A Heritage of Faithfulness
Posted byThis post was originally published on my own blog over three years ago. It was published in the midst of a controversy within my state regarding baptism and church membership, but the truth it contains is as applicable today as then.
My grandfather, Glen Wesley Smith, was an alcoholic. Thankfully, God saves alcoholics, and on Mother’s Day, 1950, He saved my grandfather, and called him to preach, which my grandfather faithfully did from the following Sunday until his retirement in 1983. Even after retirement, he served as interim pastor at the First Baptist Church in Poteau, Oklahoma, where he grew up. He passed away in 1989.
Among the great treasures he passed down to me is a large satchel, filled to overflowing with sermons he typed himself. I probably have close to a thousand of these typed sermons, along with a couple of well-marked Bibles. Frome time to time, I like to thumb through these yellowed pages. It often makes for great study, and, as I don’t really have clear memories of my grandfather in the pulpit, they serve as a way for me to visualize him there, preaching the Word.
Today, as I was thumbing through these old notes, I came across a sermon titled What We Believe about Baptism. According to the hand-written notation on the back, he preached this sermon at Bethel Baptist Church (pictured) in Muskogee, Oklahoma, his first full-time pastorate, in September of 1955.
As there has been so much discussion on this topic, I thought I would let my grandfather speak. I readily admit that the section I quote here does not contain what some have called for, specifically, a scriptural reference explicitly linking baptism with church membership. But my grandfather articulates here what many of us believe, and I would say we logically infer from the clear teaching of scripture.
Why not any baptism?
People seeking membership in a Baptist church must be baptised by the authority of the local church. Why? It is easy to see that other churches have not followed the teachings of the New Testament on the matter, therefore we believe they have not been baptised – because we believe in the authority being proper – and these other churches that practice sprinkling and teach that you can lose your salvation are not teaching fully the New Testament. I realize that you, as the subject, could be a believer, but you see, the authority is not proper.
These people say that they want the church to receive them but they are actually asking the church to come to their terms. Instead of joining the church, they are asking the church to join them. (emphasis mine)
25 Comments
August 25th, 2009 at 8:25 am
“Instead of joining the church, they are asking the church to join them.”
Well said, and sums with precision many approaches that we observe today.
August 25th, 2009 at 8:28 am
I do not disagree with what he states, for a Baptist Church.
But I do have a question along these same lines. The command to baptize, as stated, is ostensibly for the Church. The Body. In this case, I also presume the local Body.
Does that mean the command to be witnesses, and the command to make disciples, are also for the Body and not the individual? The BF&M states it’s everybody’s individual responsibility to witness and attempt to “win souls”.
Your take?
August 25th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Bob,
This question has been asked in a number of different ways, and in a number of different contexts. Yours gives me an opportunity to state it positively, which I appreciate. I hope Chris Johnson will be kind to me when he eventually shows up.
I believe that the entirety of the Great Commission is given to the church. That means that the commands are for the body, and are to be carried out by the members of the body in the context of their relationship to one another in the local church. This means that not only my baptizing, but my witnessing and my teaching and my disciple making, are to be subjected to the scrutiny of the church, because the church is the “pillar and ground of the truth.”
It is impossible for a Christian to be in right relationship with God while refusing to be in right relationship to the body of Christ, so for obedient Christians, all of the Great Commission is for all of them. God is a God of order, and obedient Christians joyfully submit to the order He has established within the local church.
At least, that’s my take. Thanks for your comment, and, as always, give my best to Ms. Peg.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Bro Wes,
I want to ask you this, so that I dont assume something that you are not saying.
You said in post #3 “It is impossible for a Christian to be in right relationship with God while refusing to be in right relationship to the body of Christ, so for obedient Christians, all of the Great Commission is for all of them. God is a God of order, and obedient Christians joyfully submit to the order He has established within the local church.”
This coupled what you and your grandfather said (as you quoted in the OP) leads me to ask how you feel about other denominations, such as Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Assemblies of God, ect. It seems, at least to my eyes, that you first say that “If you dont ….(in this case baptism) in the correct way, you are not a “true” church. And then I see you say, if you are not apart of a “true” church you are not in right standing with God. Is this a fair assessment of what you believe?
