We at SBC Today wish to direct your attention to a wonderful editorial article written for the Florida Baptist Witness by James A. Smith, Sr. His response to the recent stirrings of the IMB-’Time-to-Change’ group is both insightful and clearly on point as to the problems with the letter and its signatories. Follow this link…
Also remember that over the next couple of days all of us will be traveling to Indianapolis, so response to comments left here will be highly sporadic. We’ll see you all in Indy!
Did you guys read the same article that I did? It only marginally mentioned the “Time to Change” group. Indeed, the majority of the article was more of a condemnation (maybe even a “scalp hunt”) of one of our missionaries, Rodney Hammer.
I thought it was disappointing rather than insightful.
Someone is lying and it is incumbent upon the SBC to figure out who. Paul Chitwood says that the new policies have not affected recruitment. Rodney Hammer told me that in one year approximately 200 potential missionaries had been turned down based on the new policies. 200. In ONE YEAR. Someone is lying. Who is it?
Paul Chitwood says that record numbers of baptisms prove that all is well. He does not tell us that the vast majority of those baptisms have come at the hands of nationals who do not hold to the two new policies. We are claiming baptisms by people who would not be appointed as missionaries by the SBC if they lived in the U.S. How does that make sense?
I agree with you Geoff.
And, above all, it truly misses the point. Davis and others who want to bury their heads in the sand about this issue like to say “Get over it and move on.” They fail to understand, however, that this argument is NOT about the “color of the new carpet in the fellowship hall” – it is a matter that goes to the heart of our identity as Southern Baptists and that is why we can’t just “move on.” To be honest, I think that Davis and other fundamentalists DO KNOW that this issue is one of esential identity and that is why THEY resfuse to change. They will NOT stop until the Convention is made in their image on all fronts.
I find it hard to swallow the argument from Fundamentalists that the oppossers should just “sit down and shut up” and be “good employees”. If the conservatives had followed the same line of thinking 30 years ago, we would never have seen the so-called “Conservative Resurgance.”
Brother Alan,
Have you gotten from Brother Rodney the numbers of applicants to the IMB in one year. Also, I believe if you will re-check with Brother Rodney you will find that either he has mis-spoke or he has intentionally mis-led you. I am being told that the approximate 200 number is closer to 150 and the one year is not even close. Try since the policies have been implemented and that was in 2005 so, let us say 2 1/2 years. That would make that number more like 3% of all applicants since the beginning of the policies being approved by the overwhelming majority of the BoT have been denied entrance based on either baptismal issues or charismatic practices.
Oh, did he tell you how many were turned down for marital problems, emotional issues, and financial troubles? Something that is not in the BF&M either. But we do not hear everyone whining about those areas. Considerably more applicants have been denied entrance into the IMB based on those three areas than has been denied because of baptismal issues or charismatic practices.
Brother Doug,
You write; I find it hard to swallow the argument from Fundamentalists that the oppossers should just “sit down and shut up” and be “good employees”. If the conservatives had followed the same line of thinking 30 years ago, we would never have seen the so-called “Conservative Resurgance.” I believe that you fail to remember that the conservatives were not in any positions before the Resurgence.
Also, you better believe we understand that this issue is essential to our Baptist Identity. Baptism is what makes us–BAPTIST.
Blessings,
Tim
“…it is a matter that goes to the heart of our identity as Southern Baptists and that is why we can’t just ‘move on.’”
Shucks, and all this time we have been told these issues were not of first importance nor even secondary. I believe “tertiary” is the word Brother Burleson used to describe them. :)
Doug,
On a serious note, I realize that the issues of Baptism or tongues may not be what you consider to be at the heart of who we are as Southern Baptists. Is it the issue of the priesthood of the believer”s” that you believe is our central tenet?
As one who does not mind wearing the fundamentalist label, I would say that I have no desire to make anyone into my image nor anyone else’s image. I do, however, want to work cooperatively with churches that are seeking to be made into the image of the New Testament church as our Lord instituted it. Churches which sprinkle, baptize for the dead, or which force baptism upon unregenerate people who have expressed no desire for baptism do not constitute faithful churches, nor should their baptisms be accepted by a Baptist church. Some signers of the IMBchange.info letter (even IMB missionaries) have unbelievably, publicly said that such baptisms could be acceptable.
If your church disagrees and would like to accept such baptisms, that is up to your congregation, but when it comes to our cooperative efforts, proper baptism is indeed important.
I would further add that I think the IMB trustees were correct to safeguard our cooperative efforts from those who would wish to use our entities to push the modern charismatic movement.
I guess we are agreed on one thing. These are important issues.
Cleverly pack the board, institute a top down baptism policy without scriptural foundation, and then announce the case is “closed.” Getting our ecclesiology and Baptist identity TRULY correct is never a closed case. The SBC messengers or next year’s trustee board can always address it.
R. Grannemann,
Several questions: Is it Biblical to baptize someone who is unregenerate? Does baptism impart grace that then leads to salvation? Can sprinkling even be considered baptism? Can someone really be baptized by proxy after their death?
Most importantly: Is the baptism of churches who hold to such views really Biblical baptism?
I don’t quite follow your logic. Do you mean to say that these baptisms have Scriptural foundation and ours don’t?
Matt,
You may be new to this discussion, which is okay. I believe we all would reject the baptisms you cite.
The question is: If someone is saved and they get believer’s baptism by immersion by a group of born again believers, then is that baptism valid. We say almost always “yes.” The IMB policy says under certain circumstances “no,” for example, if the assembly of born again believers do not (in some collective sense) believe in eternal security. We don’t think Jesus made that qualification.
I just gave you one aspect of the issue – it is a dragon with many tails and has been discussed pretty much to death from many angles on blogs. Seems to me like after all the discussion we should have been able to come to a better consensus, but we didn’t.
I have no firsthand knowledge of any of this. But I have heard enough smoke to wonder if there is a fire. Enough missionaries have spoken out anonymously on blogs in addition to Randy and David to make me wonder if trouble is smouldering.
It just seems to me that we will be best not to sweep things under the rug, not to punish those who speak out, not to squash dissent and to listen to those who might have something to say.
There seem to be a lot of missionaries who are bothered. Yet it seems that some are more interested in shutting up the missionaries than dealing with the issues.
R. Grannemann,
I think you are correct that we all would reject these baptisms. I also think that most if not all of us would agree that baptism is a church ordinance. My most important question was:
Is the baptism of churches who hold to such views really Biblical baptism?
If baptism is a church ordinance and a church’s understanding of baptism is unbiblical, should we accept their baptism?
You mention people being baptized by a group of born again believers, but David Rogers (who signed the IMBchange.info letter) stated last week that a person could in theory be baptized by a Mormon “church” and it would be an acceptable baptism. If I understood him correctly, it mattered not who was doing the baptizing, only what the person being baptized believed.
I just don’t see any possible way that we can say that the baptism of cults or even many other denominations is legitimate Biblical baptism.
Dave,
I’m all for listening to disgruntled missionaries. They along with Dr. Rankin made their case and the trustees disagreed with them. In that sense, it is indeed a closed case.
After listening to any disgruntled missionaries, the trustees still have to go back and listen to the Scriptures as they are the ultimate authority.
Hammer’s letter does little to make a strong Biblical case for his argument. It is just a letter that says he is upset so he is taking his toys and going home.
Hammer laments that some missionaries were rejected, but that argument seems weak as there are many legitimate reasons why missionary candidates should indeed be rejected. We ought not rush to get as many people on the field as we can only to find that we are fielding missionaries who don’t believe what we believe about the Bible.
Matt,
The baptism of cults is not biblical. But David Rogers gave a very nuanced case to prove a point, and I guess I pretty much agree with him that it might actually be possible in one out of a trillion cases, when the angles in heaven all line up and sing together, that such a baptism could be counted by God as okay.
We are basically talking here about believer’s baptism by immersion done on account of the new birth that has truly taken place. That is the key from which we do not depart.
Concerning your answer to Dave, the trustees are not the final authority. The SBC is the sole owner of its entities and is the final authority of entity policy.
R. Grannemann,
Wow! So you are also saying that a Mormon baptism could, under the right circumstances, be acceptable? I must vehemently disagree. If baptism is a church ordinance and what the church is administering is not true baptism, then the person getting wet can in no way be Biblically baptized.
As for the trustee system, I agree that the ultimate authority is the gathered messengers at the convention, but the messengers’ authority only rests in determining who the trustees will be. They cannot trump the trustees. Just count the number of motions that get referred to the various boards each year. Legally, the current trustees are the ultimate authority in these matters.
One last thing before bed:
If a church does not believe in eternal security, does that not indicate a works based salvation? If so, the baptism would be a work of salvation (or at least of keeping them saved) as opposed to being symbolic and therefore would not be valid Biblical baptism. I don’t see the problem with requiring Baptist missionaries to be Biblically baptized.
r. grannemann,
Matt is correct that the Trustees are the final authority on this issue. No vote by Messengers is binding on any entity. The SBC bylaws are clear on that.
The options are:
1. Convince the Trustees to change the policies.
2. Replace enough Trustees over time and then change the policies.
3. Replace all the Trustees en masse and change the policies.
4. De-fund the IMB, forcing the Trustees to change the policies.
All of which still keeps the final authority and fiduciary responsibility in the hands of the Trustees to make decisions.
The one exception, would be to change the SBC bylaws and all applicable rules and documents governing her entities. Which, if I am correct, would also require each BOT to approve as well. I could be wrong on that point though.
Ron P.
Matt,
WOW is right! We now have two people affirming that a Mormon baptism could be a valid baptism.
This clearly gives evidence that the Trustees acted responsibly and why such policies are needed.
Ron P.
I researched this after a long discussion/disagreement with Bart and Ron. Ron is absolutely right. Those are the only avenues of change.
The BoT is not bound by the actions of the SBC. It doesn’t seem exactly right to me, but it is accurate.
Options 3 and 4 will not happen. So, those of us who want change are left with options 1 and 2.
I would like to think that if the BoT saw that there was a problem, they would change the policies. But, they seem people possessed of an absolute certainty that they are doing God’s work. So option one is probably out.
That leaves the course used by the Conservative Resurgence. Elect like-minded presidents who will appoint like-minded trustees.
Why can’t we just …
Baptize them all and in every way and let God sort them out?
Sounds a lot like “I just hope nobody gets saved who isn’t supposed to” doesn’t it?
I pray that all who are going to Indy will have a safe trip and prayerfully consider their responsibilities.
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
Ron, you are misstating David Rogers viewpoint, either willfully or ignorantly – I don’t know. He has explained that statement several times (on my blog once) and your statement is a blatant misrepresentation of his statement. He was answering a hypothetical question posed by another. He does NOT approve of baptisms by Mormons.
