Here are some exchanges on this topic between myself and a few Baptist-pastor friends... I haven't edited these closely, and left out some of the attributions: feel free to enjoy the exchanges and come to your own conclusions! Rowland. ~~~ To be honest, folks, I'm not sure how much benefit there is in re-arguing the 'baptism-membership' thing again. It seems that there never has been an issue more likely to divide followers of the King more than this one (unless it is forms of Church Worship!!). (Unless one perceives the issue as one of injustice to / discrimination against fellow-believers... Then it (for me) becomes a matter of principle)... But in contemplating the contributions from Rowland and Nathan may I make the following points: 1. It is certainly seems the case that 'believers' baptism by immersion' ( a right old hoary phrase) was the 'norm' for entry into the 'community of faith' in New Testament times. Were these people all adults or were children there too ?(the Philippian jailer's family was baptised with him the same night of his conversion- little 'baptism preparation here!)We don't know about the kids, and its pointless to debate it. 2. Paul's wonderful exposition in Romans 6 gives meaning and depth to the rite of water baptism but it does so in the context of the Grace of God , the 'crucifixion of old self' and the 'raising to new life'. There is no way that this passage ( or any other) makes 'salvation' contingent on IOW, adding anything to grace (tongues, sabbath, baptism) is the beginning of heresy, eh? :-) 3. For the record, my own practice, were it possible, would be at all times to urge and encourage the wonderful step of 'believers' baptism by immersion'for all its meaning and witness and its community and personal joy. So would I. But, again, what would you do with General Eva Burrows, who sees no need to be baptized, but is an outstanding Christian leader? 4. We all grapple with the two extremes- first: wonderful sincere Christians of other traditions who give their lives to serve God yet can't be in full fellowship and members of our 'closed' Baptist churches, and second: folk who have been 'really baptised' (?!) and yet live in ways that are clearly displeasing to God. I've suggested a way forward for the first. For the second? What is there to do but to urge repentance and return to God and to trust in his mercy and grace? Ah, but my experience in our churches leads to me to believe that this is the thorniest question... After all, these kids are the children of respected church members, eh? Shalom and blessings to all. Brian. And to you! Rowland Croucher http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/9024.htm My 'salvation' , which I understand as forgiveness of my sin and reconciliation with my God, with consequences both now and for eternity, is due only to the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus, and to nothing else. With respect, Nathan, to even hint at the need for something I can do, no matter how we dress it up,is just plain wrong. Are you saying that everyone is saved? Or that repentance and accepting Christ as Lord are not things that we do, but gifts that God bestows regardless of our response - the old Calvinist "irresistable grace" concept? Because if respentance and acceptance of grace are not our own actions, then it is difficult to argue with the infant baptisers who say that baptism is all about what God does and almost nothing about our response and therefore it is appropriate to baptise babies because there is nothing they can do now or at any later stage in their development that will contribute anything to the effects of the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus that are being symbolised in baptism. Surely one of the main reasons Baptists have resisted infant baptism is because we are saying that someting we can do, saying yes to a gift and making a commitment, is essential to our reconciliation with God and is therefore a vital aspect of what is being symbolised in baptism. Peace and hope, Nathan, 'No' and 'No' to your two questions. Your point is taken-repentance and acceptance of Christ are clearly things a believer Brian McKie wrote: My 'salvation' , which I understand as forgiveness of my sin and reconciliation with my God, with consequences both now and for eternity, is due only to the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus, and to nothing else. With respect, Nathan, to even hint at the need for something I can do, no matter how we dress it up,is just plain wrong. Are you saying that everyone is saved? Or that repentance and accepting Christ as Lord are not things that we do, but gifts that God bestows regardless of our response - the old Calvinist "irresistable grace" concept? Because if respentance and acceptance of grace are not our own actions, then it is difficult to argue with the infant baptisers who say that baptism is all about what God does and almost nothing about our response and therefore it is appropriate to baptise babies because there is nothing they can do now or at any later stage in their development that will contribute anything to the effects of the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus that are being symbolised in baptism. Surely one of the main reasons Baptists have resisted infant baptism is because we are saying that someting we can do, saying yes to a gift and making a commitment, is essential to our reconciliation with God and is