I read Wade Burleson's blog. Sometimes I am in absolute disagreement with him. Sometimes I am not. Recently he drew attention to a post here where Malcolm Yarnell (of SWBTS) gives 7 doctrines concerning baptism that he believes have defined Baptists historically. Number four says:Baptists do not baptize apart from the local church, because baptism involves local church membership.Wade notes:
Dr. Yarnell called this doctrine, and the other six Baptist Identity doctrines he posits, 'bedrock convictions,' and he wrote that "cooperation must end where our bedrock convictions are compromised." Dr. Yarnell and Mr. Lumpkin (the owner of the blog), both believe that cooperation should end with anybody who disagrees with them on these so called 'bedrock convictions.'David Rogers, IMB missionary and son of the late Adrian Rogers, responded to Dr. Yarnell's post by asking:
If I am unable to unequivocably embrace your 4th, 5th and 7th major pointsWade asked some questions that were interesting concerning this 4th point:
(although agreeing with you on the others, and some sub-points of these), does
that mean that I am not truly a Baptist?
Into which local church was the Ethiopian eunuch baptized?
Into which local church were the 3,000 at Pentecost baptized - having come to Jerusalem from all over the known world?And, if you are unable to identify the local churches, is it possible that our early Baptist fathers were correct that baptism does not admit anyone into the local church? One such early Baptist wrote:
"Baptism does not make a person a member of a church, or admit him into a visible church; persons must first be baptized, and then added to the church, as the three thousand converts were; a church has nothing to do with the baptism of any, but to be satisfied they are baptized before they are admitted into communion with it." - John Gill
Now, I'm not nearly so concerned about whether or not Malcolm is right in including this 4th doctrine as a characteristic of historic Baptist identity (though if someone out there with some knowledge on the subject would like to weigh in, feel free to do so.) My question is more pastoral: how connected should baptism and church membership be?
Some practical questions:
1. Should I ever baptize someone who is not going to immediately become a member of my church?
2. Should I ever baptize someone who is moving away, trusting that he will join a church in his new home (or should that person postpone baptism until he moves and finds a new church)?
3. Should a person be baptized immediately after hearing the gospel and believing, or is it okay for there to be days, weeks, months, or even years between conversion and baptism?
4. Can a person be qualified for baptism but not qualified for church membership?
What does the Bible teach on all this?
Obviously I have some opinions on these matters, but also questions remaining. I'd love to hear from anyone who has some solid input.
4 comments:
These are some of the questions I am asking right now.
Here are my initial thoughts. Honestly, I think the NT teaching on the importance of the local church has the most to say to these questions.
1. I want to say "No." We should not baptize someone who is unwilling to become a member of our church. The only exception I see is if someone is too young to become a member and you baptize them with the understanding that they are in the process of becoming memebers.
2. No. If they are going to move away and join another church, why don't they get baptized by the church they are going to be members of? This would allow the leadership to get to know them better and give them a greater sense of connection to the body.
3. In our culture, there should be a significant amount of time before someone is baptized after their conversion. This allows time for instruction and examination.
4. I would think only if they are young and the understanding is that they are moving toward church membership.
I'll look forward to hearing your opinions/thoughts on these issues.
Despite lack of "solid input" here are some thoughts I have:
If you're talking about "should" in the sense of "right" or "wrong," I think there is freedom. There just doesn't seem to be enough evidence in the NT saying it's wrong to do one or the other.
Where there is no command in Scripture, God gives the freedom and responsibility to use wisdom.
1. I can see cases where it would be okay.
2. Same as #1 answer.
3. I'm not so sure about the "our culture" argument. The NT example seems to be immediate, but I wouldn't rule out a period of time. The person should understand and believe the gospel.
4. I think I agree with JC on this one.
Perhaps this discussion also necessitates a discussion on church membership in the NT. Sure, they pretty much knew who was in and who was out, but it seems to be less structured in the NT than today.
I forgot to finish my thought.
Wisdom should rule in each circumstance. So while it might be okay to do this or that, I think the "yeses" to 1 and 2 should be exceptions.
Since baptism is identifying oneself with Jesus and his people, it would be wise to be baptized among those body of believers where discipleship, encouragement, fellowship, and accountability could take place.
We discussed this at length in my Worship class at SEBTS. After looking at many of the Scriptures that pertain to baptism, it seems that baptism should be a uniting with a local body, and the greater church.
It doesn't seem advisable to baptize someone who isn't ready to join the body. If they do not agree with their local church(es), why would they want to be baptized by one?
I wouldn't have a problem baptizing someone that is moving away. If they have an emotional connection to your church, I don't have a problem with that. I don't know that this is as crucial as the first. It would also be good for the other church to baptize them, when they find somewhere they want to commit their life.
As far as the delay in baptizing, the Scripture seems to teach a shorter delay in baptism than most churches practice today. I think "as soon as possible" should be the answer unless a reason is given to doubt the salvation experience.
Finally, what can of qualifications would a church put on membership that would exclude membership, but allow baptism? That seems counter-intuitive to me. Is the church requiring more than salvation in order for an individual to be a member? I'd be interested in hearing any practical examples of this point. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'd just like to hear more.
Thanks for the great post. I've been thinking about this one for a while (as you can tell by my late comment. I read it via RSS when it was initially published.). These are good questions to be raising.
Post a Comment