You should not pass along falsehoods. One of the Ten Commandments talks about that one!
Dave,
It is not a misrepresentation. Not in the slightest David, to this point, as far as I am aware, has not unequivocally made a statement that baptism by a Mormon is invalid. He has refused to do so in a comment stream at Bart’s blog. He almost closes the door on it, but then adds that: “I have never personally met someone who was legitimately baptized by a Mormon, and I don’t imagine I ever will.”
He doesn’t imagine???? If he does not believe it possible, then why couch it in terms that still allows it to be possible? For some reason, he appears to leave the door open to it being a possibility. Why?
Anything less than a statement that makes it clear that there are NO CIRCUMSTANCES in which a Mormon baptism can be a valid Biblical baptism would be acceptable. I assure you, anything less would not be acceptable to Southern Baptists in the pew who are giving to LM and the CP.
As I told David on Bart’s blog, until he makes an unequivocal statement (that clearly and unambiguously) denounces such belief, he is the one who has muddied the waters with this one. So I have not violated Scripture. Quite the contrary, I am Biblically calling this what it is: heresy.
Ron P.
That should read:
Nothing less than a statement that makes it clear that there are NO CIRCUMSTANCES in which a Mormon baptism can be a valid Biblical baptism would be acceptable.
Ron P.
ABClay,
“Why can’t we just Baptize them all and in every way and let God sort them out?
Sounds a lot like ‘I just hope nobody gets saved who isn’t supposed to’ doesn’t it?”
I don’t mean for this to sound harsh nor preachy, but my initial reaction to that statement was that it sounds a lot like, “Let’s just ignore God’s Word and hope that God doesn’t mind.”
God gave us His Word for a reason. We may disagree about exactly what the Bible demands, but we ought to at least try to understand what God is telling us to do and then mold our actions to fit as best we can. “Que sera sera” should never be our attitude when it comes to things of God.
I really am going to sleep now. We are off to Indy early in the morning.
Ron P.
Are you saying you can foresee and rule on every bizarre circumstance in which God by his grace might accept what one of his children might does by faith? I’m simply saying I can’t.
You should note that I said baptism by cults is not baptism. I’m simply not making up God’s mind for him.
Ron P.
If you want to put into the IMB policy that NO baptism done inside a Mormon church or by a person who was presently a Mormon official, I don’t think ANYONE would have a problem with that.
Ron P.
I keep making typos. In #24 I meant to say that if no baptism was ACCEPTED by the IMB that was done by anyone presently a practicing Mormon (or something similar to that), no one would object.
r. grannemann Says: “If you want to put into the IMB policy that NO baptism done inside a Mormon church or by a person who was presently a Mormon official, I don’t think ANYONE would have a problem with that.”
That is exactly what the IMBoT did in their guideline. Read it.
I don’t want to rehash old ground here, but because the issue is so important, I will risk doing so.
If immersion is strictly an individual exercise, then it doesn’t matter what group or individual administers it (Church of Christ, Mormons, eight-year-old boy in his swimming pool, etc.). Biblical immersion, however, is not just an individual exercise; rather, it presents a symbolic message and has a group aspect to it.
The 2000 BF&M describes immersion as a “church ordinance,” not as an individual ordinance. The 2000 BF&M also states that immersion is a “testimony,” and thus the correctness of that testimony in terms of a correct understanding of its symbolism is important. The 2000 BF&M also mentions that immersion symbolizes the “burial of the old life.” There is a connection between immersion, burial, and eternal security.
Charles H. Spurgeon understood the connection with eternal security. See his online sermon from October 30, 1881: “Baptism — A Burial” at the following address:
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1627.htm
Spurgeon said, “There must, then, be in us death to the world, and some of the effects of death, or our baptism is void. . . . The believer’s death to sin is at first a secret, but by an open confession he bids all men know that he is dead with Christ. Baptism is the funeral rite by which death to sin is openly set forth before all men. . . . And the grave is the place—I do not know where to get a word—of the settledness of death; for when a man is dead and buried you never expect to see him come home again: so far as this world is concerned, death and burial are irrevocable. . . . I may sin, but sin can never have dominion over me; I may be a transgressor and wander much from my God, but never can I go back to the old death again.”
Mike (Baptist Theologue),
Exactly, you state it well.
Ron P.
This conversation has some rings of the old baptistic lore known in those days as the Tovelei Shaharit.
Rishama baptism did not require the priest’s presence such that each man or woman is his or her own priest or priestess just before sunrise.
Tamasha baptism was the simple triple immersion in the river performed without the aid of the priest or priestess. In present Mandean tradition, it must be performed by women after menstruation and after childbirth. Both man and woman must perform this ablution immediately after sexual intercourse, it must be performed after touching a dead body, after nocturnal pollution or any serious defilement or contact with a defiled person, as impurity is contagious – a person touching an unclean person, himself becomes unclean. These practices are related to the ritual purity laws of the Jews and were no doubt taught and practiced to some degree, and after their own fashion, by early Nasarenes (See Clementine Homiless).
The grand finally is the Masbuta baptism or ‘full baptism’, encompasses all aspects of baptism and must be performed by a priest or priestess. This ablution is known as masbuta (maswetta) includes the sacraments of oil, bread (known as pihtha) and water (from the river only, known as mambuha), the kushta (the hand grasp and kiss) and the final blessing by laying the right hand of the priest or / and priestess on the head of the baptized person. Major sins such as theft, murder, and adultery require more than one baptism.
Fortunately we have the command of Christ to his disciples of which we remain,… 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.”
No rocket science or “Mishnahic” additional clarifications required.
The “private prayer language” (clarification / warning) insertion in the IMB policy is as bizarre as the argument for a “private prayer language.” Each position, although I’m sure well meaning from both, is bound with emotional error.
It appears to me that the best way to address something of the nature of any practice is to teach the “doctrines” that are in scripture. When that is accomplished the doctrines of men get sorted out from the doctrines of God and the later rise to the surface.
Blessings,
Chris
By saying you will not accept baptism from any church that does not hold to eternal security, then you are saying that that assembly of saints is not a true church. Again, is a church an assembly of God’s forgiven people who have entered the kingdom, or an assembly that has all their theology correct (in particular their theology about eternal security)? We are not saying to have any missionaries that do not believe in eternal security, we are just saying to have a VIEW of “church” that includes the entire body of Christ. To recognize other true saints as part of Christ’s body (and church) is part of Christ’s command for unity among his followers – but we don’t take that unity to imply we should put money or missionaries into promoting the error that one can lose their salvation. But we should accept all baptisms that God accepts.
In the movie Last of the Mohicans the young lieutenant looks to the old general and says, “I thought the policy of Britain was to make the world British”
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
Ron P.,
As we already discussed in the comment stream you are referencing, by the same criterion you are demanding of me, you must also call Bart Barber’s beliefs heresy (not meaning to infer that I believe Bart is a heretic; I do not). I ask of you to please be forthright and honest about this.
I said I do not believe in or give validity to “Mormon baptism.” However, if, for some bizarre reason, someone who happened to be a Mormon was the one physically immersing someone who was sincerely repenting of their sin, trusting Christ, and wishing to be obedient to Christ’s command to follow him in baptism, as I understand it, the baptism is not automatically invalidated. Not so, anymore than that of thousands of people down through history who have repented of their sins, trusted Christ, and followed Christ’s command to be baptized, only to find out later that the one (or group) who had baptized them was heretical in their doctrine, or was apostate. Some of these even in so-called “Baptist churches.” Once we discover the defect, ex post facto, in the baptizer (individual or church), do we demand that all those baptized by them be re-baptized?
I brought up the hypothetical case to you on the other comment stream of a “closet Mormon” who happened to baptize folks in an otherwise apparently biblical church. Admittedly, this is highly hypothetical, even to the point of being ridiculously so. But that is my whole point. We are talking about hypothetical situations, not everyday reality.
The bottom line in this discussion is whether the legitimacy of someone’s baptism necessarily hinges on the doctrinal soundness of the church or individual performing the baptism.
I agreed with Bart that normally a biblical baptism will be performed by an authentic disciple of the Lord Jesus, because Jesus gave his Great Commission, including the part about baptism, to the 11, and by inference and extension, to all true disciples for perpetuity.
However, as I reflect upon historical reality, we must make room for the possibility of “anomalous baptisms.” This is due to the fact that many who have baptized have later turned out to be heretical or immoral in one way or another. If all “anomalous baptisms” were automatically considered as not only “anomalous,” but also “invalid,” we would have no choice but to continually be tracking the doctrinal development and spiritual authenticity and perseverance of everyone’s baptizers way after the time they were actually baptized. And, if we believe in the perseverance of the saints (which I do), whenever it were discovered that someone who had masqueraded as a true believer later proved to be a false believer, we would have to re-baptize everyone they had previously baptized.
This is the point I have been trying to make from the beginning. Not that someone who intentionally and knowingly was identifying with the Mormon church or the Mormon false gospel when they were “baptized” was validly baptized. I will state it again here. If that were the case, in my book, they were not truly baptized.
Ron, I have already gone over all this various times, at least one in a comment stream I know you read. Thus, to claim, as you do here, that I am “affirming that a Mormon baptism could be a valid baptism” is disingenuous, and I call you out for it.
David,
The headline “IMB missionary endorses Morman baptism” is just too juicy for fundamentdalists such as Ron P. to give up (although it is clearly disingenious at best). I can only imagine how many times it has already been repeated as fact in sermons and pastors meetings! We know that fundamentalists must have a ready demon to keep their cause alive – you are only the lastest (at least maybe they will give Rick Warren a little rest!). It is impossible to reason with those who are convinced that they have the inside track on the TURTH directly from God Himself. It is a waste of time to attempt to reason with them. The only response, if we hope to save the SBC from eventual disintergration, is to be sure that they do not hold a lock on offices and positions of influence. I am afraid that we may be losing on this point (as is clearly proven by the IMB BoT).
David,
I am being as forthright and honest as I can. In no way am I being disingenuous and sincerely do not wish to misrepresent what you have written. But to me, you seemingly keep continuing to affirm it even though you say that do not believe it. Even in your comment to me, in one sentence you clearly deny it, but in the next leave the door open to it:
I said I do not believe in or give validity to “Mormon baptism.” However, if, for some bizarre reason, someone who happened to be a Mormon was the one physically immersing someone who was sincerely repenting of their sin, trusting Christ, and wishing to be obedient to Christ’s command to follow him in baptism, as I understand it, the baptism is not automatically invalidated. Is this not a contradiction? It appears to me to be so.