If that is a fair assessment, then I have to ask, do you think it is possible to be a believer, but not be in right standing with God?
Personally, I dont determine a “true” church by any doctrine OTHER than if they have true fellowship together worshiping Christ Jesus as their Lord and Savior. That is, as scripture tells us (along with repentance which is a result of true belief) the only requirement for salvation. As such, it is the only requirement to be a true church. For what is a church, but a gathering of believers (not a building). To say that such a group is not a “true” chruch because they dont have the right secondary theology, is problematic at best. And I hope, that I am simply misreading what you are saying. If I am wrong in this assumption, please correct me in my errors. If I am right, please justify from scripture why Lutherans, Presbyterians, methodists, ect are not “true” churches in light of scripture.
Thank you for your time, and God bless,
Stephen
August 25th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Stephen,
You ask, “For what is a church, but a gathering of believers (not a building).”
I agree that a church is not a building, but I also believe that it is more than simply a gathering of believers. It is, at the least, an intentional gathering of believers, in Jesus’ name, preaching His gospel, and practicing His ordinances. I agree with the Baptist Faith and Message, which defines those ordinances (baptism as immersion of only believers, Lord’s Supper a symbolic memorial of Christ’s death), and incorporates them into the definition of the church.
I won’t identify other groups specifically and say that they are not “true” churches. I will positively identify groups that intentionally gather, preach the gospel, and practice the ordinances. My church would welcome into membership anyone who has been led by the Lord to a similar understanding of and submission to these important truths.
I’m sure this is far less specific than what you were looking for, but I don’t see the benefit of calling out specific groups as “true” churches. You attribute this to me when you said, “And then I see you say, if you are not apart of a ‘true’ church you are not in right standing with God.” I would just point out that I did not introduce the concept of “‘true’ church” to this conversation; that came from you. As I said, I see no benefit in going down the road of negative identification of specific groups. I prefer to state positively what I believe to be the definition of a church, and this is nicely summarized in the BF&M.
August 25th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Wes,
“People seeking membership in a Baptist church must be baptised by the authority of the local church. Why? It is easy to see that other churches have not followed the teachings of the New Testament…teaching fully the New Testament.”
If the only authority that may properly baptize someone is a [teaching fully the New Testament] local church, then does that not necessitate that there has been an unbroken chain of [teaching fully the New Testament] local churches going all the way back to New Testament times?
If the chain has been broken at any point, then there was not a proper authority to baptize believers at the point in which it was broken.
If there was no proper authority at some point, then there has been a domino effect of believers being baptized by unauthorized authorities [calling themselves churches] that stems back to the point where the chain was broke.
That is how I see it.
Grace to you,
Benji
August 25th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Wes,
“That means that the commands are for the body, and are to be carried out by the members of the body in the context of their relationship to one another in the local church. This means that not only my baptizing, but my witnessing and my teaching and my disciple making, are to be subjected to the scrutiny of the church…”
But in order to be consistent with your view, I do not see how you can escape “double authorization” for the individual Christian to obey any of the words of Christ in Matt. 28:19-20.
This is what I mean:
While Christ giving a command means more than mere authorization, it still “includes” authorization. How could any entity obey a command if that entity is not authorized to carry out the command in the first place?
Now, you believe that everything–witnessing/baptizing/teaching–is commanded by Christ [correct me if I am wrong here at any point].
Therefore, this implies that everything–witnessing/baptizing/teaching–is “authorized” for the local church to obey.
However, you do not believe that all of the individuals that make up the local church may perform baptism [and if you are consistent, witnessing and teaching as well] based on the mere authorization of Christ to the local church according to your view.
Any individual must be authorized by the local church to perform baptism [and if you are consistent, witnessing and teaching as well] because Christ gave Matt. 28:19-20 to the local church according to your view.
Therefore, for an individual member of the local church to literally obey *any* part of Matt. 28:19-20 requires “double authorization” [i.e., Christ's authorization to the local church and the local church's authorization to the individual member].
If I have misrepresented you or have been inconsistent in what I have said, then I welcome you to point out where.
