The blogosphere rages with the latest SBC controversy regarding the International Mission Board's eviction of one of its trustees. Click here and chase the issue ad nauseum around the web. From what I can gather the primary issue is that IMB has taken a hard stand regarding baptism. It would only endorse those missionaries baptized as believers by immersion in churches holding to eternal security (I think). Comments, rebuttals, articles, and refutations whiz past most of us. There is nothing like a good SBC fight and it seems we (used loosely) have once again risen to the occasion.
Frankly, I stand wobbly-kneed and confused on the issues at stake; and this frustrates me greatly. I'm jealous of the freedom seemingly enjoyed by those who can, in good conscience, relax baptismal requirements in light of obvious conversion (there, I said it). I am equally jealous of the lionheartedness of those who consider anything less than believer's baptism an affront to the NT church. Call me incompetent (it won't the be the first time!) but I simply cannot digest it all as well as everyone else. At the risk of sounding inept and naive, I ask the following questions for counsel on a pastoral level. Perhaps they can help those of us not aspiring to denominational celebrity, not in the shadow of Nashvillian politics, and do not treat the IMB as the flagship missionary agency. We're simple pastors, shepherding small churches, striving to disciple lovers of Christ.
1. We have several "covenant-minded" folks in our congregation. They would rather enjoy Reformed preaching from a credobaptist than nonReformed preaching from a paedobaptist. It is obvious they are converted people, but cannot join our church having not been immersed as a believer. Yet, I am more sure of their conversion than any card-carrying Baptist I've ever known. So, are we not saying to them that as of now they are not qualified for membership, but if they would pass through our waters they would be? What is happening in the water that makes them more qualified for membership? It cannot be a mere matter of polity; therefore, what is at stake?
2. The statistics do not lie. Though the SBC boasts of 16 million (baptized) members, barely a third participate in the life of a local church. It may just be me, but as a convention we are not in a position to define church health. If we are going to hold such a hard line on baptism then shouldn't we do so on church discipline as well? Otherwise, who cares about believer's baptism if doesn't mean something regarding conversion? What I want to ask the SBC "Cardinals" is this: If you boast so much of your baptisms then where are 75% of those you've baptized in your church of x-thousand? How do you expect to be taken seriously? Again, probably just me, but I would rather have 50 paedobaptists who devote themselves to the body, than 50 baptized absentees.
3. Should we not redefine "regenerate church membership" in Baptist life? It seems that's not what we really mean. What we mean is "believer's baptism church membership." Obviously, there are regenerate folks who have not been baptized as believers. To say otherwise is flirting with disaster. Therefore, being regenerate is apparently not enough for church membership. In fact, it may very well be irrelevant for most Baptist churches who only care that you've been baptized as a believer. The abysmal "fill-in-the-blank slip, give us a hearty 'amen'" process of membership does not bode well for true regenerate church membership.
4. I may be absolutely wrong (it won't be the first time!), but in 17th-century Reformed Baptist life the enemy was not Reformed Presbyterians. It was Rome and the Church of England. The 1689 London Confession was not to pit the Particular Baptists against the Westminster Divines. It was to mount a concerted effort against the state church. Are we overstating the differences? Is the SBC setting its sights on friendlies rather than the hostiles? I suspect I'll get a thousand quotes from a thousand historians proving me otherwise.
5. Assuming my understanding of the IMB issue is correct, would they endorse a missionary who was baptized as a believer in a PCA church? They do baptize adult new converts.
6. I can hear my childhood pastor exclaiming that believer's baptism is a matter of obedience. If you're not baptized you still go to heaven, but just disobediently. Man, I've been baptized twice (once as a believer, mind you) and I'm still disobedient! I'm certain that no matter how deeply plunged one is it cannot make one more fit for heaven, right? On this note, we should also apply the same the expectation of communion. It was just as much commanded as baptism. Therefore, do we tolerate neglect of the Lord's Table? Why isn't that if one neglects the Table we do not assume the same caliber of disobedience? Shouldn't the IMB disqualify anyone who does not take regular communion?
Boy, this got way too long. I had more to vent than expected! Again, I profess my profound ignorance, but I'm just a guy trying to get it right without compromising love of the brethren. I realize I've defended no Scripture, which is largely my problem, I guess. Please let me know I'm still Baptist; I don't want to have to change my business cards.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
As a former SBC-church member (Northbrook, even) and current PCA-church member who's currently studying and struggling w/ this whole baptism thing, THANK YOU for posting this, Barry. I've taken an interest in this IMB mess and had many similar thoughts as those you've expressed here.
The thing that's honestly bothered me the most about the whole thing is the proposed requirement that IMB candidates who haven't been baptized in a credobaptism-only church must be re-baptized in their SBC church "as a testimony of identification with the system of belief held by Southern Baptist churches". That language seems innocuous at first glance, but it also means that those who have been converted and baptized as adults in, say, a Presbyterian church would be required to be re-baptized. Additionally, since when is a denomination allowed to say what baptism is a testimony of? Scripture points to it being a testimony of identification with Christ, not of a denominational "system of belief". Ugh.