With regards to Bart, I would not call his beliefs heresy as I do not disagree with him at all regarding this. In fact, even he stated that:
I don’t think that Ron and I differ at all. I don’t know that I can wrap my mind around the concept of a “closet Mormon” anyway to discuss it intelligently. But if you go to a valid New Testament church (and I believe that validity as a church is a binary matter) and receive baptism there, so long as you are validly qualified as a candidate and receive the New Testament ordinance.
Your statements are symptomatic of the problem with removing the authority of the local church from the ordinance. You seem to place it solely with the candidate and then wrongly argue that we are placing it solely with the person immersing the candidate (as if apart from the local church). If, the baptism is under the authority of a valid NT church, then you do not have to go and re-baptize those that were immersed by someone who intentionally (or not) deceived said church into thinking he was a believer.
I do agree with you that throughout history, there have been those immersed by non-believers (as we have, and will till Christ returns, tares and wolves among the wheat and the sheep). Unfortunately, it will continue to happen. That in itself does not automatically make the baptism invalid. But if it was not immersion, not under the authority of a local NT church, not a valid candidate etc… then yes, I would argue that theirs was not a biblical baptism. In order to be obedient to Christ’s command, they must then be biblically baptized. Anything less is just getting dunked in water and does not symbolize 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 as a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead.
Again, with all sincerity, I do not want to misrepresent what you have written, and have no desire to produce “juicy headlines”. I am far more concerned with Biblical fidelity of our agencies that send out those such as yourself to proclaim the Gospel. If I am completely off base and am too dense to read plainly what I understand you to have written, then I do ask your forgiveness. But to this Baptist, it appears that you continue to contradict your denials. I do hope I am wrong.
Ron P.
There has to be some things that have to be true about a Church before the baptism is valid. A Campbellite baptism involves immersion….and they do it for the remission of sins. It’s a work based theology, and it should not be considered a valid baptism…no matter if the person getting baptised was truly saved or not.
I have no problem saying that no Mormon baptism ought to be considered valid. No…nada….none. It’s a cult.
But, if a Church that believes in salvation by grace thru faith, and in the eternal security of the Believer, and in the Trinity, and that baptism is a symbolic act, and that immersion is the proper mode, then we ought to accept their baptism whether they have “Baptist” in their name, or not.
I cant imagine any Baptist saying that a Mormon baptism would be acceptable in any circumstance.
David
My hunch is that the reason the “two sides” can never seem to come together is that we don’t agree on what is “minimally required” to have a New Testament church. So even though we can almost agree on so much, in the end we realize we aren’t saying the same thing.
Baptist Identity Side: Minimal requirements for a true church are:
1) Truly born again believers assembled in Christ’s name.
2) that does not baptist infants
3) that believes in eternal security
4) that maybe must believe in some more things that I’m missing
Baptist Non-identity Side: Minimal requirements for a true church are:
1) Truly born again believers assembled in Christ’s name.
The Baptist non-identity side believes in all the things the Baptist identity side does, except that we just don’t think these “errant” assemblies are second class non-churches, they are real churches with errors in ecclesiology (unless they are assemblies of non-true-believers who just say they are a Christian church, then they are non-churches according to our requirement #1).
So though we are much the same, we are really miles apart.
My argument for the non-Baptist identity position is that the Kingdom and the church are “essentially” the same thing, according to the NT. And since born again believers are in the Kingdom, you cannot say they are not a church if they assemble in Jesus’ name (even if they have ecclesiastical errors).
Ron P.,
Do you believe that a baptism performed by a Christian in a Christian church building is necessarily a “Christian baptism”? From what I am able to follow of your argument (and that of the rest of the BI folks), you would have to answer: “not necessarily. It is only a bona fide “Christian baptism” if it is done with under the authority and with the blessing of a legimitately constituted Christian church (e.g. local congregation).
By the same token, if you were to ask me if I believe a “baptism” is necessarily a “Mormon baptism” because if was performed by a Mormon or in a Mormon church building, I would respond: “not necessarily. ‘Mormon baptism’ implies much more than this. It implies an understanding that the authority and blessing of the Mormon church underlies the baptism, as well as a corresponding identification with Mormon teaching.” And, I am in agreement with you, and all the BI folks, that, in that sense, “Mormon baptism” is never, ever a valid baptism.
So, I am making a distinction between “Mormon baptism,” and biblical baptism that, for whatever bizarre reason happens to be administered by an individual that was a Mormon, or for whatever even more bizarre reason happens to take place in a Mormon church building. It is very unlikely that such would take place. There are 1,001 good reasons for advising someone not to allow their baptism to take place in such circumstances.
But, in the end, as you appear to agree here, the non-authentic faith and false doctrine of the individual performing the baptism does not, in and of itself, invalidate the baptism. Neither does the actual physical setting in which the baptism takes place.
Thus, whenever you say that I believe in the possible validity of “Mormon baptism,” I will answer till I’m blue in the face that I do not. However, this does not necessarily contradict what I have said about this elsewhere.
Also, in my previous comment, I do make the distinction between the individual who baptizes and the church that authorizes the baptism:
“…only to find out later that the one (OR GROUP) who had baptized them was heretical…”
“Once we discover the defect, ex post facto, in the baptizer (individual OR CHURCH)…”
My argument assumes the possibility that not only the individual baptizer, but also an entire church, may prove to be heretical, unbeknownst to the person being baptized at the time of their baptism.
David, I think you have answered this well. It is clear that your detractors are more interested in “gotcha” than in honest debate or understanding.
I think they are going to continue to smear you no matter what you say or do.
Truth is not as high a standard as winning a point for some.
Dave Miller,
Do you honestly think that your statement #38 is a fair statement? Do you really believe that you are being objective? Are you not misrepresenting everyone in here that happens to disagree with you and David Rogers and some others?
I mean, “more interested in gotcha,” and “smear,” and “truth is not a high standard.” C’mon, Dave. Is this the stuff of true debate and discussion? Is this the Christian way to talk to those who dont agree with you?
All I can say is “Wow!”
David
David Worley,
The problem is not disagreeing with my views, or those of Dave, or anyone else. It is continually asserting that I believe in the validity, or possible validity of “Mormon baptism.” I have stated various times that I do not. And, I have gone to great lengths to explain just what I mean by that. So, if you want to talk about what I believe, and have actually said, fine. Just don’t say I believe in the validity, or possible validity, or “Mormon baptism.” Because I don’t.
Back to the actual article linked to here in the FL Witness…
doesn’t anyone else find some delicious irony in the fact that Mr Smith, by virtue of his position, is free to continuously promote his views publicly, but chastises Rodney Hammer for letting his concerns be known publicly? Mr Smith has the power of the pen and thousands of readers, all paid for by CP dollars. Based on the number of links in his article and his own references, he has apparently written quite a bit in support of the IMB policies. Just check any of his gazillion links. But then he turns around and says Mr Hammer should basically suck it up and keep quiet.
It is so ironic because Mr Smith can write this knowing full well that he tows the party line on this one. I wonder if, for some reason, the Florida Convention passed some measure he disagreed with, Mr Smith would abstain from commenting in his weekly editorials? I doubt he would. If, hypothetically, some liberal faction in the FL convention mandated mixed swimming for all youth groups (for example) and Mr Smith was staunchly opposed to it, I bet you he would speak out… and I would support his right to do so, because I believe in the right of individuals to voice dissent in a healthy manner. But herein lies part of the problem in our current IMB dilemma. Only one side wants to be able to speak, and that only after they have been assured that they have “control” of the board. Everyone else needs to shut-up and go along with policy or be labeled a closet “liberal.” Its a losing game.
Furthermore, the analogy of Mr Hammer’s situation to the staff member of a local church falls apart at so many levels that it is useless. First of all, the SBC / IMB/ Seminaries, etc… are NOT the local church regardless of what a Texas judge rules. The people (in his analogy) to whom that staff member is accountable are meeting in the same place each and every week and the staff member has to face them. Furthermore, most SB churches I know operate according to some form of a congregational govt where the policy that the staff member objected to would have been set in motion by the order of the church, not some elected board of a few dozen people meeting in a closed session claiming to represent the views of millions of SBs and over 42,000 churches. The analogy just doesn’t work for me at all.
For me, the issue comes down to whether or not these were wise and needful steps to take. I personally know a few missionaries all of whom have told me that they knew of NO instances of PPL on the field and that if there had been, there were already policies in place for it to be addressed. Why not stick to those. As it is abundantly clear on these blogs, there is a variety of views on baptism that are acceptable as orthodox within our BFM that do not fit the BoT policy. It just doesn’t seem wise to continually distance ourselves from the rest of the evangelical world over petty internal arguments that are just that…arguments without much solid Bible to back them up.
While I do NOT believe at all in PPLs, I would not have made the policies, and believe it was unwise to do so. Also, I personally hold a pretty tight view of baptism, but feel that the new policy is unnecessarily restrictive.
As I spoke recently with one of our seminary profs about this issue, he explained it like this, “many of the BI guys are attempting to make baptism mean far more than it can be proven to be scripturally. They are trying to tie all the essential nuances of soteriology into one’s baptism without any NT justification. The doctrines that they are defending are right and noble (i.e. eternal security) but to try to somehow make baptism mean an affirmation of God’s sovereignty, substitutionary atonement, eternal security, a proper view of forensic justification, etc… ad nauseum, is to make baptism more than the Bible itself describes it as.” He went on to say that “most of the arguing for this narrow view of baptism is being done on a systematic theology level, not a biblical theology level. Those arguing that baptism means all of these things will claim it and then argue from logic, but without any scripture to support their argument.”
I believe he was right. While I will continue to disbelieve in PPLs and hold a firmly Baptistic view of baptism, I refuse to go where many on this site are advocating. At the end of the day, the only definition of a “proper baptism” that they will accept is a Baptist baptism. Wait, even that is not good enough. They want a Baptist baptism done in a Baptist church that affirms A,B,C…X,Y,Z. Only then in their mind is it a “proper” baptism. I think the wisest thing to do would be to advocate a position that avoided blanket statements and instead said “we will handle the baptism of each candidate on its individual merits according to the parameters of the 2000 BFM” and leave it at that.
What individuals hold in their own local church is their own business. And I believe that. But I think that many have forgotten that the IMB is a cooperative venture of over 42,000 churches, and they are NOT all made in the image that a few would like them to be.
This issue will eventually be resolved one way or another because those who are fed up with the narrowing will take their dollars elsewhere. Most of the frustrated guys I know, like myself, don’t have the time or energy to invest in the type of “takeover” that the CR guys engineered over the course of 20+ years. The 21st century is a new day in which churches can find literally dozens of other ways to spend their dollars and still be fulfilling the commission. Simply put, fewer and fewer churches NEED the CP/IMB/NAMB/SBC to do missions today, and if the BOT guys continue to make up their own rules as they go along and re-define doctrinal issues beyond the agreed-upon statement, younger leaders will simply send their dollars elsewhere (Acts 29, Nine Marks, Wycliffe Bible Translators, VOM, independent networks, etc…). That will speak louder than any blogging.
