(Paper presented to the School of Ministry, Whitley College Melbourne, July, 1992).

'Now abides faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is baptism.'

The relationship of a person's faith-to-baptism-to-church membership is one of the most complex issues in contemporary Baptist faith and practice. Most Australian Baptists have resolved the closed/open communion issue (in favour of open communion), but only a minority of our churches have moved to an open membership position. So we approach this divisive issue with teachable humility, recognizing that if, after four hundred years of to-ing and fro-ing on the subject we have still not reached a common mind, that prospect is not going to be realized easily or soon for us either.

The early Christians baptized 'believers' by immersion into the membership of their churches. Repentance-faith-receiving the Holy Spirit-baptism-church membership were seen to be linked, theologically, experientially and chronologically. Baptism was the doorway into the church local and universal (these two aspects of the church were inseparable for them). Immersion was the normal mode (though effusion was allowed, says the [second century AD] Didache, where the water supply was inadequate). Adults were the usual candidates (though households of believers were also baptized. You don't often hear of whole households baptized these days do you?). These apostolic churches had no formal constitutions or regulations; their koinonia had not yet become institutionalized. The uniting factor: 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism'.

Augustine later linked the necessity of baptism with the doctrine of original sin. First the Syrian church, then others, began the practice of baptizing babies during the first eight days. Aquinas affirmed that baptism 'leaves an indelible mark upon the soul.' Calvin linked baptism in the new covenant with circumcision in the old; Luther prescribed the involvement of an adult sponsor; Zwingli said baptism was a sign or symbol only, of a deeper faith-reality.

Baptists first baptized by effusion, but soon switched to immersion. Their commitment to a 'believers' church' prescribed baptism only of those who could personally request it. John Bunyan was the most famous proponent of open membership, for which he was vilified by other Baptists. In three treatises on the subject, he said the reality of an inward faith was more - much more - important than an outward sign like baptism.

The key question: 'Why is it possible to be accepted into the family of God but not into the family of a Baptist church?' Baptists have given many answers, which can roughly be summarized into six broad categories:

[1] HARD CLOSED: Here members are only those baptized by someone with authority in one's own Baptist denomination. Many U.S. Southern Baptists, for example, will re-baptize other Baptists.

[2] SOFT CLOSED: These churches will not re-baptize someone already immersed as a believer, unless the baptism took place in a sectarian group.

[3] MODIFIED CLOSED: This - with the 'soft closed' position - is the stance of most Australian Baptist churches. Here a believer who is unbaptized, or was baptized as an infant, is given 'associate' status, and may vote on secondary matters in church meetings, and generally will not be eligible for the office of deacon or elder.

[4] MODIFIED OPEN: In these churches only those who are baptized can be members, provided the individual regards their baptism - of whatever kind - as valid for them. This is the position of about 70-80 of our Australian churches.

[5] PLURALIST OPEN: These churches (eg. in parts of the UK and in North India) go one step further and allow options for either infant or adult baptism, choosing sprinkling, effusion or immerson.

[6] WIDER OPEN: This position allows the individual, in consultation and prayer within the community of faith, to reach a conclusion about baptism that is valid for them, but may be a full member of the church during this process.

In the view of this writer legalism decreases, and a commitment to ecumenism increases, as we move from [1] to [6]. Further, older Baptist pastors in Australia would tend towards [2] and [3], younger pastors [4] to [6]. South Australians have the greatest heterogeneity across this spectrum, Queensland and WA Baptists the narrowest. In the last decade at least a dozen Baptist churches in Victoria have joined the existing half-dozen committed to some form of Open Membership. At a recent conference of 100 NSW Baptist pastors, the overwhelming feeling I got was (1) sympathy with an Open Membership position; (2) pessimism about their leading laypeople and 'the Union' agreeing with them.

The two theological questions here are (1) Is baptism the esse of the church? and (2) Should believers only be baptized? [1] [2] and [3] would answer 'Yes, yes'; [4] and [5] 'Yes, no' or 'No, yes'; [6] 'No, no.' Mother Teresa or the Pope could be a member of [4] and [5] churches, but (Salvation Army General) Eva Burrows couldn't!

Let us organize the issues into ten clusters:

1. PASTORAL. Every sensitive Baptist has had to wrestle with the problem of someone from another church feeling they shouldn't have to be re-baptized to join the church of their choice. Their earlier baptism was confirmed when they knew what it was all about, and, anyway, can't baptism - in any mode - happen before, at, or after conversion? 'I would be a hypocrite if I got baptized just to please you lot!' These people believe their earlier baptism was something God did, rather than what they did or was done to them; and that the most important things you can say about baptism of any kind are that it is unrepeatable, and that if it was in the Triune name, that's what matters most. And then there is the inevitable feeling of being second-class, even if some form of 'Christians in fellowship' or associate membership is practised.