therefore a vital aspect of what is being symbolised in baptism. Peace and hope, ~~~ Rowland Croucher wrote: Summary of my position: to have a membership-list in a local Christian church which is not consonant with the Lamb's Book of Life is to presume the contamination of a legalism (grace-plus-something) somewhere... Well, since I'm now the hard-liner in this debate, I'll go for broke and say that I think your view of membership is inconsistent with one of the basic convictions that saw the Baptists part company with the established churches. Your view is congruent with that of the established churches who operate on a Christendom ecclesiology which therefore assumes that the membership of the congregation in a given geographical parish is, of necessity, accessible to all Christians in that parish. Baptists do not have parishes, but gathered congregations - groups of Christians who gather around a particular set of commitments as to how they will live out their faith. That is why it has often (and correctly) been said that the Baptist concept of membership is closer to the Catholic's concept of membership of a religious order than it is to their concept of membership of a parish. We Baptists have not traditionally assumed that every Christian could meet the expectations of every congregation, but that congregations are formed by people who covenant to live out their faith together according to a particular chosen pattern. Their membership list is therefore, by definition, not even aiming to be consonant with the Lamb's Book of Life, but to simply identify a group of Christians who have bound themselves to one another in a common life, prayer and ministry. Surely Rowland you don't really believe your statement above? Surely you really think that in order to become a member of a congregation a person should be expected to make at least one commitment which not a prerequisite for entry into the Lamb's Book of Life, and that is a commitment to that particular congregation? If we could agree on that, then we'd just be arguing over whether each congregation should seek to define itself as generically as possible or as specifically as practical. You'd presumably be arguing for the former, where all congregations are essentially (and blandly!?) the same, and I'd be arguing that they should be radically distinct, each with its own patterns of life, prayer and mission that reflect its unique make-up and social locations, and an expectation of committed participation in those from its members. Peace and hope, Nathan: good question/s... Before I respond, answer this: do you agree that it's possible for 'more light and truth to break forth from God's holy Word?' If so, why do we ever have to opine something like 'But you're being inconsistent with traditional Baptist beliefs'? Shalom! Rowland Croucher Rowland Croucher wrote: Summary of my position: to have a membership-list in a local Christian church which is not consonant with the Lamb's Book of Life is to presume the contamination of a legalism (grace-plus-something) somewhere... Well, since I'm now the hard-liner in this debate, I'll go for broke and say that I think your view of membership is inconsistent with one of the basic convictions that saw the Baptists part company with the established churches. Your view is congruent with that of the established churches who operate on a Christendom ecclesiology which therefore assumes that the membership of the congregation in a given geographical parish is, of necessity, accessible to all Christians in that parish. Baptists do not have parishes, but gathered congregations - groups of Christians who gather around a particular set of commitments as to how they will live out their faith. That is why it has often (and correctly) been said that the Baptist concept of membership is closer to the Catholic's concept of membership of a religious order than it is to their concept of membership of a parish. We Baptists have not traditionally assumed that every Christian could meet the expectations of every congregation, but that congregations are formed by people who covenant to live out their faith together according to a particular chosen pattern. Their membership list is therefore, by definition, not even aiming to be consonant with the Lamb's Book of Life, but to simply identify a group of Christians who have bound themselves to one another in a common life, prayer and ministry. Surely Rowland you don't really believe your statement above? Surely you really think that in order to become a member of a congregation a person should be expected to make at least one commitment which not a prerequisite for entry into the Lamb's Book of Life, and that is a commitment to that particular congregation? If we could agree on that, then we'd just be arguing over whether each congregation should seek to define itself as generically as possible or as specifically as practical. You'd presumably be arguing for the former, where all congregations are essentially (and blandly!?) the same, and I'd be arguing that they should be radically distinct, each with its own patterns of life, prayer and mission that reflect its unique make-up and social locations, and an expectation of committed participation in those from its members. Peace and hope, ~~~ Another contribution: May I add a little to the discussion? Over the years I have had to counter a group called Revival Centres of Australia who teach clearly that unless a person is