to make disicples, you pretty much had to be physically in the same place as the one you were discipling. I would also agree that a part of teaching a new disicple to obey all of Christ’s commands would involve teaching them to keep the various “one another” injunctions, which, in turn, involved committed relationships with other believers in the Body of Christ. Once again, since real life happened on a local basis, these relationships with other believers also happened primarily on a local basis. When believers travelled to other places, though, these relationships also happened there. As a matter of fact, I would say that they didn’t technically “move their membership” as we use that term today. They were already “members” of the Body of Christ, and automatically accepted as such wherever they went, just as long as it was able to be demonstrated that they really were believers. I find nowhere in the NT the idea that the believers in one locality recognized someone else as an authentic brother or sister in Christ, but refused to accept them as a “member” of their “local congregation.”
5. On the basis of all of this, I believe the responsibility for disciple-making and for baptizing is given to the Body of Christ, or to all of the followers of Jesus, as a whole. This Body is “manifested” in many different ways, in many different locations. The 501c3 we call “local churches” today are also a “manifestation” of the Body of Christ. But, when you take all of this together, I still do not find solid evidence to demonstrate that baptism must always be under the supervision or delegated authority of a duly constituted “local church.”
David,
I have helped to start five churches (in the states). The first one was a local church for probably 5 years before we ever became “tax exempt.” That does not make a church a local church and we both know that.
Karen and I simply went to a place and started a church. No HMB, State Board, mentorship, or plan other than to work at everything I could to make money and week after week knock on 80 doors and ask people to come study the Bible with us. Karen worked as an accountant. (don’t tell anybody she was working outside the home to help feed us.) We had no children at that time. When I got enough people gathered up to preach to I preached some of the most lame, goofball, topical, Prego (its all in there somewhere) type of sermons you have ever heard. God saved people in spite of the fact that little of the Word was properly preached, but I was real loud.
I was not ordained, and we had no deacons and I guess the closest thing we had to an elder was a guy about 27 years old. We did not “emerge.” We simply “spewed” up.
After I read a bunch of books on theology and a book entitled, ROPE OF SAND, STRENGTH OF STEEL we sent some money to Nashville. They sent us a letter back and said; “A-MEN, we got that. Now send some more.” They also told us to apply with the State Board. We did. And they liked our “green credentials” also.
Then I met my very first Executive Director Of Associational Missions. He told me I needed to be ordained if I was going to keep baptizing people. He also said we needed to become part of the Association and I need to take a part in “helping the Association” carry out the Great Commission. I said: “OK, tell me how to do all of this. He told me how to “help the Association” first. The Association liked our “green credentials” just like the State Board did.
The first ordination council I ever saw in my life was the one that “counciled” me for 5 1/2 hours on a cold Saturday afternoon.
I came very near to getting into a fight with one of the smug fellows on that “council” when he asked me if I could give evidence that my wife “supported my call to the gospel ministry?”
There Karen was sitting beside me in a straight-back chair for over 4 hours and had been working day and night helping me get that church up and this guy wanted me to give him evidence that she supported me. I shall never forget my answer to him and I doubt he does if he is still alive. I said; “How many of these other fellers do you think it will take to “support” you if I break bad on you right about now?”
I realized later that I had just had my first real encounter with liberal Baptists and that DOM was the worst one in the bunch. (another story entirely) The meeting came to an end when the DOM asked my; “If this council decides not to ordain you what will you do?” I said; “I will keep doin’ what I’m doin’, but I ain’t gonna send y’all no more money.” They voted to ordain me anyway.
All of that experience did help me. I got serious about the Bible, theology, and what it meant to be a Southern Baptist.
So, David, I can deal with all you are saying because I have heard it before and I know you have heard what I said before. But, please don’t “fling” that 501c3 mess at me because we both know full well that does not have one thing to do with a NT church.
I tell you this story because sometimes God uses people like me who know nothing to do something, but once we learn we are accountable to do things right.
I believe there are definite Baptist destinctives and I believe they are the closest to biblical Christianity of any “distinctives” on this earth and I also believe that to say it is local churches who have the vested authority to baptize professing Christ-Followers is a Baptist distinctive which predates Landmarkism.
We will just have to disagree on this one, but I still am glad you represent the SBC by serving Jesus on the foreign field.
