Nathan:

That all makes us "open membership" with regard to the age or mode of baptism, but "closed membership" with regard to the necessity of baptism. I know Rowland Croucher is our foremost proponent of an "open membership" that can include the unbaptised. I disagree with him because I think it creates as many ecumenical problems as it solves. The usual argument for some form of open membership is that it avoids the offence of declaring invalid the baptismal practices of other Christian churches. However, since almost all Christian churches do require baptism for membership and are willing to recognise our baptism, then if we accept unbaptised people into membership and that person later wants to switch to another church, we will have put that church in the position of having to cause the same offence in reverse, because they will now have to insist that the person we accepted has not been properly initiated into the church and require them to be baptised. In my opinion, a person insisting that they should be allowed into the membership of the church without going through a baptism is in the same position as a couple insisting that their relationship should be accorded the same status as everyone else's without going through a wedding. Any community has the right and the responsibility to make clear its standards and expectations, and an individual cannot demand that they should be accorded the same rights without first going through the same rites as everyone else.

Peace and hope,

Nathan

~~~

Rowland:

[1] I have no problems with Nathan's position, apart from this one point, and I particularly applaud the emphasis on catechesis for prospective members. That ought to be as rigorous as Nathan proposes, but most of us aren't that disciplined, which is a pity...

[2] The possibility of someone coming into membership of a Baptist Church I'm pastoring without being baptized in any form would be very rare, and in my history of pastoring half a dozen churches as senior or interim pastor it has never happened (yet).

[3] However the *possibility* is there, for several reasons.

[3-1] The first, and the most important, of these relates to my understanding of grace-apart-from-ritual-or-anything-else-we-do. You'll have to read my article on all this to get the background - http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/9660.htm.

[3-2] The second covers the occasional situation where, say, a Salvation Army person has a deeply-held theological conviction that 'water-baptism' is not necessary: they've been baptized in Spirit. I've met a few who hold this position. Are we going to forbid their joining a Baptist community of faith if God has called them to belong, on the basis of the absence of water?

[3-3] I've also met a couple of candidates for baptism/church membership who cannot allow water to touch their skin for medical reasons. So oil is used, on the forehead. Zat OK?

[3-4] A crucified repentant thief? (Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know of the sophisticated argument by baptismal regenerationists that he was sprayed with water from Jesus' side :-)

But my in-principle conviction is based on the first reason: grace doesn't need anything added to it in terms of acceptance by God or hopefully by us (Romans 15:7) of any individual who is moved/led to belong to the community of faith - not tongues, not a theological stance on something, not H2O - nothing. And as for insisting on baptism to obviate 'ecumenical' (Nathan's word) problems for folks who switch churches, all I can say is that our Christian brothers and sisters in other communions had better do more praying/studying about grace.

But all that said, I'm a committed Baptist because of the reasons Nathan has given, and I like his 'hierarchy' (my word) of alternatives - first immersion, then pouring, sprinkling etc. But to make baptism-with-water *absolutely mandatory* in every single case no exceptions? Nope.

Do I know anyone of any theological consequence who holds my position? Not offhand :-)

-- --

Shalom! Rowland Croucher