baptised, he/she is not saved. They cite, among other things, a Scripture like Peter's (1 Peter 3:21) where he refers to baptism saving us. However the main issue is - in what way did Peter mean that baptism saves us? If you look at the text he cites baptism as being an antitype to the waters of the flood. Recognising that, again what does he mean by using the word "save" in connection with baptism. Obviously it was the ark which saved Noah and his family. Had they not been on board they would have perished like the rest in the waters that Peter cites as saving us. Typologists always see the ark as a type of Christ. Thus salvation from the judgement upon sin is through "coming on board" Christ, the ark of our salvation. In fact when God told Noah to build the ark its purpose was for the "saving of his house" where, unlike today, his house, his family, followed the patriarchal lead of Noah. Thus faith in Christ delivers us from the judgment operating below the "ark". Then how does baptism "save" us? The same waters that brought judgment and death on the ancient unrepentant sinners elevated Noah and his family above that judgment and brought a declared separation from the old world, delivering them into the new. The ark was the means of salvation just as faith in Christ is the means of salvation but the deliverance into a new walk was via the water, in the same way as Paul's reference to baptism as being an antitype to the baptism of Israel in the sea was a deliverance from the Egyptian enemies. I fear we so underestimate the power that is released in the baptism of a believer, especially if it accompanied by a prayer for the fulness of the Spirit. Baptism does have an element of saving power if saving power be defined as that grace which comes from obedience to all that God requires (we rae saved, we are being saved, we will be saved et al) and Peter's message on the Day of Pentecost, specifically adds baptism to the call. Why do we need to make such a gap of time separation between faith and baptism?. The early church didn't and the early church would not have countenanced any "watering" down of the efficacy of baptism. It was the issue of believer's baptism by full immersion that determined my call to ministry in the Baptist Church years ago. To me it was a matter of conscience and it still is. therwise i would have proceeded to Presbyterian ministry in which Church I found the love of Christ.However I could not countenance compromise 0ver baptism then. Nor will I now. There are plenty of paedo-Baptist churches available to those who protest our stand for the cause. Incidentally we have just baptised a seven year old girl whose faith in Christ is without question. It is not adult baptism as opposed to infant baptism but believer's baptism - a fundamental of Bible faith. Thanks for the chance to look at the issue again. ~~~ Another view: Again we call into question the nature of the church. Does it exclude people who are fallen and still exhibit it in habitual ways? It seems if we remove the need for baptism from church membership, what else can we remove? I ask this as an open question... It seems that we are arguing that we can exclude the baptismal requirement for membership, why not some other forms of 'aberrant' behaviour? Being somewhat post-modern, I'd also like to examine what we mean by membership. In most churches, people can act functionally as a full member without actually signing up. They can exercise just about any form of ministry, but simply can't vote at meetings. Yet their voice can still be heard in those meetings. So what does formal membership mean, if anything? If the best reason we can offer someone being a member is 'so that you can vote at church meetings', no wonder we are struggling to get people to 'sign up'." Having decided to 'retire' I must return! Gary- help me to understand the meaning of your first paragraph. Are you really equating the 'aberrant behaviour' of a sincere decision not to be 'rebaptised' by immersion (as some from another tradition would see it) with that of those who are 'fallen and still exhibit it in habitual ways' (I take this to mean the fornicators and schismatics)? I hope not! By the way, and this in ~~~ From someone else: This has been a valuable discussion... let me throw in something which may be something of a red herring, but was prompted by David's post as follows.... May I add a little to the discussion? Over the years I have had to counter a group called Revival Centres of Australia who teach clearly that unless a person is baptised, he/she is not saved. When I conduct baptismal classes, I put the following verse before the candidate(s).. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16) I mention the textual problems, but ask: "What does this verse say about those who believe and are not baptised?" The answer? Nothing. There is an assumption that those who believe are baptised. The NT knows nothing of unbaptised believers. ~~~ And another: May I add a little to the discussion? Over the years I have had to counter a group called Revival Centres of Australia who teach clearly that unless a person is baptised, he/she is not saved. They cite, among other things, a Scripture like Peter's (1 Peter 3:21) where he refers to baptism saving us. However the main issue is - in what way did Peter mean that baptism saves us? If you look at the text he cites baptism as being an antitype to the waters of the flood. Recognising that, again what does he mean by using the word "save" in connection with baptism. Obviously it was the ark which saved Noah and his family. Had they not been on board they would have perished like the rest in the waters that Peter cites as saving us. Typologists always see the ark as a type of Christ. Thus salvation from the judgement upon sin is through "coming on board" Christ, the ark of our salvation. In fact when God told Noah to build the ark its purpose was for the "saving of his house" where, unlike today, his house, his family, followed the patriarchal lead of Noah. Thus faith in Christ delivers us from the judgment operating below the "ark". Then how does baptism "save" us? The same waters that brought judgment and death on the ancient unrepentant sinners elevated Noah and his family above that judgment and brought a declared separation from the old world, delivering them into the new. The ark was the means of salvation just as faith in Christ is the means of salvation but the deliverance into a new walk was via the water, in the same way as Paul's reference to baptism as being an antitype to the baptism of Israel in the sea was a deliverance from the Egyptian enemies. I fear we so underestimate the power that is released in the baptism of a believer, especially if it accompanied by a prayer for the fulness of the Spirit. Baptism does have an element of saving power if saving power be defined as that grace which comes from obedience to all that God requires (we rae saved, we are being saved, we will be saved et al) and Peter's message on the Day of Pentecost, specifically adds baptism to the call. Why do we need to make such a gap of time separation between faith and baptism?. The early church didn't and the early church would not have countenanced any "watering" down of the efficacy of baptism. It was the issue of believer's baptism by full immersion that determined my call to ministry in the Baptist Church years ago. To me it was a matter of conscience and it still is. therwise i would have proceeded to Presbyterian ministry in which Church I found the love of Christ.However I could not countenance compromise over baptism then. Nor will I now. There are plenty of paedo-Baptist churches available to those who protest our stand for the cause. As Nathan suggests there must be some way of protecting the order of baptism, whether it be a baptised membership (my preference) or a special clause in a constitution (which has the potential to be deleted down the track). To pick up Alan's concern that people get baptised so as to become a church member, it is up to us to teach the blessings of baptism, especially the blessing of obeying Christ and publicly as a believer identifying with Him even as He identified with sinful man at His (without in any way being a sinner. There are ways of teaching our people but not compromise. Incidentally on the matter of age, we have just baptised a seven year old girl whose faith in Christ was without question and who has been pestering her parents for ages. Her father was also baptised with her. It is not adult baptism as opposed to infant baptism but believer's baptism - a fundamental of Bible faith. Thanks for the chance to look at the issue again. ~~~ It seems that we need to ask ourselves afresh about the nature of the church. Rowland assumes that church = kingdom of God. Not really/quite... see below... Nathan appears to make a distinction between the two. The former argument adopts a very Catholic view of church, which assumes that only those who are in the visible church are in the kingdom. This would not be my position either The latter finds the church joined around some form of covenant, apparently less exclusive in its understanding (though not always historically practised as such!) I like the notion of covenants for our churches... If we assume that only those who are part of the visible church are part of the kingdom, does it necessarily follow that every visible church must have a framework which allows all to become members? Or can it be that the basis for covenanting together as a church community allows for the possibility that there are some christians who will not - for sake of conscience - be able to join? Can such a position be held without somehow diminishing the view of those whose conscience is so exercised? Good questions. My point in these exchanges is that in the (admittedly, very rare) situation where someone is working through their theology of church/sacraments, we should not deny them membership of the Christian community, which is a congregation of people 'on the way' in all sorts of respects... However, I'm a strong believer in catechetical teaching before church membership. In that context it's very rare for someone not to agree that (some form of) baptism is the 'door into the church'. My hypothetical situation is simply addressing the need to live lives of grace while people wrestle with this, and all sorts of other issues. (I've known people who were severe 'hydrophobics' who took years - for that reason - to muster the courage to be baptized). But, again, that process does not preclude the church's formulating its own doctrinal 'Statement of Faith', nor of having some form of protocol for 'voting' in terms of the theological position espoused in that Statement. I find myself more of the view that a church has not only the right, but the responsibility to define its calling and covenanting, recognising that such distinctions are not only