CB,
Okay. I renege on the 501c3 line. I don’t think it really added anything to the point I was trying to make, anyway. And, I suppose there are those who argued for the exclusive right of local churches to baptize before J.R. Graves came along. Frankly, though, that doesn’t make a lot of difference to me, if they can’t back up from Scripture what they are arguing for. The Catholic Church has been arguing that only ordained priests can baptize, turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, and forgive sins, for centuries before the first Anabaptist, much less Baptist, ever came along.
CB- What a great story. I almost always agree with you on all the many comment threads I have followed you on. On this issue there is a disconnect that I don’t understand and it must have something to do with our definitions of local church somehow. I will give and ask for grace on this and let this discussion end for now.
Wes, Your last comment to me and Chris was apples and oranges I believe. You said that baptist distinctives are getting watered down and therefore the baptism policy was needed. Let me say for the last time that if we were talking about a policy that demanded a purer, stricter, correcter theology and practice from the candidate or the candidate’s church then I would be all for it. What makes no sense to me is the insistance on understanding the theology of the baptizer. Here is a question for you: What was the soteriology of the guy who baptized you? I don’t know for myself- he seemed pretty conservative but I was young and we didn’t go that deep before I moved two years later. I’ll bet most people don’t know. But now, it is essential to know if you want to work for the IMB. I don’t get that. I can testify to what I believed- why is that not enough?
Second, in the second half of your comment you said that the IMB and the CP were not biblical but still a good idea. You went on to say that is why baptism must be given to the local church. Again this is apples and oranges. The IMB and CP will change and evetually die. Baptism will remain until Christ comes again and woe to us if we think we can change it. It has one meaning- it points to Jesus. If we stay focused on Jesus our churches will grow and prosper under his lordship. If we steal baptism from Jesus and use it as a membership rite to our own club we will have our lampstands removed. It’s Sunday School 101; the answer is Jesus.
David and Strider,
I have done my best to convey my earnest convictions among some here who are no doubt, seasoned,veterans in their earnest convictions with the very same degree of confidence in their convictions as am I of mine.
One thing I have noticed about this particular “set to” is the fact that there seems not to be a very definable line between any “two sides” relating to the subject that has, for whatever reason, brought this particular group together over this last couple of days.
Now, I am not backing down on what I believe because I just can’t with personal integrity and I believe that would probably be the case with all who have contributed here due to a strange absence of the regular rock fights we usually get into when a thread has gone this long.
I said that to introduce my personal summation:
Based upon that which I have noticed here I am now convicted that rather than to desire to throw the trustees and the administration of the IMB into the Coosa River, that I need to rid myself of that attitude and begin to fervently pray for them that God would grant them His wisdom to lead the board in these troubled times and “present distress.”
I also am greatly convicted that I must pray for all the missionaries out there who are directly affected by decisions the board makes. They are real people who have lives, families, hopes and dreams and yet, know they have a calling from God to do what they are doing to advance the Kingdom by taking the gospel of Jesus to the whole world.
Finally, due to the vast lostness of our planet, I am convicted that I must pray for God to send more missionaries and that I do all I can to help them to get there.
cb
Brothers cb and David,
I really do appreciate the time you both took to explain the perspectives you are convicted to follow. For what it is worth from my vantage point,…I can see you guys really do have love for one another.
Analogies, hypotheticals, and experiences are good tools to test the practical outworking of our theologies, so thank you for those helpful insights….
If I put myself as a listener to Christ’s commands during the time of His ministry and compared that with what I know today,…. I have to answer one initial question. What is my first priority? What is my first step in ministry? Is it to look to Christ? Is He sufficient enough to direct my path, even on day one of His command?
Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. (19) “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
If I follow this command, while recognizing that Christ is forming His church (as He is today), my tendency is to obey, even in baptizing, looking to Christ as the head of the church. One thing that is never proffered by Christ or the disciples is a look to any other but Christ for the initiative to baptize. We baptize because we are commanded to do so by Christ….and we receive baptism because we are commanded to do so by Christ. The buck stops with Christ, not man. What a marvelous truth to know. “All Authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” We tend to jump to verse nineteen too quickly without giving eighteen correct authority. Man cannot stop or regulate true baptism, and true baptism is attended by Christ alone. We simply obey and in both respects of Christ’s command.