God Bless,
Benji
August 25th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Benji,
As to your first comment, as I understand it, that is a major tenet with at least some versions of Landmarkism, and one with which I disagree. I don’t have any problem believing that there have always been faithful churches since the time of Christ, even as others turned aside and lost the gospel. But I don’t believe this necessitates an unbroken chain of “authorized baptizers.” I believe that if a Bible washed up on the shore of an island, the inhabitants of which had never had any contact with the outside world, that they could, as “two or three” came to faith, constitute a church in obedience to the commands of the New Testament, and that church would have the same authority granted by Christ as any which claimed such unbroken succession.
As to your second comment, it seems we’re back to the separation between the body and the members of the body, a separation I simply can’t recognize or even see. Of course every member has authority to teach, but not if what they are teaching is outside the bounds of what the church of which they are a part believes and teaches. The same with baptism. All members are able to baptize in the manner the local church of which they are a part has prescribed. But it is the local church that determines, upon hearing a testimony of new birth, that an individual is a fit candidate, and the baptism must be carried out in the manner the church has determined best contributes to order in the church.
I hope I’ve addressed your questions. I’ll have limited time to interact here over the next few days, with an out-of-town trip tomorrow and a baseball tournament beginning Thursday, but I’ll try to check in as I am able.
August 25th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Brother Wes,
You lured me in my friend…..
This road is well traveled, so I will be brief (to your delight, I’m sure).
First of all the church is a monolith of people (whether gone on before us or currently living among us), every kindred, every tribe, etc. She meets and gathers locally to worship, pray, maintain unity through the work of the Holy Spirit, appoint a plurality of leaders, teach each other, care for each other, and eagerly obey the commission of Christ in the world. Those that meet locally are those that know Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit, and this is evident by a singular and meaningful confession (the great confession) born through the Holy Spirit that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The Apostle John describes a picture of the church…..
1 John 4:7-11 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. (8) The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. (9) By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. (10) In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (11) Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
Luke gives us a picture as well……
Acts 2:46-47 Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, (47) praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.
Its clear from scripture… that:
-We Christians do not add anyone to the church,..the Lord does.
-We Christians do restore those that have offended the church of which they (the offender) are a part.
-We Christians disciple and baptize those that have believed, even those members that have doctrinal challenges and then are baptized when understood (Acts 19).
-Baptism has never produced (caused) members throughout the biblical record (unless of course you follow a Catholic belief, or some other sects of religion). I call it the great control of baptism.
-Baptism does identify the believer with Jesus Christ signifying the power of the Holy Spirit…clearly articulated by the Apostle Paul throughout his letters (the clear doctrine of baptism as emphasized throughout the book of Acts as well).
-We Christians should be about the work of discipleship, baptizing immediately those that confess Jesus Christ as the Son of God (The Apostles did exactly that, and there is not a reason to differ from their practice).
I love to make disciples and baptize. It is a great encouragement for those that gather locally to worship and praise God for what He is doing. Baptism is an important doctrine to understand as the church is obedient to its head,..Christ.
We have several PCA folks that are members of our church, and when they understood the doctrine of baptism, were eager to follow Christ in believers baptism,..not to become members, but to identify with Jesus Christ and the coming of the Holy Spirit as the person that teaches them and brings unity to the body that gathers locally.
Blessings,
Chris
August 25th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Brother Wes,
It is wonderful to see how God can change the life of a man, like you have written about your grandfather. One thing that caught my attention in the post, besides you needling me a little bit… it this:
“Thankfully, God saves alcoholics, and on Mother’s Day, 1950, He saved my grandfather, and called him to preach, which my grandfather faithfully did from the following Sunday until his retirement in 1983.”
Are you saying that your grandfather began overseeing and leading a church a week after he confessed Jesus Christ as the Son of God? I didn’t even know how to ask the question very well… because he seems like a man of God and God used him greatly. But, I guess I would ask, …how would you handle that type of situation today from the perspective of a qualified overseer in your congregation?
Blessings,
Chris
August 25th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Chris,
The way I understand the story (as I was -21 years of age in 1950) is that my grandfather was saved and called to preach on the same day, Mother’s Day in 1950, and that he was immediately obedient to that call. He began proclaiming the gospel the very next Sunday. He was not called by the church as their pastor until later (1953, if memory serves). So, no, he did not go from rebellious alcoholic to elder in a church in seven days, but it was a radical transformation nonetheless.
