From a Baptist pastor:

Greetings all,

Having always been a fan of open membership with regards to believers who may not have been baptised by immersion, I've had my thinking challenged a bit this year by my church's stance (closed) and my own preaching and research...

BUT... I'm still struggling with the pastoral side of it. Do I insist that the 80 year old lady who wants to join, faithful believer for 50 years... baptised at her mother's choice at age 8... either be (re?)baptised or not join?

If anyone cares to share about any transitions from closed to open, or are still working though in one shape or another I'd love to hear it.

Alternately, does anyone have any dual membership options in practice at your church?

~~~

Another Baptist pastor's response:

I have a few operating principles on this subject.

1. Baptism is a rite of passage marking the entry into a vowed life of discipleship, and the renunciation of alternatives, and therefore it is a ritual nonsense to baptise people who are not yet capable of comprehending the possibility of doing otherwise or comprehending what "for life" means.

2. BUT, if baptisms are only valid if we get everything right in our administration of them, then God is not gracious and none of us can be sure that we have been validly baptised (we all have blind spots and limited knowledge and we are all probably getting a few things wrong).

3. Immersion is the default mode for baptism because its symbolism is the most powerful and complete. Pouring is the next most powerful, followed by sprinkling, and running last, the dab with a wet thumb (unless you count Quaker and Salvo baptisms that have no external symbolic form at all). However, there is little or no evidence from the Bible, the early church records, or the beginnings of the Baptist movement, that a particular mode of baptism was ever considered mandatory rather than just preferable. And for a theology of why, refer back to point 2. There is clear evidence for instances of flexibility due to available sources of water or the physical limitations of the candidate.

4. The main components parts of the baptismal or initiatory process, in their preferred order, are as follows:

a. Presentation (when a child or a convert is accepted into the care, worship life, and education/formation processes of the congregation);

b. Baptismal Catechesis (the candidate is taught and formed in the cognitive, affective, and behavioural dimensions of the Christian discipleship);

c. Profession of Faith (the candidate declares their faith in Christ and makes vows of commitment to the shared life of discipleship);

d. Baptism (the candidate is washed in water in the Triune name of God);

e. Reception into the Church (also known as confirmation) (the candidate is welcomed into the membership of the congregation, normally with laying on of hands, and often with anointing with oil, and prayer for the reception of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Church);

f. Reception of Communion (I offer communion to the unbaptised, but their first communion as a member of the body rather than as a guest is still a memorable stage of the initiation process);

g. Post-baptismal Catechesis (entry into the ongoing education/ formation processes of the church).

BUT, the most important thing is not the order of the process (refer to point 2 above). When we have a candidate who has not had any previous involvement in the church, then we have the joyous privilege of being able to take them through the whole process in the order we prefer. But the majority of people who come to us have had some previous connection, and often have some of the above pieces in place. The important thing is to fill in the gaps, not to insist on starting from scratch because we are precious about the order.

Therefore, the practice of my congregation is as follows:

1. If someone wishes to join our congregation and has not been through any process of Christian initiation, then we take them through the above process.

2. If someone wishes to join our congregation and has been through everything involved in the above process in another Christian church (regardless of whether we like the order or the age at which some bits were done) we welcome them in with a rite that involves renewal of their baptismal vows and confirmation (which I see as infinitely repeatable).

3. If someone wishes to join our congregation and has previously been through some bits of the above process (eg. baptised as an infant or even adult, but never really catechised), then we will ask them to go through those parts of the process that they have missed.

4. Often candidates who have had good catechesis elsewhere still find it helpful to go through our baptismal catechesis program as part of a process of discerning whether we are the right congregation for them to join. We encourage this of all candidates, but we require it only of those who have clearly not been adequately catechised before.

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