The arguments concerning baptism and ecclesiology will never cease to occur and will never cease to amaze. But the authority is not vested in man, it is vested in Christ, we simply build upon the already established stone by acting on the commands of Christ, by administering and by receiving. The true ecclesia is defined by these things….the members (or ecclesia) are not the ones making the rules, yet they must follow the commands.
Christ’s instructions to the Pharisees is very beneficial concerning how we go about following our Lord’s commands….. (Luke 11:28)
Luke 11:37-54 Now when He had spoken, a Pharisee *asked Him to have lunch with him; and He went in, and reclined at the table. (38) When the Pharisee saw it, he was surprised that He had not first ceremonially washed before the meal. (39) But the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the platter; but inside of you, you are full of robbery and wickedness. (40) “You foolish ones, did not He who made the outside make the inside also? (41) “But give that which is within as charity, and then all things are clean for you. (42) “But woe to you Pharisees! For you pay tithe of mint and rue and every kind of garden herb, and yet disregard justice and the love of God; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. (43) “Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the chief seats in the synagogues and the respectful greetings in the market places. (44) “Woe to you! For you are like concealed tombs, and the people who walk over them are unaware of it.” (45) One of the lawyers *said to Him in reply, “Teacher, when You say this, You insult us too.” (46) But He said, “Woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not even touch the burdens with one of your fingers. (47) “Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and it was your fathers who killed them. (48) “So you are witnesses and approve the deeds of your fathers; because it was they who killed them, and you build their tombs. (49) “For this reason also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, (50) so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, (51) from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.’ (52) “Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves did not enter, and you hindered those who were entering.” (53) When He left there, the scribes and the Pharisees began to be very hostile and to question Him closely on many subjects, (54) plotting against Him to catch Him in something He might say.
I pray that we will all resist the temptation to become “lawyers” in our zeal to be good stewards of the word of God as we follow the commands of Christ. Let us not be guilty of taking away the key of knowledge, even in baptism.
Blessings,
Chris
All -
Sorry that I’m a bit late to this conversation. I realize that the conversation here has kind of ebbed, but if you will tolerate one more comment, I would like to weigh in.
I have read your arguments, and must confess that I have heard them before. And it seems that we each make a similar mistake. It seems that some wish to emphasize baptism as a symbol of their covenant with Christ. Others wish to emphasize baptism as a symbol of their relationship with the church. Both camps seem to think that these are mutually exclusive options. But I believe that both are true in their own rights.
Baptism does identify us with Christ. There is no question of that. However, that is not its only function. Baptism also stands as the mark of covenant between a believer and his local church.
Colossians 2:10-12 says: in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Here, Paul shows us that the nature of Baptism is related to the nature of circumcision. Now, before anyone freaks out let me be clear. Baptism is NOT the NT version of circumcision. There is NOT a one to one equivalence between the two. However, Paul makes it plain that they are similar in nature.
In the OT, circumcision was a mark of identification. A child was born to Jewish parents, after 8 days they were circumcised as a mark of entrance into God’s covenant community.
Baptism is similar in that when a person is born again, they are Baptized as a mark of entrance into God’s covenant community of the local church.
I hope that this sheds some light as to why I believe that an attachment to both the authority of Christ and the authority of the local church is needed for baptism.
John: Agreed. But Jews were not circumcised more than once, nor should someone be baptized more than once. The argument being made is that someone immersed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit upon examination and profession of faith in Jesus Christ by someone who does not hold to eternal security has not been truly baptized. That, as I have said, cannot, in my opinion, be defended biblically.
Brother John,
The second chapter of the letter to the Colossians is driving home the sufficiency of Christ and every man being made complete in Christ. The second chapter is not trying to piece together an ecclesiological argument for membership into the local church. According to Paul it is the body of flesh that is being dealt with…. Circumcision without hands being one example and baptism without water being the other reflecting the same justifying work of God that Paul proclaims to us in his Romans letter, chapter 6 verse 4.
It would be quite a maneuver to have this Colossian passage speak to membership. Yet the Colossian passage does make clear that both circumcision and baptism reflect the complete work of Christ in redeeming His adopted children.