On this point our constitutions say one thing, but our pastoral hearts and theological heads say another. Bunyan wrote: 'The Church of Christ hath no warrant to keep out of their communion Christians that walk according to their light with God.'

2. HISTORICAL. Over time, Western Christendom has moved beyond the bigotry of the Middle Ages and Reformation eras. Indeed, Baptists, as we shall see, were involved as much as any in their commitment to religious liberty and tolerance. When we read of dissidents in Iran being executed, we are thankful we have moved beyond the militant fundamentalism that has blotted Christian history as well. Baptists should be at the forefront of encouraging all peoples to move from bigotry to tolerance, from overstanding to understanding. (By the way, the earliest Baptists in Australia practised open membership).

3. CULTURAL. We live in a multicultural society. Pluralism is the order of the day - even in the worldwide church, which now has over 22,000 separate denominations, each of which believes it is more right than all the others! The secular media are having a field day with our intolerances and failings. We don't need to give them any more ammunition, while at the same time affirming our commitment to the unchanging Word of God, rather than the whims of a pagan culture. Moreover, the 'tribal' role od denominations is decreasing: well over 60% of Christians now say they do not have a strong denominational allegiance.

4. INSTITUTIONAL. All institutions, said sociologist Robert Merton, are inherently degenerative. Institutions tend, over time, to increase in complexity and exclusiveness, multiplying laws, regulations, and constitutions. Tradition is a good servant, but an oppressive master.

5. MORAL. Let us state the issue in stark terms. Most Baptist 22-year- olds our churches are not virgins (ask any experienced pastor or youth counselor!). Those who are members, however, may, despite their private morals, vote on all matters financial and theological. So may the adults who are factional, greedy or backbiters. However, if a godly Salvationist or Anglican were to request membership, they would be refused in most of our churches. Their spiritual life may be exemplary, but this matters less, apparently, than the quantity of H20 used in their baptism, and the chronology of that event. Any system which produces this kind of legalistic and unchristian anomaly has got to have something wrong with it!

6. THEOLOGICAL. There are two questions here:

6-1. Can infant baptism be a valid baptism? If your view is that baptism is primarily something God does, the answer is 'yes.' The extreme form of this position, however is a quasi-magical sacramentalism: baptism is a 'work of grace' which is instrumental in bringing salvation to the candidate. Conversely, if you believe baptism is primarily something we do, it can degenerate into a empty 'mere symbol' stance. British Baptist theologians Wheeler Robinson and George Beasley-Murray, among others, have helped us see baptism rather as a Divine/human encounter. Baptism is linked in the NT with baptism in the Holy Spirit. It is a means of grace. There is no gift or power which the apostolic documents do not ascribe to baptism. All the chief Christian doctrines are somehow linked with baptism. So sacrament and symbol need to be held together.

Swedish Baptist theologian T. Bergsten says there are two kinds of infant baptism: indiscriminate baptism which has produced 'millions of baptized pagans', and that in which parents and later the confirmed teenager/adult have had a more responsible role. Any judgment about validity has to be made very carefully, or we will find ourselves 'unchurching' other committed Christians.

The issue of re-baptism is complex. Individuals can give all sorts of reasons why they believe their earlier baptism was invalid: theologically, it was not according to biblical precedent; experientially, they were 'not a Christian' at that point; methodologically it wasn't done properly (insufficient water etc.). Some feel they were baptized for the wrong reasons - peer pressure, pleasing a spouse, obeying the rules merely to conform etc. If baptism is only something God does, re-baptism for any reason would be invalid; if baptism is only something we do, re-baptisms can occur ad infinitum. Surely the better way is to affirm the Divine/human encounter in the event, and only re-baptize in the rarest of circumstances, if an individual is utterly convinced their earlier baptism was invalid.

6-2. Can we add anything to grace? We now come to the crux of the matter, an issue unfortunately not often tackled sufficiently in the scholarly literature. The essence of the Christian gospel is that God accepts us unconditionally. His grace is all we need. Further, in the Christian community, grace means that all the old racial, social, sexist, and theological barriers that divided us are shattered forever. Some groups add 'tongues' to grace; others 'sabbath-keeping'. Baptists add baptism to grace. Any proviso expressed as 'Sorry, unless you... -in addition to being accepted by God - you are not fully acceptable around here' is essentially pharisaical. The pharisees had a theology of 'grace-plus'. That's why Jesus got offside with them. With the pharisees repentance preceded acceptance ('you change, agree with us, and you'll be acceptable around here'); with Jesus it was the other way around ('I accept you; let's work on a process of change together'). Pharisees are territorial (only our kind are welcome); Christians ought to be hospitable (you are most welcome here).