important, but the essence of gospel - that we can agree to differ, and celebrate that diversity, without diminishing the nature of gospel or church (we might even enhance it by such). While Eva Burrows might choose not to join in membership of our local church, we can still serve the kingdom together, and see no problem in that. But the door is always open to her, just as I hope it would be for me in another church tradition. But she has to be physically baptized to join, eh? Meanwhile baptized fornicators and schismatics remain in the membership of many (_most_, in the case of the former category!) of our churches. Sumpink wrong there :-)! I'll leave it there for the moment.... Gary Here's a summary of my (admittedly off-the-cuff) view of the relationship of Church and Kingdom. This little exercise takes me back to MCD BD Theology days, 30 years ago. (Exciting!). Some of you out there with a greater breadth of reading/reflection in this area might like to comment: ~~~ CHURCH AND KINGDOM Perhaps any separating of the concepts of 'Church' and 'Kingdom' is artificial. We do not want to separate the Kingdom and the Church any more than we separate the Kingdom of God from the person of Jesus Christ. In Jesus Christ, the Kingdom of God is proclaimed and present at the same time. What then are we to make of the Kingdom's presence in light of the fact that Jesus' earthly ministry has ended? In summary: Christ's Church is called to be a faithful sign, symbol, and foretaste of the Kingdom of God. (In the past century, we have seen a shift in thinking about Church and Kingdom. For example, American Protestant Liberalism was fairly indifferent to ecclesiology [the doctrine of the Church]. William Newton Clarke, and William Adams Brown, two leading Christocentric Liberal theologians ignored the doctrine in their systematic theologies. And many in the Social Gospel movement feared that focusing on the Church would in some way detract from their fixation on the 'Kingdom of God'. Neo-Orthodox theologians took an opposite position. For them, the church is a 'sign' of the Kingdom, and its message pointed to a Kingdom - not of our making, but of God's. Their contribution has influenced subsequent Protestant and Catholic [Vatican 2] thinking about Church and Kingdom. Another product of this interest in the Church has been a renewed appreciation of unity/cooperation with other Christians at local, national, and world levels). Jesus came to inaugurate the Kingdom, the reign of God, in our lives, in our communities, in the world. We, his followers, do in our world what Jesus did in his (John 20:21). That is, the Church continues Jesus' mission in the world. The Church is the visible 'witness' to the Kingdom. So the Kingdom is present in the Church, inasmuch as the Church is the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. IOW, we in the Church are committed to the practice of Jesus' 'core kingdom values' (particularly love, justice, grace). We therefore must resist any moves to 'discriminate' against anyone on any other basis. In practice, the kingdom is present when we are 'generous', as in an open, shared table, which is a sign of the community of 'mutual otherness' and mutual respect for otherness. More specifically, there are many 'signs' within the life of the Church which point to the Kingdom - the sacraments; preaching the Word (the Church is 'the herald' of the Kingdom of God); the compassionate servant-role of the Church in a world of injustice; humor and joy (which, according to Karl Barth, defuse the 'uptightness' of legalistic ideologues of left and right); miracles (including casting out demons: 'If it is by the finger of God that I cast out devils, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you,' Jesus said to those who did not believe in him). So the church is a prophetic community, doing the works of God and speaking the words of God. The Church is a sign of the kingdom of God to the extent that it demonstrates a kingdom lifestyle. And of course, every Church or Christian denomination is only a tiny part of the Kingdom (and not be _equated_ with the Kingdom as Christian 'sects' and the pre-Vatican 2 Roman Catholics presumed). We are not in the promised land, yet. The Church-on-earth is in this sense the 'scaffolding' of the kingdom. When the building is completed the scaffolding is removed. So the Church is the 'firstfruits' or 'foretaste' of the Kingdom. We pray for God's kingdom to come 'now', and also 'then'. Was it Karl Barth who said 'In Revelation's New Jerusalem there is 'neither temple nor sword' - no church, no state?' 'Nuff of my ramblings. Gotta get back to the BUV Professional Standards/Code of Ethics reading... Shalom! Rowland Croucher ~~~ Rowland and Jan Croucher wrote: But she has to be physically baptized to join, eh? Meanwhile baptized fornicators and schismatics remain in the membership of many (_most_, in the case of the former category!) of our churches. Sumpink wrong there :-)! Grace is amazing, isn't it???? Yep: and highly selective when operated by human beings! I offered some audio-tapes of Bill Hybells talking to Bill Clinton about the ex-president's 'personal relationship' with Christ. One old 'saint' said to me at the door of the church: 'He can't be a Christian when he's done that, can he?' ~~~ Rowland Croucher wrote: Before I respond, answer this: do you agree that it's possible for 'more light and truth to break forth from God's holy Word?' If so, why