Blessings,
Chris
As I’ve read the baptism IMB issue, I want to duct tape my head back together. The Ethiopian was baptized in a mud puddle on the way back to Africa. Was he baptized under the authority of the universal church? Or was he baptized under the authority of the Jerusalem church? Who gave men the right to make up these rules with no true biblical warrant? Call me a heretic, hypocrite, whatever – Paul was glad he wasn’t baptizing, and I’m sure there are many in the SBC who are starting to feel the same way. Fortunately, straying from the traditions of man taught as commandments from God can’t keep the elect out of Heaven.
Millions have been baptized over the years and yet after various periods of time no longer attend any Baptist Church. If their witness matters so much why do Baptist Churches not do a better job of disciplining these folks and removing them from the church rolls?
John D,
I think that I agree with Chris in his interpretation of Colossians 2. But, even if I did agree that baptism is the NT parallel to circumcision as the “mark of entrance into God’s covenant community,” I see no reason why we should identify that community as the local church as opposed to the universal church.
Bill -
We all draw lines that others will not agree with. Myself, I have conflicting thoughts as to where that line should be drawn regarding eternal security.
Chris -
I am well aware that Colossians 2 argues for the supremacy of Christ in salvation, and is not an ecclesiasitcal discourse. However, given that the NT does not give us a manual on order and practice, we must do what we can with what we have. I don’t know if this is what you intended, but to refer to my interpretation as a “maneuver” certainly rings of a smug attempt to dissmiss it without considering it. God is the one who made the comparison between circumscision and baptism. As men of God we must seek to understand it, not unmake it.
As we read through the OT, circumscision was always a mark of identification with God’s covenant community. In a like manner, baptism too is a mark of identification with God’s covenant community.
David -
The universal church by its very nature cannot perform a baptism. Baptisms are performed by the local, visible church. As such, when one is baptized, they are identified with the local church that baptized them.
Strider, thank you. This baptism debate is more than two years old now, and I’ve been waiting for someone to say what you just said: “What was the soteriology of the guy who baptized you? I don’t know for myself- he seemed pretty conservative but I was young and we didn’t go that deep before I moved two years later. I’ll bet most people don’t know. But now, it is essential to know if you want to work for the IMB. I don’t get that. I can testify to what I believed- why is that not enough?”
I’ll go even further than that. I’ll bet a vast majority of pastors don’t know the baptism “pedigree” of their own church members, those they haven’t baptized themselves. I am curious to know if the IMB trustees who are pastors and voted for the baptism policy really know the baptismal history of the flock they shepherd. One of those trustees was my mother’s pastor, and I’m confident no one in her church ever asked about her baptism. Not that there was anything wrong with it (to my knowledge), but no one asked.
And that’s my point. This has become a huge divisive issue, but in reality, in many places, it seems like people walk down an aisle, shake a pastor’s hand, check a box on a card that they want to move their letter from such-and-such church, and no one asks anything about the original baptism.
I’m in my mid-fifties and a homemaker. Maybe stuff happens behind the scenes that regular church members know nothing of, but I do know that no one has ever asked me about my baptism. Nor has anyone asked my husband about his—and his family moved frequently during his growing-up years.
My own history goes like this. I was born in Minneapolis to Baptist parents. When I was five, my parents told me that because I asked Jesus into my heart, I was going to be baptized. They seemed very excited, but I was very confused because I had no idea what I had done that was so wonderful. They explained that I had raised my hand in children’s church when the teacher asked if anyone wanted to ask Jesus in their heart and had prayed a prayer. I didn’t remember it then, and I still don’t. I also don’t remember being baptized, but they assured me I was. I know the church’s name and the last name of the pastor and that’s it. I do not know the “brand” of Baptists, but this was before Southern Baptists planted their first church in Minnesota. My main memory is that my parents were elated that I made an “early decision.”
Several years later, my dad, the son of a SB pastor, learned that a SB church had been planted in our suburb, and we moved our membership. No one asked about my baptism.
We moved to Texas before sixth grade and joined a medium-sized church in our neighborhood in Fort Worth. Again, no one asked about my baptism. Just before I entered high school, our church had some conflict and a number of families, including my own, left and joined one of the larger churches in town. This church was well-populated with SWBTS faculty families and students. No one asked about my baptism at this church either.
Through my growing up years, I was very troubled about a salvation experience and baptism I couldn’t even remember. Every time I tried to ask questions, someone at church quickly told me it was wrong to doubt and/or there was this Baptist thing called “once saved, always saved.” I didn’t dare ask my parents because a child making an “early decision” had been so important to them.