7. BIBLICAL. Advocates of an open membership position take seriously the prophets' and Jesus' unjunction: 'It is kindness I want, not ordinances' (Matthew 9:13). These sacrifices were divine-ordained, but, said Jesus, kindness and mercy to others, accepting others, is more important. Paul agreed: 'Accept one another, then, for the glory of God, as Christ has accepted you' (Romans 15:7). How are we accepted? Purely on the basis of grace. We then must accept others the same way. Nothing can be added to grace.

8. ECUMENICAL. This is a 'dirty word' for many Baptists, and I am aware of the reasons for that. We have been given certain insights into the nature of the church which we do not want to modify. Whilst we affirm the integrity of other churches' search for truth, our own affirmations and distinctives are dear to us.

However, our generally exclusive attitude to paedobaptists is abhorrent to them. Are we the only true church? Have we nothing to learn from others? With Christendom so divided, how should we work to answer our Lord's prayer for his church, that they may be one? By refusing membership to those belonging to other Christian churches is to say something else is more important than our Christianness.

Our unity is not on the basis of a particular view of baptism, but in the common confession to which baptism points - the redemption of God God in Christ by the Holy Spirit.

'In all things essential, unity; in all things doubtful, liberty; and in all things, charity.' What are the 'essential' things? Only four, I believe: * The unity of the Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; * The saving work of Jesus Christ, who was fully human and fully divine; * The full authority of the Scriptures in all matters of faith and conduct; and justice and love as the key kingdom values for Jesus and for us (Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42).

God probably isn't a Baptist!

9. DENOMINATIONAL. Baptist distinctives may be expressed this way: Jesus Christ is Lord of the church, which essentially comprises only the regenerate; the Bible is the ultimate authority for all we believe and do in the church and in the world; believers' baptism (preferably by immersion) is the ordinance by which we enter the membership of a church; the autonomy of the local church - which means that no outside body can dictate what a particular community of faith believes and practices; individuals are at liberty to be guided by the Holy Spirit operating within the community of faith in their understanding of the Scriptures; the state has no mandate to interfere in the beliefs and practices of the people of God, except to uphold good laws and maintain order.

Now Baptists have vitiated their own history by insisting that 'freedom' is OK on every issue except baptism, a theory of biblical inerrancy or the parousia, or whatever. What Baptists have insisted others grant to them, they have not been willing to grant to others.

10. PRACTICAL. The devil has a particular strategy to destroy the faith and life of every denomination, every local church, and every Christian. A useful spiritual exercise would be to figure out what that strategy is for Baptists!

A criticism leveled at open membership churches is that they tend towards nominalism. This is not necessarily true. Many Southern Baptist churches which insist on baptism by immersion of children or others have a far greater nominalism than, say, the 50% of Baptist churches in South Australia which practice open membership. The antidote for nominalism is not pharisaism, but a more rigorous cachetical program, whereby those applying for membership examine the reality of their confession, and the essential truths of the biblical gospel. I would urge a more serious and extended study of baptism and other doctrines, so that the ordinance does not become a mere rite or formality. Another good practice is a membership re-affirmation or covenant service each year.

Open membership churches feel that their 'closed' counterparts are legalistic, putting adherance to a particular doctrinal interpretation ahead of accepting others who God has accepted. This criticism surely has validity. Closed membership is a denial not only of our Baptist principle of the liberty of individuals to be guided by the Holy Spirit, perhaps into another point of view, but is, above all, a denial of the Christian good news about God's grace.

For someone to have one's name in the Lamb's Book of Life but not to qualify for our membership books is aweful! Baptists have always said the Reformers did not take the Protestant Reformation far enough. Perhaps we, too, have to take the great Reformation principle of grace to its logical and biblical conclusion.

Further reading: T. Bergsten, 'Baptism and the Church', The Baptist Quarterly, Vol 18 nos. 3 & 4 (1959), pp. 125-131, 159-171.

D. Bridge and D. Phypers, The Water that Divides, IVP, 1977.

A. Gilmore, Baptism and Christian Unity, Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1966, pp. 58-74.

Thorwald Lorenzen, 'Baptism and Church Membership: Some Baptist Positions and their Ecumenical Implications', J. Ecumenical Studies, 18:4, Fall 1981, pp. 561 ff.

Rowland Croucher