August 25th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Wes,
I think I want to address the second comment first.
I believe my main concern is that members who make up the body of Christ are allowed to have direction connection with the Head of the body–obeying His commands and loving Him directly.
Any theology that promotes putting a layer in between the head and the members of the body is not a good theology in my mind. I understand that people will probably not come right out and say that is what they are doing. However, if a layer does emerge in the outworking of the theology that they advocate, then that is problematic to me.
For example, if in a marriage the wife has a respectful disposition to follow her husband’s lead in moving to a different location [after they have both talked about it and he has listened to her], then I don’t see where a layer has come in between the wife and Christ. In fact, I think she [an individual member of the local church] is directly carrying out the will of Christ–who is the direct Head of the church.
However, if she has to be “authorized” by the husband to carry out the commands of Christ, then that is a different story. I think a Christian wife should be “free” to carry out any command of Christ without having to ask for human authorization.
In relation to ecclesiology, if a member of a local church has to be authorized by the congregation *or* by a group of elders to carry out any of the commands of Christ, then it does seem like a layer has been put in between the individual member of the church and the Head of the church.
I think our different presuppositions, maybe, are causing us to see two different things.
I don’t see where I am separating members of the body from the body. Perhaps if you explain how you see me doing this, then that might shed some light.
August 25th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Wes,
“I believe that if a Bible washed up on the shore of an island, the inhabitants of which had never had any contact with the outside world, that they could, as “two or three” came to faith, constitute a church in obedience to the commands of the New Testament, and that church would have the same authority granted by Christ as any which claimed such unbroken succession.”
So, are you saying that, initially, the church [in this situation] would be a church made up of unbaptized persons who then authorize who would baptize who first?
If so, then how does this harmonize with your view [I'm assuming] that baptism is the doorway into the church?
In the island scenario you would have a church made up of unbaptized persons with the initial baptizer not being baptized himself. Where is the proper administrator according to your theology?
God Bless,
Benji
August 25th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Wes, Thanks for the clarification…. that makes sense.
Blessings,
Chris
August 25th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Benji,
Wes asked me to pass along his thoughts in response to your scenario in comment 13 (he is preparing to umpire a baseball game)…
The proper administrator is the church gathered, and not a specific individual. Yes, in this instance you would start with all unbaptized believers meeting in communion with one another. The accountability factor would be to that church assembled. Obedience to Christ’s commands would be a high priority for them, thus in accountability to each other they would be baptized, as believers, and thus carry on with our Lord’s commands.
August 25th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Brother Scott,
Would you also say that can occur with as few as two people under the authority of God’s Word?
Blessings,
Chris
August 25th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Scott,
“OBEDIENCE TO CHRIST’S COMMANDS would be a high priority for them, thus IN ACCOUNTABILITY TO EACH OTHER they would be baptized, as believers, and thus carry on with our Lord’s commands.” (caps mine)
Would you mind unpacking these two phrases in how they link together?
August 25th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Scott,
When it comes to church discipline, I see the teaching of Christ that the congregation is authorized to discipline the sinning church member [Matt. 18].
However, when it comes to practical nuts and bolts stuff [as expressed in church constitutions] as to how a church is going to do this or that, then I look at that as possibly “pragmatically” beneficial.
However, is the difference between my thinking and that of those who make up SBC Today this:
What I call possibly pragmatic is what you guys call the “binding and loosing” of Matthew 16 & 18 [according to Bart Barber's interpretation]?
August 25th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Chris,
Do you believe the local church has any authority whatsoever? Who enacts church discipline? If I come to your town and live like a demon gone wild before your family and church community and your unchurched friends and neighbors who would have the authority to discipline me?
cb
August 26th, 2009 at 5:21 am
Brother cb,
I believe that all authority is in Christ. So the way that plays out in the church where Christ is the authority, (of which our gathering of sinners that are in Christ are one portion of the several gatherings in the Hermitage area of Nashville), is that we certainly have the obligation (duty, responsibility) and command (authority, rule) to live with you in peace as well as restore. That is how we are called to love.