do we ever have to opine something like 'But you're being inconsistent with traditional Baptist beliefs'? Yes, I do so believe, but... if we wish to continue to call ourselves baptists with integrity, then we need to be able to demonstrate that we are continuing to develop our beliefs in conversation with (but not blind subservience to) the traditions passed down to us by our Baptist forebears. For me, that means that when I part company with the convictions of my Baptist forebears, especially if it is on an issue such as ecclesiology which is arguably the most central Baptist distinctive (our position on baptism is dependant on it), then I need to be persuaded that at least one of the following is the case: 1. the conviction held by our forebears were demonstrably mistaken - eg. they thought they were following the practice of the early church, but the evidence now shows that they had misunderstood the early church; or they thought a scripture passage meant one thing, but we can now be sure that it doesn't - and so in order to be faithful to what they were trying to do, we have to disagree with them. 2. the conviction held by our forebears was right for its time, but the world has changed in such a way that in order to achieve the same goal, a different teaching or practice is needed. or 3. the conviction held by our forebears was right for its time, but the world has changed in such a way that something that waas once a threat to be guarded against is no longer an issue warranting concern - eg. one of the main reasons early Baptists opposed the use of printed prayers was that it made them dependant on materials prepared outside the congregation and probably officially authorised so as to get published, but with the advent of desktop publishing, this is no longer an issue. If none of those are the case, and the issue over which I am at odds with the baptist heritage is one which is pretty definitive of that heritage, then I have to seriously question whether I can continue to identify myself as a Baptist or whether I have to move on. My masters thesis was essentially an attempt to answer that question for myself, and I concluded that I was actually more Baptist than I thought I was, and I can stay with my integrity intact. So, Rowland, that's the answer you wanted before you responded; now back to the question. How do you reconcile your belief that congregational membership requirements should ask nothing more than that which Christ asks for salvation (which I suggested is the catholic view of a parish), with the conviction of our early Baptist forebears that congregations are formed by people who gather around a covenant commitment to live out their faith together according specific agreed disciplines and mission (more analagous to a catholic religious order than a catholic parish)? Peace and hope, Nathan Sorry for the delay in responding to this Nathan - been busy (weak excuse :-)! Our forbears were right in linking baptism with church membership, _in principle_. But our forbears were wrong if they _insist_ on baptism where a couple of other Baptist principles - like the integrity of the Spirit's guidance of people by God's Word and Spirit, freedom of conscience, belief etc. leads someone in the _very rare_ situation of believing something else. Then, grace/acceptance applies. I don't know how else to exegete the prophetic principle 'It's acceptance I desire, not ordinances.' (Has anyone in this discussion addressed that text?) But let me say again this has never happened in my pastoral ministry-experience. People in the baptismal classes have always, I think from memory, been persuaded/encouraged to be baptized. I now would favour an open membership position which would preclude re-baptism, in principle. However - and have we discussed this? - what do you do with an open membership position where someone believes their infant baptism-confirmation nexus was invalid. Do you rebaptize? I would. Shalom! Rowland Croucher ~~~ Rowland Croucher wrote: Before I respond, answer this: do you agree that it's possible for 'more light and truth to break forth from God's holy Word?' If so, why do we ever have to opine something like 'But you're being inconsistent with traditional Baptist beliefs'? Yes, I do so believe, but... if we wish to continue to call ourselves baptists with integrity, then we need to be able to demonstrate that we are continuing to develop our beliefs in conversation with (but not blind subservience to) the traditions passed down to us by our Baptist forebears. For me, that means that when I part company with the convictions of my Baptist forebears, especially if it is on an issue such as ecclesiology which is arguably the most central Baptist distinctive (our position on baptism is dependant on it), then I need to be persuaded that at least one of the following is the case: 1. the conviction held by our forebears were demonstrably mistaken - eg. they thought they were following the practice of the early church, but the evidence now shows that they had misunderstood the early church; or they thought a scripture passage meant one thing, but we can now be sure that it doesn't - and so in order to be faithful to what they were trying to do, we have to disagree with them. 2. the conviction held by our forebears was right for its time, but the world has changed in such a way that in order to achieve the same goal, a different teaching or practice is needed. or 3. the conviction held