This issue, in my opinion, is just symptomatic of a much larger problem for all of us to consider, and that is how to appropriately govern and run such a giant behemoth as the SBC and its institutions. PLEASE don’t argue that the yearly convention works fine because we all know it doesn’t. To even attempt to claim that the presence of a paltry 10,000 or so msgrs (most churches send many messengers, so it is not even 10,000 churches, but rather 10,000 individuals from, arguably, about 5-7,000 churches or less) is a fair representation of the will of the entire contributing body of SB churches in America today. With the advent of blogging and the free exchange of information, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the other 30,000+ churches feel that they need to have a voice in the SBC as well, regardless of their size. For far too long, an elite few from a handful of churches have “handed down” policy to the rest of the convention and that just is not working anymore. Which is, by the way, why I will be in Indy and voting for Les Puryear, but I digress.
The reality is we have much bigger fish to fry if we even hope to continue existing as a convention. My prediction is that instead of coming together and agreeing to disagree over some secondary issues, we will continue to be controlled by a minority who insist on strict adherence to a supposed “Baptist Identity” and that within my lifetime (I am 33) we will see the demise of the SBC as a significant force for the gospel. Mark me, I don’t WANT that to happen, but I believe that is sadly where we are headed.
Even sadder is the fact that some folks don’t seem to mind if we sink, just so long as they’re holding the wheel when we go down.
See ya in Indy!
midwestsbcpastor,
The difference is that part of Mr. Smith’s job description as an editor is to produce editorials. He is simply fulfilling his job.
David,
To me there is a bigger issue than whether or not you would accept a cultic baptism as valid. If you thought it was clearly cultic, you would not accept it. You have made that clear. I don’t see any possibility that it could not be cultic, but let’s just say there is that one in a trillion chance.
The issue to me is that you have in effect said that Baptism is in no way a church ordinance. If you said that it must be administered by a Christian regardless of church affiliation, then I would say that you just see baptism as an ordinance of the church “universal” rather than the local church. But by saying that, in theory, an unsaved Mormon could perform a valid baptism, are you not saying that baptism is not only not a local church ordinance but not even a church ordinance at all?
I don’t know of any BI person who’s out to get David Rogers. I’m certainly not. I consider him my friend, and I respect him greatly. We should not get sidetracked by personality issues; we should stick to the theological issues, and they are certainly worth thorough discussion.
The key point that must be understood is the group aspect of baptism–the testimony. If the symbolism is distorted in this testimony, then the baptism is invalid. If we later discover after a correctly done baptism that the person who performed the baptism on the candidate was a seriously immoral hypocrite at the time of baptizing, then the baptism should not be considered to be invalid if the testimony was not done in error. The theological correctness of the testimony is what is important in regard to the validity of baptism, not the then unknown immorality of the baptizer. Of course, when we find out about serious immorality in the life of the person who performed baptisms, the person should be disciplined in the biblical way and should not be allowed to perform baptisms.
Millard Erickson commented on the testimony of baptism:
“Baptism is, then, an act of faith and a testimony that one has been united with Christ in his death and resurrection, that one has experienced spiritual circumcision. It is a public indication of one’s commitment to Christ. . . . Baptism is a powerful form of proclamation of the truth of what Christ has done; it is a ‘word in water’ testifying to the believer’s participation in the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 6:3-5). It is a symbol rather than merely a sign, for it is a graphic picture of the truth it conveys. . . . In Romans 6:3-5 Paul appears to be contending that there is a significant connection between how baptism is administered (one is lowered into the water and then raised out of it) and what it symbolizes (death to sin and new life in Christ–and beyond that, baptism symbolizes the basis of the believer’s death to sin and new life: the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ).”
Erickson, Christian Theology, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 1110-1113.
Matt,
Yeah, it is funny how that works isn’t it. We pay some people to be opinionated and lobby for political/ theological positions, but tell others that they are not entitled to the same privilege because it doesn’t fit their job descriptions. Hmmm…
Even SBC pastors who become BoT members are told that they are not allowed to “talk policy” but more than a few “unbiased editors” will come out and say whatever they would like.
You are right. That’s the way it is. But it sure doesn’t make it acceptable.
Good word Theologue,
I’m glad you didn’t include that universal / local thing as if the church is a dichotomy. As Christians begin to figure out that the church is one body assembling in many places….then she will begin to understand baptism a little bit better.
Blessings,
Chris
Some of you just over thinks this stuff.
-Jake Rasmussen.
“Move west.”
David W,
I fully believe what I said earlier and yes, I think it is fair. I have disagreed with Ron before, but I have found him to be fair and honorable in debate. I do not think he is being fair to David Rogers in this one.
And that said, David W, I have told you before that I refuse to engage you in public debate based on my experience in previous efforts trying to have a reasonable discussion with you.
Again, if you want to discuss things privately, I am willing. I just will not do it in front of everyone else.
pastordave@cableone.net
Chris,
I agree with the 2000 BF&M in regard to the definition of the church. It gives two definitions:
1. “A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth.”
2. “The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages.”
Obviously, #2 is not yet fully manifested because the redeemed people of all the ages have not yet been gathered. Notice that #2 does not require baptism. The members of #2 will be gathered in assembly at the time of consummation. Thus, the local church is the only organized assembly (i.e., ekklesia/church) we have at the present time. The local Baptist church requires biblical immersion as “prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.” The gathered universal church will not have an immersion requirement (e.g., infants dying in infancy). If baptism were a universal church ordinance, it would be necessary to baptize infants now or in heaven. The local Baptist church can effectively discipline its members, but the universal church cannot at present. The discipline aspect has relevance for my previous comment. If a local church lets an unrepentant and known adulterer perform baptisms, then such permissiveness hurts the witness of the local church. If a hypothetical local church would permit an unrepentant and known adulterer to perform baptisms, then it would indicate to the community that adultery is not taken seriously by the church members responsible for that member’s discipline. It would become a distraction during the baptismal ceremony as testimony is made of “the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life” while an unrepentant, undisciplined, known adulterer performed the baptism. Biblical immersion is a local church ordinance, not a universal church ordinance (e.g., infants dying in infancy). If you agree with me that a local church should not permit an unrepentant and known adulterer to perform baptisms, then you must admit that there is indeed some degree of local church administration of baptism. It is a local church ordinance, not an individual believer’s ordinance. If it were an individual believer’s ordinance, then any believer, including an unrepentant and known adulterer, would be permitted to perform baptisms.
Matt,
I don’t speak for David Rogers, but I think you are misunderstanding the point. Dr. Yarnell and others have said that baptism is ONLY valid if it is performed by and under the auspices of a local church.
I have just finished looking at every reference to Baptism in the Bible. There is not one that specifically links baptism to a local church. Not one.
Yes, I support baptism as a local church ordinance. But it is not ONLY a local church ordinance. A baptism is valid if it is performed by immersion on a believer as a symbol of salvation (not salvific itself).
There is no biblical support to invalidate baptism by immersion of a believer just because it is not tied to a local church.
You can read my 4 part series on baptism which I just concluded if you want to understand more of what I believe. David Rogers has commented frequently on it as well, so you can see what he really believes.
The phrase “church ordinance” in the BF&M is a phrase that is somewhat ambiguous as to its actual interpretation. As a matter of fact, until all of the controversy over the new IMB guidelines ensued, I had never given that particular phrase a second thought. And, I don’t imagine that the majority of those who voted in favor of the BF&M had done so either. Since that time, though, it has become apparent that some of you almost build an entire systematic theology around it.
I believe that baptism is a “church ordinance” in the sense that Jesus gave the Great Commission to the 11, and by inference and extension, to all true disciples for perpetuity. All these disciples are “members” of the “universal church.”
I also believe that baptism is a “church ordinance” in the sense that “local congregations” are the most frequent and normal setting for baptisms in the current religious environment, both in the US, as well as many places around the world, and especially within the SBC. And, I think this is basically a good thing. I am all in favor of baptisms being performed in local churches with the supervision of the local church. I am also in favor of biblical baptism as a prerequisite for local church membership.
In all of these senses, I have no problem with assenting to the BF&M when it says that baptism is a “church ordinance.”
However, if you take this one step further, and insist that any baptism that is not performed with the authorization and under the supervision of a duly constituted and doctrinally sound local church is therefore invalid, I cannot go there with you. Because as Dave Miller has ably illustrated on his excellent blog series, there is no biblical basis for that assertion. And the BF&M does not unambiguously state that.
If you who agree with a more narrow interpretation of the phrase “church ordinance” want to hold that conviction personally, and for your church, I will defend your right to do so. That is entirely up to you.
The problem is when you force this interpretation on the rest of us, demanding that those who do not conform to it are unsuited for missionary service by means of our mutually agreed upon cooperative efforts as Southern Baptists.
David, you said,
“I believe that baptism is a ‘church ordinance’ in the sense that Jesus gave the Great Commission to the 11, and by inference and extension, to all true disciples for perpetuity. All these disciples are ‘members’ of the ‘universal church.’”
Let’s look at the relevant sentence in the BF&M:
“Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.”
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that “church” in this sentence can refer to the universal church. Biblical immersion, however, is not required for universal church membership (e.g., infants dying in infancy). Let’s place “universal” in the BF&M sentence:
“Being a universal church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of universal church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.”
That sentence, however, is not correct. Biblical immersion is not prerequisite to the privileges of universal church membership. Thus, if I place “local” in the BF&M sentence, the following sentence is correct:
“Being a local church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of local church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.”
Mike (BT),
Thank you for your friendship, and your admonition to “not get sidetracked by personality issues.” I sincerely appreciate that.
Now, for the theological discussion…
Regarding the point of baptism as a testimony, we have already had this discussion on another post. But, I do concede that there is indeed a testimonial element inherent in baptism. However, it seems to me that the important thing, at least as far as actual validity is concerned, is the testimony of the one being baptized, and not so much that of those doing the baptizing. Of course, it would be ideal of all of these coincided.
Also, although, from my perspective, it is practically always a good thing when baptism can be done publicly, as an open testimony, both to the local community of believers, as well as to the lost, on various occasions in the biblical record, it appears that this was not the case. Thus, we are on shaky ground scripturally when we demand this as an absolute requirement for valid baptism.
I don’t have Erickson with me right now to confirm what the entire context of the quote you give says. However, in the actual quote, I find nothing that is necessarily incompatible with what I am saying here.