To this day, I can’t tell you when I was saved. I just know that I am. I finally realized this was about Who, not when.
I went off to Baylor and joined a church in Waco. Again, no one asked about my baptism.
Then, shortly out of Baylor, I moved to Richmond to work for the FMB. I joined a large church there, and no one asked about my baptism. Instead, about a month later, I received a letter saying that the membership committee had reviewed my application and approved it and they were pleased to welcome me as a member. Membership Committee? Reviewing what? They knew nothing about me. This left me with a very unsettled feeling.
From there, I moved to Birmingham to edit a magazine for WMU. Before I joined the church that has been my church home for 33 years now, I asked for an appointment with the pastor. I wanted to know more about the church. We visited about 30 minutes, and he never asked about my baptism.
The next year, during a revival meeting, the evangelist preached on baptism and the importance of “getting the order right.” I was strongly convicted that I needed to be baptized again because I had no knowledge if the first baptism (which I didn’t remember) actually happened before or after salvation. The night I was baptized, the wife of our retired pastor royally chewed me out in the church parking lot for “setting a bad example for the young people.” There’s no telling what she would’ve said if she had seen a missionary candidate baptized!
I don’t know how typical my experience is. Maybe I inadvertently joined the only six churches among the 40,000 that don’t ask deep probing questions of people transferring their membership. And maybe my husband’s experience was also a quirk. Maybe every other church keeps detailed records of where the original baptisms took place and who performed them and if the person and/or church who performed them is “legit” or not. But I doubt it.
It seems like the main problem, if there is one, is how churches receive new members, not missionary candidates with defective baptisms.
People get baptized at my church on most Sundays. As my understanding and appreciation of baptism has deepened after reading blogs and going back to the Scriptures, I just want to stand up and shout hallelujah each time I see someone baptized. How I long for the day that this subject would be one of celebration and not conflict in the SBC!
John D,
Would not doing “what we can with what we have” constitute a private interpretation? Colossians 2 is presenting the supremacy and sufficiency of Christ. To draw anything else from the text would be hermeneutically incorrect based on an isogetical presupposition.
In other words; We are not allowed to “do what we can with what we have.”
There is not a clear line between two positions here.
I believe the only authority for Baptism is the local church. Yet, I do not believe we are baptized into a church. We are baptized to identify with Christ. The fact that we are baptized makes us proper candidates for becoming part of the fellowship of a local church.
For me the debate has been about where the authority to baptize lies. My covenant as a Believer lies with Christ. My fellowship with other Believers in a local church is obedience to the Lord’s mandate to do so. My Baptism identifies me with Christ and gives testimony to other Believers that I have professed Christ as my Lord and Savior. My profession of Christ and my identifying myself with Christ in Believer’s Baptism makes me a acceptable for fellowship and ministry in and through a local church. The local church accepts me based upon my profession and obedience to Christ evidenced by my Baptism.
I really don’t think Chris was being smug. I think he was simply addressing a point of interpretation of Scripture and nothing more.
cb
Let’s think about this for a moment. If a baptism performed by someone who does not hold to eternal security is illegitimate, then any baptisms performed by the person baptized would also, by default, be illegitimate. Think about it. Does an un-baptized person have the authority to baptize anyone else? Of course not.
Now connect the dots. That means that the only properly baptized people on the planet are those who are part of an unbroken string of baptisms performed by Christians who hold to eternal security all the way back to the apostles. How many of those folks do you suppose there are?
Strider,
Sorry for the delay in replying … I seldom log on over the weekends. I do, however, want to clarify a few of your statements to me from your post #125.
First of all, you write: “What makes no sense to me is the insistance on understanding the theology of the baptizer.” It is not an understanding of the theology of the “baptizer” but of the fellowship which the “baptizer” represents. In the story I shared (which is not “apples and oranges” btw) concerning the Church of Christ couple – they were immersed by an organization (a Church of Christ congregation) which had a specific doctrinal and theological belief system. One, I might add that is contrary to sound doctrine. Though the whole congregation was not in the water with them and the minister, the minister immersed the couple according to the doctrinal understanding of the congregation as their representative. Then, when they moved to another area and sought membership in a Baptist church – the Baptist minister affirmed their immersion as a biblical baptism. That is the reason para-church organizations such as the IMB, serving a larger constituency, must now guard against such pastors and congregations who would dilute historic Baptist faith and practice.