by our forebears was right for its time, but the world has changed in such a way that something that waas once a threat to be guarded against is no longer an issue warranting concern - eg. one of the main reasons early Baptists opposed the use of printed prayers was that it made them dependant on materials prepared outside the congregation and probably officially authorised so as to get published, but with the advent of desktop publishing, this is no longer an issue. If none of those are the case, and the issue over which I am at odds with the baptist heritage is one which is pretty definitive of that heritage, then I have to seriously question whether I can continue to identify myself as a Baptist or whether I have to move on. My masters thesis was essentially an attempt to answer that question for myself, and I concluded that I was actually more Baptist than I thought I was, and I can stay with my integrity intact. So, Rowland, that's the answer you wanted before you responded; now back to the question. How do you reconcile your belief that congregational membership requirements should ask nothing more than that which Christ asks for salvation (which I suggested is the catholic view of a parish), with the conviction of our early Baptist forebears that congregations are formed by people who gather around a covenant commitment to live out their faith together according specific agreed disciplines and mission (more analagous to a catholic religious order than a catholic parish)? Peace and hope, ~~~ Rowland and Jan Croucher wrote: I offered some audio-tapes of Bill Hybells talking to Bill Clinton about the ex-president's 'personal relationship' with Christ. One old 'saint' said to me at the door of the church: 'He can't be a Christian when he's done that, can he?' Shalom! Rowland Croucher I suppose the gentile church said the same thing about Peter.... Again we call into question the nature of the church. Does it exclude people who are fallen and still exhibit it in habitual ways? No, the Church does in our world what Jesus did in his - accepting people totally and simply on the basis of grace. It seems if we remove the need for baptism from church membership, what else can we remove? I ask this as an open question... It seems that we are arguing that we can exclude the baptismal requirement for membership, why not some other forms of 'aberrant' behaviour? Let me make it clear that I would not 'exclude' the baptismal requirement for membership. Never have. I'm arguing that in the extremely rare situation in which a person has a sincere conscientious belief about that issue which differs from our normal Baptist position, we accept them in the meantime as they wrestle with that issue. They have gone through a rigorous catechetical course, and they have publicly declared their commitment to Jesus Christ the Lord. I haven't personally experienced a candidate for membership who has rejected baptism out of hand (though I have had plenty who've believed their infant baptism, confirmed when they knew what they were committing themselves to, was valid)... I believe the prophets' and Jesus' words about 'It is kindness/acceptance I want, not ordinances' is directly applicable here. Being somewhat post-modern, I'd also like to examine what we mean by membership. In most churches, people can act functionally as a full member without actually signing up. They can exercise just about any form of ministry, but simply can't vote at meetings. Yet their voice can still be heard in those meetings. So what does formal membership mean, if anything? If the best reason we can offer someone being a member is 'so that you can vote at church meetings', no wonder we are struggling to get people to 'sign up'. Yep, I agree. I'd get 'em to sign up, and re-confirm their commitment, verbally/publicly, each year (church anniversary is a good time for that). Just thinking out loud. And good thinking ~~~ If sin is rebellion against the ways of God.... and we see that the call to baptism by Jesus as indicative of God's ways... then refusal to accept baptism is an indication of our fallen state.... (Now I'll extract it fully...) We have a remarkable penchant for selective thinking when it comes to the commands of God, as with creating degrees of sinfulness. Whether I refuse to return the extra 10 cents in change I was inadvertently given, or cheat on my tax return, or engage in 'sexual' sin, there is no difference. The church is composed of fallen people gathered by and under grace. I do not see it the same way as the Salvos when it comes to baptism, but do not see them as any less christian. Same with the Catholics over mass. I cherish this difference, and do not seek to diminish it, or demean it by walking away from my own church's convictions (and my personal ones) over baptism and membership. We must own our diversity (both within the Baptist tradition, and the wider christian tradition) in order to understand and affirm the complexity and mystery of God. Though Eva Burrows may not be admitted into membership of most Baptist churches until she is baptised, she is still in the kingdom of God. I will happily dialogue with her about this (and will invariably hear again the challenge as to why we Baptists ignore another command of Jesus - to wash one another's feet), and so be stretched in my understanding of God's grace, and of His church. If I simply abandon my convictions, or she hers, we are all losers. Blessings ~~~
top of page