Also, while it is true that the “church” mentioned in part 2 of the BF&M section on the church will never fully be assembled until the eschaton, I find biblically that this same church is in existence upon the earth right now, and is being built up daily by God’s sovereign power, and the preaching of the gospel. It is still “under construction.” But, that doesn’t mean it is either inexistent or irrelevant until the eschaton.
By the same token, present-day “local churches” are very rarely fully assembled. And, they do not cease to exist and function as “churches” or as local expressions of the “universal church” throughout the week, when they are not assembled.
Also, I am having trouble understanding why, “if baptism were a universal church ordinance, it would be necessary to baptize infants now or in heaven.” Could you explain that to me a little more? I know you don’t mean this, but it seems like you are inferring a baptismal regeneration view on this.
Also, are you saying that when a local church errs or is negligent in its responsibility to discipline its members, and allows an “unrepentant, undisciplined, known adulterer” to perform baptisms, that the baptisms of that church should be invalidated?
RE: comment #53
Yes, Mike, that is precisely the phrase in the BF&M over which I have publicly expressed disagreement, and signed with a caveat.
Nonetheless, I still have no problem with describing baptism as a “church ordinance” in the sense that I have described above.
Also, I should make clear that I have no problem with baptism as “a prerequisite to the privileges of local church membership,” only as a an absolute prerequisite to participation in the Lord’s Supper. And, even so, only according to conscience of the individual partaker, upon being reminded that the Lord does command baptism, and that we should examine ourselves, and confess any unrepentant sin before partaking.
That would be better stated: “confess and repent of any unrepentant sin before participating.”
David,
I don’t believe in baptismal regeneration. I do believe, as the BF&M states, that biblical baptism is a requirement for local church membership. Biblical baptism is clearly not a requirement for universal church membership. If it were a requirement for universal church membership, then infants dying in infancy would have to be baptized, either on earth before they died or in heaven after they died. I don’t believe biblical baptism is a requirement for infants dying in infancy, and I believe that all such infants will be part of the universal church/assembly in heaven. Thus, biblical baptism is not a universal church ordinance; rather, it is a local church ordinance.
When a local church allows a known adulterer to perform baptisms, then it certainly hurts the witness of the church. If the resident, active members of the church know that the person performing the baptism is an unrepentant adulterer, then that church certainly desecrates the ordinance. This serious baptismal situation is analagous to desecration of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:28-29). If a local church unknowingly allows an unrepentant adulterer to perform baptisms and partake of the Lord’s Supper, then there are consequences for the unrepentant individual, but not necessarily for the other church members. In contrast, if a local church knowingly allows an unrepentant adulterer to perform baptisms and partake of the Lord’s Supper, then there are consequences for both the unrepentant individual and the unrepentant church members (who refuse to exercise proper church discipline). Proper church discipline (Matthew 18:15-18) eventually involves treating the offender “like a heathen.” We should not allow heathen people to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Such an unrepentant church that is blatantly disobedient to the Lord is no longer a valid New Testament church, and thus its baptisms are no longer valid. The BF&M says that a New Testament church is “governed by His laws,” and a church that is knowingly unrepentant in its refusal to exercise proper church discipline (i.e., by allowing a known adulterer to perform baptisms) is no longer a New Testament church.
Clarification:
After a church knows about the unrepentant adulterer performing baptisms, and after its refusal to discipline him, from that point on that church’s baptisms are invalid. Before that point, its baptisms should still be considered to be valid.
Further clarification:
I’m still not satisfied with how I worded that sentence. One more try:
After a church knows about the unrepentant adulterer performing baptisms, and after its refusal to discipline him, from that point on that church’s baptisms are invalid. The baptisms performed before that point are still valid after that point.
Does it say somewhere in the New Testament that baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper?
EX: if a person made a profession of faith in the am service, and hadn’t been baptized by the pm service, when the Lord’s Supper was served — they would not be qualiifed?
David Rogers,
I dont believe that I mentioned your name in this comment thread at all, so I’m not quite understanding your comment to me in #40. I’m not quite following you in that one. Can you please explain?
Dave Miller,
Again, I say…”wow!” So, now it looks as if you’re calling me “unreasonable” in comment #49. And, you have said that Ron, and Matt, and me are not interested in the truth, are trying to smear David R., and that we just interested in “gotcha.” Dave, could it be that some people just disagree with you and David Rogers? Why all the name calling? Why all the slams against our character?
You say that you want to settle this in private, but brother, you said all of these things to us in public, not in private. Now, if you want to to talk further about this in private, then fine. I would email you, but I’m heading out for Indy in the morning…early. In fact, I need to go to bed right now. But, Brother, I hope that you’ll not stay angry with me, as you seem to be. And, I sincerely hope that you will cease in the name calling and the slams against the “BI” crowd’s character when they disagree with you.
God bless,
David
PS. May the Lord give you the power and love and wisdom that you need to preach and teach His glorious Word and lift up Jesus tomorrow. May He bless your family in many wonderful ways in the week ahead. And, I pray that the Lord will bless the work of your Church in Iowa.
S Thomas, in Scripture, baptism normally happened quickly after conversion. There is no Scriptural instance of the Lord’s Supper happening quickly after conversion. Thus, it seems logical to place the biblical order for the three events as (1) conversion, (2) baptism, (3) Lord’s Supper. In the case you mentioned, I would suggest that the person wait until after he is baptized to partake of the Lord’s Supper. The New Testament local church is a group of baptized believers, and the Lord’s Supper is a local church ordinance. It therefore seems logical to only let biblically baptized church members partake of the Lord’s Supper. Baptism is the first step of obedience after conversion. We should encourage a new convert to be obedient in baptism before he partakes of the Lord’s Supper. Walking the aisle is a type of profession of faith, but biblical baptism is the supreme Scriptural occasion for professing faith.
Brother Mike,
I think that a great host of Baptist churches have confessed to being blatantly disobedient to church discipline….as many have testified during this past year that I have been on the blogs…..and some refuse to repent. Would that qualify them to make baptisms invalid or no longer make those unrepentant churches a valid New Testament church?
Furthermore, I am still trying to figure out the universal / local thing. Is it in scripture? I thought there was one body….
Acts 9:31 So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it continued to increase.
Colossian 1:18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
So when the church gathers it does so in buildings, houses, towns, cities, etc. Where does this so-called “universal” church meet? Scripture seems to point out that the only church that has been or is on earth meets locally in places that I mentioned above.
Hebrews 10:23-25 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; (24) and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, (25) not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.
I have heard of people trying to create a dichotomy of the church, but scripture is overtly silent to such a split.
Blessings,
Chris
David W,
pastordave@cableone.net
Chris, many SBC churches have been lax in church discipline, but it’s not quite accurate to say that they have abandoned it altogether. Many of them would use it quickly if they discovered that one of their members performing baptisms is an unrepentant adulterer.
In regard to the universal/local church issue, you might want to read an article by B. H. Carroll, the founder of Southwestern Baptist Seminary:
http://www.theologue.org/Ecclesia/Ecclesia-BHCarroll.html
In regard to Acts 9:31, Carroll stated:
“(1) The reading, ‘Churches,’ followed by the common version may be the right one, leaving nothing to explain. In all other cases, whether in Old or New Testament, where the sense calls for the plural, we have it in the text. Not to have it here is an isolated, jarring exception. See Acts 15:41; 16:5; Romans 16:4, 6; I Corinthians 7:17; 11:26; 14:33, 34; 16:1, 19; II Corinthians 8:1, 18, 23; 11:8, 28; 12:23; Galatians 1:2, 22; 1 Thessalonians 2:14; II Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 1:4, 11, 20; 2:7, 11,17, 20, 23; 3:6, 13, 22; 22:16; Psalms 26:12; 68:26; Ecclesiastes 24:2. It is well to note that Murdock’s translation of the Peshito Syriac cites a Greek plural in the margin.
(2) But accepting the singular, according to Revised Version, then, says Broadus, ‘the word probably denotes the original church at Jerusalem, whose members were by persecution widely scattered throughout Judea and Galilee and Samaria, and held meetings wherever they were, but still belonged to the one original organization. When Paul wrote to the Galatians nearly twenty years later, these separate meetings had been organized into distinct churches; and so he speaks (Galatians 1:22), in reference to that same period, of the churches of Judea which were in Christ.’- (Commentary on Matthew, page 359) This was the church which Saul persecuted and of which he made havoc. Concerning the effect of this persecution the record says ‘they were scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria.’ (Acts 8:1) ‘Now they who were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word.’ (Acts 11:19) So, when in the paragraph just preceding our Scripture, there is an account of Saul, as a convert, worshipping and preaching with the church he had formerly persecuted, we may not be surprised at the statement ‘So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace.’ Meyer says the ‘So draws an inference from the whole history in vv. 3:30: in consequence of the conversion of the former chief enemy and his transformation into the zealous apostle.’”
In regard to Colossians 1:18, Carroll stated:
“VIII. The next class of Scriptures which you wish explained is represented by:
Ephesians 1:22, 23;
Colossians 1:18;
I Peter 2:5;
Hebrews 3:6;
John 10:16.
My first remark is that the epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians were circular letters, meant to be read to other churches with equal application. Hence the use of the term church in a more general way than in other letters. The general use, however, does not forbid, but even requires, specific application to any one particular church, as Ephesians 2:21, 22, (Revised Version), shows. In like manner Peter’s first letter was written to Jewish saints of the dispersion in Asia Minor, but not specifically to any particular church. Hence, when he says, ‘Ye, also, as living stones are built up a spiritual house,’ he does not mean that all the Jewish saints in Asia Minor constitute one church. To say the least of it, that is certainly an unbaptistic idea. It also contradicts the record in Acts showing the planting of many particular churches in this section, made up of Jews and Gentiles, and also ignores the seven churches of Revelation, all in the same section. But Peter means, using the word ‘house’ in a generic sense, that whenever and wherever enough of you come together to form a particular church, that will be a spiritual house in which to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Just as in Ephesians 2:21, 22 (Revised Version), the apostle in the same breath converts the general or abstract idea of church into particular churches. Murdock’s translation of the Syriac Peshito reads: ‘And ye also, as living stones, are builded and become spiritual temples’ in I Peter 2:5. It is characteristic of circular letters to use terms in general form that must find concrete expression in particular forms. A man writing a circular to Texas Baptists at large, or to all Baptist churches of Texas would find it difficult to refrain from using some general expressions which must be left to the common sense of each particular church for making specific application. It is a matter of congratulation that since the circular, called the letter to the Ephesians, employs more of these general terms than any other letter, we have been so thoroughly safeguarded from misconstruction of its generalities by three distinct instances of specific application, in Acts 20:28, 29; Ephesians 2:21, 22; I Timothy 3:14, 15, to this Ephesus church. The epistle to the Hebrews is even more general in its address than the two just considered, and we have only to apply the same principles of interpretation heretofore set forth to understand Hebrews 3: 6 – ‘Whose house are we.’ The writer certainly never intended to convey the impression that all Hebrew Christians constituted one church. That also, to say the least of it, is an unbaptistic idea. We know it to be an unscriptural one, because it contradicts Paul in Galatians 1:22. It is utterly illogical to claim either Hebrews 8:6 or I Peter 2:5 for examples of the so-called ‘universal church’ idea. If the advocates of this idea insist on denying the particular church in these cases because one letter was addressed to all the Hellenist converts of Asia Minor, and the other was addressed to all the converted Palestinean Hebrews, then I demand that they also stick to the text, and claim for either case Jews and Jews only. This not only shuts them off from the general assembly in which Jew and Gentile form one new man, but forces them to the absurdity of having on earth one Jewish church big as Asia Minor – that big – no more – and the other big as Judea, that big, no more, and that leaves still running at large all the rest of the converted Jews of the dispersion, and puts them in conflict with Scripture history which shows many particular churches in these sections. To show you the difference between the general use of the term ‘church’ in a circular of miscellaneous address and its direct and particular use in a document addressed to specific churches, compare the use of church in Revelation with the use of church in the letter to the Ephesians. In the twenty times of Revelation we have more than one sixth of the New Testament usage.”