Secondly, you state: “in the second half of your comment you said that the IMB and the CP were not biblical but still a good idea. You went on to say that is why baptism must be given to the local church.” That, sir, is NOT what I said. My commit was that while you cannot quote specific chapter and verse to provide a biblical base for the IMB and the CP, you can find biblical principles which teach corporative efforts in missions and ministry. The same can be said for the principle of baptism being a means of identification with a local body of believers. Certainly baptism is identification with Christ. I had Sunday School 101 too (I even had Training Union 5.1!). However, Baptists have historically (and biblically) seen baptism as an identification of the believer with Christ and His visible Body – the local church.
I don’t know how much time I will have today for continuing in this thread … I do have work to do. I have appreciated the back and forth and pray for your ministry and service.
Grace,
Wes
Bill,
I’d like to try to clear something up (if that’s possible at this point). :)
When the policy on baptism was originally adopted, it referred to the “administrator” of the baptism. Many seized upon that language to say that they were requiring specific beliefs of the person conducting the baptism. That was not the case.
The language in the new IMB guideline was changed to correct this misunderstanding. Those responsible for the policy originally understood “administrator” to refer to the church, but because of this misunderstanding, it was changed so that it now contains a direct reference to the authority of the local church to administer baptism.
I want to be as clear as I can: It is not the person doing the baptizing that is important, but rather the local church that grants the authority that matters. I know of a pastor (I’m sure others do as well) who, after many years in ministry, came to realize that they themselves had never been converted. In no way does this invalidate any baptisms they conducted, provided those baptisms were conducted under the authority of a local church.
A church can authorize a family member, the custodian, or a man off the street to baptize under its authority. It matters not what the person doing the baptizing believes, but rather what the church authorizing the baptism believes confessionally that is important in this discussion. Discussion about what the person doing the baptizing believes is simply a distraction.
Wes: That distinction makes a huge difference. Thanks. Ultimately, I would still come down on not disqualifying people baptized as believers from denominations which fall within the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy. But your clarification puts the conversation thus far in a different light.
Brother John D,
As cb has stated,…. I was not at all trying to be smug with your comments at all, and please forgive me if I came across in that manner, it was not intentional. I was simply trying to direct our attention to the meaning of that section of scripture.
I do agree with you that the reference to circumcision or baptism does give us a peek at the great reality that Christ has done in the heart.
All believers should be baptized to identify and fellowship with Christ; and give testimony to the real change that God has wrought in bringing a dead man to life.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother John D,
Furthermore, I do believe that you bring up an informative aspect of circumcision and baptism that should be considered.
In Israel, the practice to circumcise is an aspect of obedience to the Law given by Moses, pointing back to Abraham where in both instances (Abraham or Moses), the act of circumcision reflected the potential reality of true faith, yet there was obviously those included in this ritual that did not have true faith (not all Israel is Israel).
The New Covenant peoples are similar in reflection, never seen as comprised nationally, but seen by occupation of faith. One of the aspects of baptism is its universality as represented in the many ways it is depicted throughout Acts and other NT books. This aspect of universality does not necessarily reject the idea that a local church accepts others based upon a baptistic testimony. Although, when “a baptism” becomes the criteria for acceptance alone (because like circumcision – all that are baptized are not necessarily saved), or becomes the “door” to the church as some have posited and believe with a great deal of conviction….then the act and meaning of baptism quickly digresses to much less than what our Lord commanded and the clear teaching of baptism becomes a less than satisfactory and skewed doctrine for the church. Christ commanded the act of baptism as a response to repentance and identification with Himself to the Glory of God. Baptism is not a complicated undertaking, unless men have ulterior motive and proceed to build a more elaborate meaning that what Christ has commanded.
The local churches should be baptizing and fellowshipping with believers of like faith.
Blessings,
Chris
John D,
By the same token the universal church cannot perform a baptism, I would say neither can the local church. Individuals perform baptisms. Those individuals can baptize under the auspices of the universal church, in obedience to Christ alone; or they can baptize under the auspices of a local church, in obedience to Christ, and in conformance to the particular doctrinal belief set of that church.