So, if you come to our town and come to us (our local gathering of believers) confessing Jesus Christ is the Son of God and a desire to unite with us,…then say in six months to a year, for whatever reason, you become the thorn of all thorns (demon gone wild) and begin to offend your brother or sister that you have united with ….they have no greater love than to call you to repentance to Christ’s commands as soon as possible so that your relationship with God is restored. If you refuse to follow Christ’s commands and repent, the brother or sister may even get another brother or sister involved as soon as possible to show you in scripture the error of your ways so that your relationship with God can be restored. If you still are persistent to act like a Alabamian getting thumped by a War Eagle and spit once again into the face of your brother, sister and others….then your sin is exposed to the entire congregation, so that it (your sin) is clearly known in order for the church to have greater understanding (fear) of the sin and continue to pray for you and share the gospel with you, since you have persisted in removing yourself from the fellowship. We (the gathered) then treat you as a tax collector or pagan, which actually means we love you as our neighbor and share the great love of Christ with you, sharing the gospel with you at every opportunity.
This has happened in our fellowship. We did that very thing. God was honored because we submitted to the authority of Christ in His church.
And as Billy Mays would have said…. “that’s not all”….I will also expose this to other leaders and believers, that may be gathering together as another congregation down the street,… concerning how our congregation handled your sin and how it effected the body. It is up to their local gathering and leadership to handle the matter should you be able to join with them and decide to “do the demon”. cb, as you know, this type of activity was common in the early churches, …we even have the names of those engaged in tearing down the local congregations.
Understanding that all authority is in Christ…makes all the difference in the world as restoration is pursued throughout various gatherings in the community and the gospel is shared. It takes the “us” versus “them” away from the now popular equation, where you can raise hell in one place and then simply go down the street….and instead it properly exposes it as “you” against “Christ” lived out through the love of the called out ones (the church).
Blessings,
Chris
August 26th, 2009 at 6:57 am
Chris,
There is a weakness in you position here, in my opinion. That weakness is that you do not see the authority of a local church.
If I come to your town and I am known to you as a brother and act in a way that is unbecoming (demon gone wild) you may come to me (and you should) as a brother in Christ and warn me, rebuke me, pray for me or whatever the case may call for, but you cannot hold me to discipline. Why? Because your local body has no authority over me.
You may do what Paul did relating to the adulterer in Corinth. he wrote to that local church and instructed them to discipline their adulterous brother. Why did he not gather the church at Ephesus and deal with the brother and then tell the Corinthians what he and the Ephesian Christians had done as a disciplinary action toward a brother living in Corinth? After all the brother in Corinth was part of the Bride of Christ (Church Universal) was he not?
Yet, Paul did not do that. Why? Because the adulterous brother was a member of the church of God in Corinth. The church of God in Corinth was a local church. The adulterous brother was accountable to that local body under Christ. It was their responsibility to discipline the adulterous brother. Why? Because they were the earthly authority under Christ to do so.
cb
August 26th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Brother cb,…
I had assumed that you were with us….when I said:
“So, if you come to our town and come to us (our local gathering of believers) confessing Jesus Christ is the Son of God and a desire to unite with us,…then say in six months to a year, for whatever reason,….”
I am certainly not saying that you just waltz into town without then uniting with a local congregation. In that case you were just another guy waltzing through town…probably some evangelist with a good story.
In fact, I believe that I even said, once we did not have any effect at bringing you back to the body through restoration,…you may even try going down the street to another congregation.
I’m not following your argument here.
If your not part of us…then we have no obligation but to share the gospel with you, treat you as another brother in Christ, celebrate the love of Christ, etc. … but if your simply a guy come to town to create havock and not of us…we can’t help or edify you much at all.
Blessings,
Chris
August 26th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Brother cb,
There are no lone ranger Christians. If you are a Christian you will have a body/gathering/congregation or if you choose to alienate you are in sin,….just like the Apostle Paul encourages Timothy, Titus and others in the body/gathering/congregation that it is not the will of God that there be lone ranger overseers.
Blessings,
Chris
August 26th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Chris,
You are right. There are no Lone Ranger Christians. If you will think about that you will see the point of this post and of my comment.
cb
August 26th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
cb,
I think I understand your point.
Blessings,
Chris