In regard to Hebrews 10:23-25, Carroll did not comment in either lecture, but I see no problem with it. It specifically mentions assembling together, something that is not possible for the universal church until the consummation.
Goodnight everyone!
David Worley,
My comment #40 is in reply to your comment #39, in which you do mention my name, and the general content is related to me.
Thanks BT,
It appears that BH is agreeing with me so far…..He speaks that there are general terms and specific terms of which I certainly agree, but he also makes clear in at least the section you provided that the “universal church” is “so-called”. That is my point, where do these “so-called” universal folks meet?
I’ll read the link and get back to you….. I am not convinced so far that there are two churches on earth… one universal and one local. I think BH dances around it all day long with the general to specific vernacular, but it is impossible to separate the saints from the church or the body of Christ. All those “jellybeans” (church, body of Christ, saints) are in the same man “Christ” who is the head. Just because some “jellybeans” get mad in a church split and start a 2nd Baptist Church one block away (that scenario has happened and continues to happen quite often), does not necessarily mean that either of these groups are necessarily apostate. The church (without dichotomy) is called out to do the things that the Lord commands. Its pretty much just that simple.
All scripture applies to “the church”, whether general or specific. It is impossible to make a “two church” (one universal and one local) distinction out of general and specific language. If we did, the writers would not make much sense.
1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.
Now of course, if you are contending that there are some saints that have gone on before us (died and are now present with the Lord)…and you want to call them “universal” …I can’t disagree. But even in that circumstance, they are still the church, body of Christ, and saints,… God has made it impossible for them to attend our worship on earth for now….but even that will change soon.
Have a great day of worship…..
Blessings,
Chris
BT,
Here is Carroll in one of his first lectures…..
“But as the Scriptures represent these two assemblies, one existing now on earth, the other prospective in heaven, if a man on earth and in time, not qualified by either sanctification of spirit or glorification of body for the heavenly assembly, shall despise membership in the particular assembly because claiming membership in the general assembly, is not his claim both an absurdity and a pretext? Does he not hide behind it to evade honoring God’s existing Institution, and the assuming of present responsibilities and the performing of present duties? Yet again, if one believes that there are co-existent on earth and in time, two churches, one only visible and formal, the other real, invisible and spiritual, is there not danger that such belief may tend to the conviction that the form, government, polity and ordinances of the inferior church are matters of little moment? Has not this belief oftentimes in history done this very thing? And is it not an historical fact that, since Protestant Pedobaptists invented this idea of a now existing, invisible, universal, spiritual church, to offset the equally erroneous Romanist idea of a present visible, universal church, reverence and honor for God’s New Testament particular church have been ground to fine powder between them as between the upper and nether millstones? Today when one seeks to obtain due honor for the particular assembly, its ordinances, its duties, is he not in many cases thwarted in measure, or altogether in some cases, by objections arising from one or the other of these erroneous views?
He seems to have found the hammer and the nail….
Blessings,
Chris
Chris & Mike,
I hope you don’t mind me butting into your conversation. But since it was my comments that precipitated it…
As I understand Scripture, there is one true Church, and it is universal in scope, that is, embracing all the redeemed, around the world, and across the ages. However, this one true Church has various expressions. One of them is the “city church,” or all of the believers present at any given time in a particular locality. Another is a “local congregation,” which I believe to be congruent to the NT mention of “the church that meets in ‘so and so’s’ house.” As Mike correctly alludes to, it is at this level of church that church discipline is properly administered. I believe this is because it is at this level of church that the depth of personal relationships is of such a nature that church discipline does not become just an impersonal bureaucratic process, but rather a loving, caring, mutual correcting and admonishing one of another.
Personally, I think Carroll’s explanation here is a bit convoluted. Also, Mike, I particularly would like to hear your response to what I said above, related to all this:
“Also, while it is true that the “church” mentioned in part 2 of the BF&M section on the church will never fully be assembled until the eschaton, I find biblically that this same church is in existence upon the earth right now, and is being built up daily by God’s sovereign power, and the preaching of the gospel. It is still “under construction.” But, that doesn’t mean it is either inexistent or irrelevant until the eschaton.
By the same token, present-day “local churches” are very rarely fully assembled. And, they do not cease to exist and function as “churches” or as local expressions of the “universal church” throughout the week, when they are not assembled.”
Also, I think Chris makes a great point about a good many churches, including many in the SBC, not practicing discipline nowadays. And, I find the disctinction between “not practicing” and “refusing to practice,” as well as between “an unrepentant adulterer performing baptisms” and other unrepented of sins in their midst, to be somewhat artificial. After all, many make the proper exercise of church discipline to be an ESSENTIAL mark of a NT church. Not that I want to give them any new ideas, but, what would happen if the BoT made a guideline that the baptisms of all those who were baptized in churches that don’t properly carry out church discipline were invalidated?
To me, a lot of this discussion, if you remember your church history, is a Baptist version of the Donatist controversy all over again. It’s like deja vu, all over again. :-)
“The bottom line in this discussion is whether the legitimacy of someone’s baptism necessarily hinges on the doctrinal soundness of the church or individual performing the baptism. ”
I have a question about this. I was baptized by an SBC pastor who professed all the right SBC doctrine. A while after my baptism he left the church, his wife and kids and moved in with a woman half his age. He is now a police chaplain.
Would my baptism be considered legit by the BI people? Would it be legit because the church was SBC and that overrides the pastors personal hypocrisy?
midwestsbcpastor,
Congratulations! I normally skip remarks that exceed a few sentences. I am inspired by your involvement, wisdom and age.
Any interest in serving as a souteastsbcpastor?
Tom
Wanda,
Your baptism would be considered valid because it’s a Church ordinance, not a Pastor ordinance. So, the short answer from the BI crowd would be… your baptism would still be valid even if the pastor ended up getting a sex change later in life.
David
ps. BTW, my wife and I are in Indy. There’s lots of water around here. They had around a foot of rain in these parts on Saturday. Incredible.
Brother David Rogers,
I believe you are making biblical assessments of the way the church actual exists and the model put forth by the Apostles. One of the challenges that I have experienced in mega-church settings and large church environments (say 500 members and up) is the tendency for large groups (especially in America) to become program / theatre driven, versus carrying out the command to be “members one of another”. It is very alluring for people to become very attracted to feeding on the organization and rarely serving the body. This type of “church” organization can sustain itself for many many years and appear to be healthy (or at least successful) since for the most part the money is coming in to prop up the corporately organized system. But the tendency is to fall away from loving one another, and consequently diminish the doctrine of discipline that each and every Christian needs. (Matthew 18). As I have said before, if a church is not rightly practicing church discipline, it will quickly become stagnant.
When you spoke of your various expressions of the one true Church,…I guess you would be referring to Jerusalem as a “city church”, with possibly smaller house congregations (more locally organized) sprinkled throughout the city or where required to carry out the commands of Christ. No doubt that is the same model perceived by Paul when he instructed Titus to appoint Elders in every city. And furthermore, Paul’s ability, beyond his Apostolic authority, to weave in and out of house churches and city churches during his ministry without surrendering to a dichotomistic ecclesiology. How the Apostles managed in their time should give us pause and instructive realignment.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Thanks for the comment. Yes, it sounds like you are understanding me correctly.
David,
I want to apologize for not being able to come back online. I was not ignoring you.
Since the discussions will turn to Indy and the posts will be coming fast and furious, I would like to continue this discussion later. From the brief reading I just glanced at, this looks like a good discussion.
Ron P.
Chris, I’m glad you have found B. H. Carroll’s lectures interesting. His study of Septuagint usage in the second lecture is particularly interesting.
David, you said the following:
“Mike, I particularly would like to hear your response to what I said above, related to all this: ‘Also, while it is true that the “church” mentioned in part 2 of the BF&M section on the church will never fully be assembled until the eschaton, I find biblically that this same church is in existence upon the earth right now, and is being built up daily by God’s sovereign power, and the preaching of the gospel. It is still “under construction.” But, that doesn’t mean it is either inexistent or irrelevant until the eschaton. By the same token, present-day “local churches” are very rarely fully assembled. And, they do not cease to exist and function as “churches” or as local expressions of the “universal church” throughout the week, when they are not assembled.’”
Let me try to summarize my thoughts and then flesh them out with a few quotes:
1. The word for “church” (“ekklesia”) in the New Testament refers to an organized assembly. As you know, B. H. Carroll dealt with this issue in his aforementioned lectures. Interestingly, the word refers to a secular assembly rather than a church in Acts 19:32, 39, and 41. Thus, both the local church and the universal church refer to organized assemblies of people.
2. A typical legislature doesn’t cease to exist when in those “in-between times” when it is not gathered with a majority of its members present. Neither does a local church cease to exist in those “in-between times” when it is when it is not gathered with a majority of its active resident members present. If a typical legislature never again gathers with a majority of members present, however, then it can no longer function as a legislature, and it is no longer in existence. Likewise, if a local church never again gathers with a majority of its resident active members present, then it can no longer function as a New Testament church, and it is no longer in existence. (I am assuming a congregational form of church government here in which the majority of members in assembly must make certain required decisions such as choosing church officers and performing the final stage of church discipline.) For example, if 5% of the active resident members of a local church in America go on a mission trip to Asia, that small group cannot decide to choose a new pastor or perform the final stage of church discipline on a member while it is in Asia. Such actions can only be approved by the majority of active resident members in an organized assembly.