Lest I be misunderstood here, I believe all belivers ought to be in fellowship with a local church. I just don’t see where the Bible indicates that the local church is necessarily the guardian of authentic baptism.
Chris -
Let me apologize for misreading you and ask your forgiveness for taking offense too quickly. I understand where you are coming from. After reading some of your follow up comments and nosing around on your church’s web site, I suspect that we are not too far off from each other.
CB -
I’m not quite sure how what I have said could be seen as a “private interpretation.” You might have to elaborate on that for me. As for Colossians 2, again, I understand what Paul was arguing for. But again, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul points to a correlation between Baptism and Circumcision. This may not have been his thesis statement, but it is still there none the less. This correlation cannot casually be disregarded – it must at least help educate our understanding of the meaning and function of Baptism.
David -
Do you have a post that articulates your view of baptism floating around anywhere? Somehow I get the impression that if we are going to have a meaningful conversation about this, we are going to have to go back farther that this thread will allow.
First, I would like to know how many people that said they left the field to take a job in the US wouldn’t have considered it if they had a different experience with local and/or higher leadership. For example, we recently lost a family before the end of the term. They left to take a pastorate in the US but the only reason they considered it was because they had a horrible experience with their leadership. Technically they left for a job but the reason they were open to this was perceived poor leadership.
Second,
We shouldn’t solely measure the effects of a policy by the attrition rate. Few of us here are going to leave solely because of a new policy. The more important number to me would be the external effects. How many potential candidates did we not get because of these policies? How many strong, solid believers saw the policies as beyond scripture and even beyond the BFM and choose to go with another agency? How many SB churches guided people to another agency because of the public infighting they see and hear about? Those are the true effects of these policies.
John D.,
Unfortunately, I don’t believe I have a post that lays out everything I believe about baptism.
However, I think the following (from the Baptist Faith & Message) adequately describes my own view:
“Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead.”
I imagine it is in our respective views of the next sentence, though, where we have any discrepancies:
“Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.”
1. The phrase “being a church ordinance,” as I understand it, is ambiguous. Some (like yourself, I presume) take it to mean that the local church is entrusted with the authority to administer baptism. While I have no problems, in general, with the practice of local churches administering baptism, I don’t see where this is a biblical absolute. I am more comfortable with calling baptism an ordinance entrusted to the “church” in the broader sense, which encompasses all the faithful down through the ages.
2. I believe that believers baptism by immersion is a legitimate pre-requisite for membership in local congregations that choose to make it so. As the normal NT “profession of faith,” it is the sign by which we demonstrate externally to others that we are serious about following Jesus. At the same time, I have some degree of sympathy for congregations that choose to admit members who demonstrate a clear profession of faith, and who are sincerely convinced that their “infant baptism” or other mode of baptism, is fully biblical. In my actual practice, though, I would not, at this point, lower the bar of believers baptism as a pre-requisite for local church membership.
3. Whereas I see the Lord’s Supper as (among other things) a celebration of the unity of the Body of Christ, I do not believe in “closed communion.”
I have written more about my views on “closed communion” here:
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/09/reply-to-nathan-finns-baptism-as.html
William said: (#2, maybe) “If we have IMB field personnel calling for the resignation of their employers, trustees of the IMB, then they should understand that they do so at the risk of their employment. Sorry, my friend, no one in the SBC elected you to set policy. The trustees may be wrong but they are doing the job that they, not you, were elected to do. I am critical of some IMB trustee decisions and perhaps would disagree with some of JF’s positions, but the SBC administrates the IMB through duly elected trustees, not through polling the field personnel. ”
This is one of the big problems with the BOT. This attitude is a huge stumbling block to further progress. Who cares is something is policy…policy isn’t scripture. If this isn’t working then maybe it’s time for change. Yes the BOT has a job to set policy, but those on the field actually know something about the work. Maybe we should poll all overseas workers to see if they’re satisfied with the roll and job of the BOT. Maybe this and other type of polling would result in greater job satisfaction which would maybe result in a greater net gain than 150 units per year.
BTW, if we’re going to draw a line in the sand and say the BOT does policy and the m’s do the work then they have no right to discuss our methods, CAMEL method, use of the name Allah…. I personally don’t want this line drawn in the sand. I don’t work for the BOT, they approve me and administrate me…I work for the Father and on behalf of the SBC.