I was also pretty disappointed to see what I saw as a cheap shot taken by Ergun Caner at John Piper. I really respect Dr. Caner and greatly enjoy his preaching, and his little jab there knocked him down a notch in my mind.
Great point about communion, by the way. I've always wondered why the SBC (and baptist churches in general) don't seem to give as much weight to the continual ordinance of the Lord's Supper as they do the one-time ordinance of baptism. Ask Chuck, if you get the chance, about the e-mail I sent the PLT a year or so ago about communion at Northbrook.
Thanks for your helpful comments, men! If we are wrong at least we'll be wrong together, right? May God bless your ministries richly this weekend.
"Yet, I am more sure of their conversion than any card-carrying Baptist I've ever known."
To me the above is where you start. I used to be more regimented in my doctrinal positions, but I now begin with someone's profession. Since I can't know their heart if I hear a profession and they exhibit the fruits of grace they are my brethren. While I feel baptism is important I empathize with your struggle here.
I left the Catholic Church and joined a Regular Baptist Church. I thought I left legalism behind when I abandoned Catholicism, but I was wrong. I think too many people get wrapped up in the trimmings and lose focus on the main course. Church service is mostly simple liturgy and too many of us get caught up in the liturgy. I could have a "service" at home alone, any day of the week. I could read the Bible, pray and sing a hymn to express my thankfulness to Jesus Christ for saving me.
The trouble with Christianity is the Christians. Even after redemption we still have our faults.
Thanks, Shawn, for your helpful comments. God be praised that He rescued you to justification by faith alone.
I certainly don't want to sneak away from any "simple liturgy." The assembling of the saints is foremost in the Christian life (Heb 10.24-25). And to neglect such is to flirt with apostasy (Heb 10.26). Further, we cannot dismiss the "pluralness" of NT instruction (prayer, worship, encouragement, etc.).
You certainly can and should worship God individually w/Scripture, hymns, prayer, etc. However, there is special grace in congregational worship (1 Cor 14). But, I do appreciate your aversion to the barrenness of much congregational worship (much of which ironically coming from a free church tradition).
Thanks, again, brother for your helpful insight. Even with our faults we still have redemption!
I didn't mean to diminish the biblical exhortion to assemble, or even to diminish Church services. However, I do not take Heb. 10:25 to mean going to Sunday Church services only. As you know the early church gathered in a way different from what we do now. I am unaware of them having a structured or scripted liturgy as we tend to do in our Churches, and I rather doubt that one person stood before the gourp and gave a message as I see done most of the time now. I suspect that the message in those days was reading God's word and letting it be the message.
Please don't receive this is as purely negative because I surely don't mean it that way. Maybe I'm just finicky or too particular but I have a couple of issues with how the message tends to be delivered in the Christian Churches I've been in, be it Baptist, Methodist, Catholic or otherwise. I've seen too many messages that took one or two verses of scripture and broadened them into an hour-long look at contemporary culture, or some other venture into various categories apart from the verse(s). Sure, we can apply the Bible to contemporary events and issues, and we should, but I've often felt that we might all be better served if the message was a lot more scripture and less opinion, reflection or review of what's on TV these days. I suspect I would get more out of someone covering an entire chapter of a book of the Bible and offering explanation and illustration as he went along; using his training in Hebrew and Greek, the history of the church, etc. Again, this is probably just my issue and not a church issue.
I sure hope you don't take this as some critique of all pastors, or how they conduct their business. My Church is currently looking for a new pastor as our past one left for another Church. My wife and I consider ourselves richly blessed to have had him and his wife at our Church. He is a warm and godly man and I love him very much, and his wife is a godly peach of a woman. I didn't see eye-to-eye with all of his positions, but I was able to appreciate him immensely because he had a heart for God and he sincerely cared for all of us. He worked very hard and seeing that gave me a vast respect for pastors. Not just the 6-day work weeks and the amount of hours put in (house visits, hospital visits, funerals, weddings, and all the other things), but that he did so without complaint and genuinely cared, which was why he did it.
Sorry for all of that. We don't even know each other and I'm venting. You know, I know that I love Jesus and that He lives in my heart, but sometimes I wonder if I'm too hard to please, or unnecessarily critical. I've never made waves or complained within my Church but I seem to hold a different set of ideals than most Christians I know.
Shawn, have no fear of "venting" to me. I would rather you do so here than in other divisive contexts. You are absolutely correct (in my limited estimation) about contemporary preaching, planning, etc. And it is definitely a "church issue." I could not agree with you more about returning to careful exposition of Scripture (in any context) rather than the careless exclamation of subjective opinions.
On behalf of the pastors who read this, we say thank you for your respect and concern for the pastoral task. Your comments about your former pastor serve to encourage us all. Now, you've successfully urged me back to my Bible this morning. Blessings.
Post a Comment