3. The universal church (an “ekklesia”) has never gathered as an organized assembly with the majority of its members present. Thus, it is not yet in existence.
The BF&M includes the following statement as part of its description of New Testament churches: “Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.”
Millard Erickson favors the congregational form of church government and described it as follows:
“A third form of church government stresses the role of the individual Christian and makes the local congregation the seat of authority. Two concepts are basic to the congregational scheme: autonomy and democracy. By autonomy we mean that the local congregation is independent and self-governing. There is no external power that can dictate courses of action to the local church. By democracy we mean that every member of the local congregation has a voice in its affairs. It is the individual members of the congregation who possess and exercise authority. Authority is not the prerogative of a lone individual or select group. Neither a monarchal (episcopal) nor oligarchical (presbyterian) structure is to take the place of the individual. A secondary sense of the principle of democracy in the congregational system is that decisions within interchurch associations are made on a representative basis. Among the major denominations that practice the congregational form of government are the Baptists, Congregationalists, and most Lutheran groups. . . . There are some elements of representative democracy within the congregational form of church government. Certain persons are elected by a free choice of the members of the body to serve in special ways. They are representatives and servants of the church, answerable to those who have chosen them. They are not to exercise their authority independently of or contrary to the wishes of the people. If they do, they may be removed from office. All major decisions, however, such as calling a pastor and purchasing or selling property, are made by the congregation as a whole. This power is reserved to the entire membership by the constitution of the church. . . . Both Jesus and Paul assigned the responsibility for discipline to the group as a whole. In Jesus’ discussion of the treatment of a brother who has sinned, the final agent of discipline is the church. If the offending brother refuses to listen to the church, he is to be treated like a pagan or a tax collector (Matt. 18:15-17). Paul instructed the Corinthian congregation as a whole (1 Cor. 1:2), not merely the elders, to put out of their fellowship the man who was living immorally with his father’s wife (1 Cor. 5).”
Erickson, Christian Theology, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 1089-1092.
Likewise, John Hammett of SEBTS affirms congregational polity:
“In their confessions of faith and other literature, Baptists have stood virtually unanimously in favor of congregational government. . . . The two clearest examples of congregational government come in the areas of regulating church membership and choosing local leadership. The first area comes to the fore in discussions of church discipline. In Matthew 18;15-17, the final decision for dismissing a member is not assigned to a bishop or elders, but to the church. Historically, Baptists saw this as an exercise of the authority given to the church in the gift of the ‘keys of the kingdom’ (Matt. 16:19) and consistently identified the power to discipline their members as one of the proper activities of a congregation. Paul assigns the same responsibility to the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13. He describes their action later as ‘the punishment inflicted on him by the majority’ (2 Cor. 2:6), indicating a congregational proceeding. Since the individual involved had repented, Paul now urges them to restore him. Again, the responsibility is placed on the congregation.”
Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 143-148.
The Greek scholar A. T. Robertson commented on 2 Cor. 2:6: “By the many (hupo ton pleionon). By the more, the majority. If Paul refers to the case in 1Co 5:1-13, they had taken his advice and expelled the offender.”
Mike,
Though I have no qualms with an appropriately handled congregational system of decision-making in a local congregation, I get the idea from Carroll that a “church” is most truly a “church” when it is in a business meeting, voting on things. This is where I think he leans too much on the actual etymology of the term, rather than a balanced overview of what the NT teaches. I would like him to spend more time on the aspects of “church” as a body, as a family, as a harvest, as a building composed of living stones, etc. I think “church” is more about relationships than it is about systems of decision-making.
You say, “The universal church (an “ekklesia”) has never gathered as an organized assembly with the majority of its members present. Thus, it is not yet in existence.”
If we want to make “church” essentially a technical administrative organization, I suppose you are right. And I am not in favor of a Romanist hierarchical ecclesiology, nor a conciliar unionist ecumenism. But I cannot read the Bible and help but come away with the idea that the family ties and essential unity that bind us together with fellow believers all around the world are a very important and even defining aspect of what we are about as we continue to sojourn on this planet, awaiting the day the Jesus finally brings us all together for that great family reunion in the sky.
David. I think both of us agree that loving relationships between church members are certainly important. When members are together in small groups, such relationships can be built and utilized for God’s glory. Such groups can be formal (created by the assembly in business session) or informal (created on the spur of the moment by the members of that subgroup). Again, I think an analogy can be drawn with a secular legislature. The legislature can vote to establish committees that will function in the “in-between” times, or subgroups of the legislature can informally gather on the spur of the moment. If a church or legislature never again gathers as a church or legislature, however, then we can say that it has ceased to exist.
Back to the original article by the Florida Baptist Witness, I too must ask, isn’t this assertion of these policies being “case closed” a bit presumptuous?
The BoT have enacted policies that many of their leadership on the field would be in disagreement with. In the case of a person’s private prayer closet, and or praying in tongues, THE leader of our IMB Dr. Rankin, would be in personal disagreement, would he not? The Lifeway report by Stetzer and his staff found that a majority of Southern Baptists would be opposed to this policy. The policy related to baptism and the faith of the one the being baptized and the local church…even more in dispute.
My friends when it comes to these policies, loyal, Bible affirming Baptists are in disagreement…and brilliant, theologically conservative, baptist scholars with a high view of Scripture, have arrived at different positions for many years.
And yet, we are basically being told “Rome has spoken, the case is closed.” Really? Case closed?
Brother Mike,
The church herself will never cease to exist (whether in heaven or on earth), only the work of the church may vanish on earth if Christ is not the head of those that assemble to worship, praise, fellowship and disciple. Less legislative, more Christ empowered. Paul makes that distinction very clear in all his letter to the churches and intensely to Peter before Christ’s ascension to the Father.
Sometimes we are quick to forget what “feeding” the sheep “is”,… compared to “cloning sheep”. One of the last great teachings of Jesus to his disciples was “feeding”, not cloning (achievement based theology). Say for instance when a Pastor “feeds” the sheep, the sheep are spiritually ready to obey (Hebrews 13:17) because they understand that the shepherd is looking out for their best interest and giving them sustenance with substance (Christ/the gospel). On the other hand, if the Pastor is more interested in “cloning sheep”,…in other words…. that they have the right words to say, fall into line with an accomplishment based system, are members by achievement opposed “to adoption”, then the cloning method becomes the norm and the shepherd is dispensable. In a strict democratic process, we see the dispensing of shepherds by the congregation as the norm because if follows an achievement based outcome,…. and some even call this dispensing the “will of God”.
Erickson’s democratic thesis is not convincing, nor is it actually biblical. And please hear me out….,the reason a strict democratic process fails is because all members of the body “should be involved in the work of the church”. A strict democratic process never allows that to happen and ultimately is realized by church splits for the wrong reasons. I would submit that a great many churches that following strict democratic processes, miss the teaching of Jesus altogether, and form a church government that is combative to the very message presented to Peter by the head of the church, Christ.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Mike,
Sorry for the quick typing error’s…. meant to say in the first paragraph…
Paul makes that distinction very clear in all his letters to the churches,… and Christ makes that distinction intensely to Peter before his ascension to the Father.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris, for clarification on your position, I have the following questions:
1. Do you disagree with the BF&M when it states, “Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes”?
2. Does your congregation ever vote on anything?
3. Do your church leaders have the final say on all the important decisions, such as choosing church officers and performing the final stage of church discipline, or do the members of your congregation have the final say (by means of a majority vote) on such important decisions?
Brother Mike,
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify how I believe scripture reveals these actions of the members of the body of Christ.
Your first question,……………….
“Do you disagree with the BF&M when it states, “Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes”?
Yes, I do agree with the BF&M statement whereas the democratic processes are “aligned and defined biblically”, but not governed “politically or socially”. I would hope the BF&M defines democratic as Webster states “appealing to” or “relating to” the broad masses, instead of a strict majority vote to establish the validity of the system that would tend to proffer itself to the power of the vote, potentially ushering in heretical ideas or fanciful campaigns. It is possible to make the appeal or relate to the entire inclusiveness of the congregation and maintain “democratic” processes. I will be the first to admit that “democratic processes” is an unfortunate choice of words that can quickly confuse the biblical with the political….especially in an American culture.
Second question,………………….
“Does your congregation ever vote on anything?”
Yes, our congregation is ultimately the final say, as they vote with their spiritual giftedness. I’ll explain that more in question #3.
Third question,……………….
“Do your church leaders have the final say on all the important decisions, such as choosing church officers and performing the final stage of church discipline, or do the members of your congregation have the final say (by means of a majority vote) on such important decisions?”
Mike, I believe this to be an excellent question and really does point to how we (our local gathering) conduct ourselves in the body of Christ. For instance, as we planted our church in Hermitage, we began evangelizing the area (about 1900 addresses) with two Pastors, several men and women teachers and their families. As God continues to add to our numbers, we make decisions together, but in the following order. The Pastors (Elders) are responsible to “rule well” …..
1Timothy 5:17 “The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.”
We do not pay our elders with money, but we do give them double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching (We would certainly pay them if they needed money to sustain them) furthermore the entire congregation would be fully involved in the decision to provide for these men as they lead the church. So the Elders preach, teach and plan with the members of the body in a variety of ministries to which they are gifted.
We have one woman that leads and plans missions for our support of a church in the Kibera slums in Nairobi, Kenya. The Leadership, along with those involved with the mission make decisions together and then we execute. Many times a vote is made very informally, because as we pray and plan and do things for the mission, God leads and we are in one accord. We rarely, if ever, have people that are at odds with the direction we are moving, because there is a deliberate effort to demonstrate the spiritual giftedness of the individuals involved in the ministry.
On the church discipline front,….I believe the reasons that church discipline is so rare within the SBC, is that a great many churches are not at all understanding of the process and the reason for the process. The entire reason for church discipline is to “bring someone back into fellowship” sooner than later. The final stage of church discipline is bringing “it” not “him/her” before the church. The third stage of church discipline is not some sort of “vote me in” or “vote me out” proposition (many view it that way). If you read the scripture and understand it properly, the third level is an even greater appeal to be reconciled to the church.
Matthew 18:15-18 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. (16) “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. (17) “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (18) “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
A plea from the members is for the individual in sin to be in right fellowship, humbly, and with amazing love. We are to treat them as a Gentile or Tax collector,..meaning to lavishing love them with the peace of the gospel…because the veil has been torn and there is no longer a dividing wall of separation. Plead with your brothers and sisters that continue in sin to cling to Christ and be loved by the church family like never before. That is what it means to bring a brother or sister before the church. You expose the “deed”, and “lavishly love the individual” like never before. That is never a vote….unless someone completely misunderstands the command.
Blessings,
Chris
“Your baptism would be considered valid because it’s a Church ordinance, not a Pastor ordinance. So, the short answer from the BI crowd would be… your baptism would still be valid even if the pastor ended up getting a sex change later in life.”
But what does it say about this local church that they called a pastor who may not have even been saved? Because it had the name SBC and it was a local church, you think it was valid?
Do you not see the problems inherent in your baptism beilefs? Gracious me, in the view here, a church could be made up of unrepentent murderers twisting the Word in every sermon but baptisms would be considered valid because they called themselves Baptists and were in a local church.
In other words, they had the right ‘titles’. My question is this: Would the Holy Spirit consider that a church in the true sense of the Word.
Chris, correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but my impression is that there is never a formal, objective vote (e.g., show of hands, telephone poll, ballot vote, voice vote, etc.) in your congregation; rather, the elders of your church make the final decisions on all important matters, but in doing so they subjectively take into consideration the opinions of the non-elders in your church. You also seem to be saying that your system is not in conflict with the following statement from the 2000 BF&M:
“Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.”
I think there are a few problems with the system you have described:
1. If your group of elders becomes corrupt, there is no way for your non-elders to remove your elders from office. Corrupt elders cannot be trusted to do the right thing (to remove themselves from office).
2. In times of church conflict, I suppose it would be possible for your elders to subjectively determine the majority opinion without an objective vote if there was a very large majority on one side. If members were fairly evenly divided in their opinions, however, I think an objective vote would be required.
3. A subjective opinion is often not as accurate as objective data. Elders, being human, sometimes subconsciously hear what they want to hear. If the elders want to build a new building, for example, they may remember the positive comments but subconsciously forget negative comments. Also, if the members know that the elders want to build a new building, the members may not be willing to voice their true feelings (opposition) unless there is a secret ballot. Without such a secret ballot on a sensitive issue such as an expensive building project, the members might feel that the project was forced on them without their consent, and they might vote with their pocketbooks in a negative way after construction has begun.
You said,
“I would hope the BF&M defines democratic as Webster states ‘appealing to’ or ‘relating to’ the broad masses, instead of a strict majority vote to establish the validity of the system that would tend to proffer itself to the power of the vote, potentially ushering in heretical ideas or fanciful campaigns.”
I have the four-inch-thick Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. The definition about the “broad masses” is the third definition given for the word “democratic.” The first definition is: “favoring, characterized by, or based upon the principles of democracy.” Under “democracy,” the first definition is: “government by the people: rule of the majority.”
I don’t see how a decision would appeal to the broad mass of people (the majority) in the church if they would vote against that decision. I believe that democracy implies the priority of a majority rule:
“On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government.”
From “Principles of Democracy: Majority Rule, Minority Rights”
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/majority.htm
You mentioned 1 Timothy 5:17: “The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.” (NASB)
John Hammett of SEBTS commented on the verse:
“The idea that the elders rule the congregation is questionable. The key text used to establish the rule of elders is 1 Timothy 5:17. The word translated as ‘ruling’ in that verse (prohistemi) can bear a variety of senses, from ruling to managing to directing. Consideration of the whole of New Testament teaching on the nature of spiritual leadership would suggest that elders are not to rule so much as ‘lead the church into spiritually minded consensus.’ Baptists have argued that the responsibility of elders reflected in this text is not so much ruling as directing; that is, their function is more ‘moral and executive rather than governmental and judicial’ and thus more in keeping with congregationalism than Presbyterianism. . . . The division of the elders into teaching elders and ruling elders, characteristic of most Presbyterian forms of polity, is also a debatable point. It is based primarily on one verse, 1 Timothy 5:17, and is undermined by the requirement that all elders be ‘able to teach’ (1 Tim. 3:2). This verse is far too slender a basis for distinguishing two types of elders.”
Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 142-143.
The Greek scholar A. T. Robertson commented on 1 Timothy 5:17:
“Especially those who labour in word and teaching (malista hoi kopiontes en logoi kai didaskaliai). Either those who work hard or toil (usual meaning of kopiao, 2Ti 2:6) in preaching and teaching (most probable meaning. See 1Ti 5:18) or those who teach and preach and not merely preside (a doubtful distinction in “elders” at this time). See Tit 1:8.”
I agree with Hammett and Robertson that all elders taught and preached at that time. We know from 1 Timothy 3:2 that overseers had to be able to teach, and we know from Titus 1:9 that the overseer had to hold “fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.” The ability to teach and preach was a qualification for being an elder/overseer/pastor.
You also indicated that you believe that no vote was involved in the final stage of church discipline: “That is never a vote….unless someone completely misunderstands the command.”
We see in 2 Corinthians 2:6-8 that the “majority” of members at the church in Corinth were involved in the final stage of church discipline and loving restoration of an errant member:
“Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, so that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him.” (NASB)
David Garland commented on the disciplinary procedure described in the passage:
“Paul had asked them to hand him over to Satan ‘so that the sinful nature [lit., ‘flesh’] may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord’ (1 Cor 5:5). ‘To deliver to Satan’ means simply to put the man out of the church and into the world where Satan reigns. . . . Paul wants him expelled from the fellowship in hopes that the shock would force him to change his fleshly orientation. Now that the individual has repented, Paul worries that they not allow Satan to gain advantage (2 Cor 2:11). Satan has had him long enough; Paul wants him forgiven and restored or excessive sorrow might overwhelm the man. . . . Paul’s concern about the punishment of the offender presents the picture that church members presided as judges over the person involved and pronounced a sentence. . . . The reference to the majority therefore implies that not all concurred with the action and may reveal that the church is split. . . . The majority rules.”
Garland, “2 Corinthians,” vol. 29 in The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 122-126.
Thus, because the majority and the minority favored different actions, and because the church succeeded in punishing the man (the majority’s position), we must conclude that the majority ruled. If it was not perfectly clear which side had the majority of people, then an objective vote would have been required to determine which side had the majority of people.
Some people might argue that the church did not make an autonomous decision and that the majority of people in the church were simply coerced by Paul. Garland, however, refuted this view:
“Paul had no intention of coercing the Corinthians to fall into line because that would defeat his purpose to develop churches capable of making mature Christian decisions on their own without constant supervision (see 1 Cor 6:1-6). To keep the situation from creating an irreconcilable rupture, he retreated. . . . Paul’s wisdom in taking this tack was vindicated by the Corinthians’ positive response. They rallied to Paul’s defense and chastised the guilty person.”
Garland, 125.
In regard to Matthew 18:15-18, the church listens, and then it speaks. Like a jury the members hear the evidence and then act. In order for church members to act as one, and especially when there is not total agreement, a vote must be taken, and the majority rules. These days, the procedure must be formalized in writing to avoid lawsuits. Craig Blomberg commented on the passage:
“Christian disfellowshipping must have two components to it. Primarily, it means not allowing someone to participate in public, corporate fellowship with the church. . . . But in light of Jesus’ consistent compassion for pagans and tax collectors, surely he must also want Christians, individually, to continue to reach out to these people and call them to repentance. . . . In an age in which churches can be sued for disciplining their members unless procedures have been stated in writing and disseminated and explained to all the congregation, it is imperative to think carefully about how to implement Jesus’ instructions.”
Blomberg, “Matthew,” 279-280.
This final stage of discipline is a crucial function of the entire church. The decision is not to be made only by the leaders of the church; rather, it is to be made by the assembly/church. The local church must carefully weigh the evidence and carefully gauge the opinion of the majority of its members. A formal vote will be required in many cases. This formal, objective vote removes any subjective elements and does not allow the accused to say that the accuser is acting alone or with only a minority of members. The vote provides proof to the accused that the majority of members agree with the decision to lovingly punish him.
Wanda, (ref #86)
I know what I’m going to say has been said at least 50 times by various other people over the last few months, but your example makes me wonder again exactly how someone’s or some church’s faith or belief makes your baptism valid. Isn’t your baptism a testimony of your faith. Then what does the faith of the baptizer or church of the baptizer have to do with it.
Brother Mike,
Thank you for your thoughtful and well documented reply. This is the type of stuff both you and I enjoy and I think it can be profitable. Right off the bat, I will concede that your Webster’s far outranks the one I used, even though I chose to use the lesser political and social definitions on purpose.
:)
I will try to answer your initial question and then make a few comments on the other men’s material and comments on the “Discipline” process.
First of all…. Our group, including myself as an Elder, do expect the Elders (which I agree must be able to teach)… where so far… we have “four men” that have aspired and are qualified to lead to lead the church. If any one of these men are found to be unqualified by the testimony of two witnesses, they are immediately brought before the church, and removed from leading and pastoral responsibility,…. and over time prayerfully restored to leading if possible, if not,…we expect that they will remain with us and serve the church with the gifts granted to them by the Holy Spirit.
When you used John Hammett to explain the 1 Timothy 5:17 verse, I was pleasantly surprised, even though he did not address the “well” in the short commentary, but instead chose to drive Paul’s meaning toward a negative aspect or abuse beyond the context of the writing. I would agree with the conclusions that he arrived at though, since as “well” is included in the meaning, it does give more of the sense of directing and positive rule. The quality of the definition I use for “ruling” is not negative, but reflects the positive aspect supported by the context which is never independent of the congregation. “Ruling well”, is an extreme positive for the church.
In times of church conflict, the Elders teach,…we do not subjectively (behind closed doors) decide anything, nor was this the practice of the early churches. If we are behind closed doors we are studying hard to be able to teach rightly. We then lead the congregation not to depend upon “opinion”, or if one side or the other can build a majority,… but instead we teach and train concerning the “error or the conflict” until we have resolution that is clearly exposed by the Word of God. Then we pray and come together as a congregation in one accord. Our democratic processes include teaching and instruction from the Elders “relating to” and “appealing to” the broad masses (majority) and then we pray and come together in unity. The Word of God is the final arbitrator and everyone is involved without discrimination and secret ballots are not necessary.
As far as church discipline goes…you have covered an expanse of contexts. Matthew and 1 & 2 Corinthians covers the entire spectrum of sin. In either case the entire congregation is engaged, but I would contend that “majority” is better rendered “of many” (apo to?n pleiono?n ) to include the entire congregation in agreement. But, even so, I do not dispute that it can apply to majority, except that the context of the passage does not necessarily merit a “strict” democratic voting process; yet where the entire congregation knowing the sin and understanding the right doctrine for remedy, refutes it collectively, and restores in the same manner.
Blessings my brother,
Chris
Good stuff, Chris! I wish I could be at the convention this week, but I have too little time and too little money. Talk to you later.