Reception of Members
Introduction
This is likely one of the most difficult topics for me to preach on within this series. It is difficult for 2 reasons:
1. Church membership, as we know it, is an alien idea to the New Testament. The New Testament shows that a new believer was baptized and immediately considered part of the Christian assembly. The idea of applying for membership status as we know it was non-existent; and
2. There is no prescriptive text in Scripture that specifically set out the prerequisites for church members. Of course all of the inspired canon of Scripture is given that we might know how to live, as God’s people. But any specific teaching on membership, as we know it, is based upon implications and principles.
I believe that Christians can have varying degrees of commonality depending on the type of association. For example there are:
Varying Degrees of Commonality
A. Co-belligerent Association.
This relationship is typified by this image. If the blue describes what we have in common and the red describes what we differ on, this is obviously a very distant relationship. It is best described as co-belligerent. In other words we work together on a specific and common goal, but it is very focused and temporary – and certainly not intimate. We might join all kinds of people for a pro-life demonstration. That would not at all assume we have close fellowship on other values and beliefs.
B. Co-operative Association.
This relationship describes greater commonality. It describes, perhaps a situation where churches of like faith serve together for a cooperative ministry such as humanitarian aid, missions, education, etc. This relationship assumes that we have a high degree of common values and beliefs.
C. Co- Congregant Association
As the concentric circles become tighter and more intimate we see that there is less and less area that divides; and more and more area that is in common. This, I believe, ought to be the image of congregational membership.
Now of course this is the issue of contention. This is the motivation behind this message. How do we decide what areas must be agreed to; and how do we decide what differences we can live with?
Someone might say, “Shouldn’t we agree on everything?” My answer is “no”; and I say that for 2 reasons:
#1. The Great Commission: According to Matthew 28:19-20 the Church is to be active in evangelism, baptizing converts (e.g., assimilating them into the church); and teaching them. There is an underlying assumption that when you become part of the Church – you don’t know everything yet!
#2. The Love Chapter: According to 1 Corinthians 13:11-12 the current status of every believer is to some degree immaturity (i.e., the role of the church to bring people to maturity (Eph 4:12-13); and we all “only see in part”.
Therefore there will not be absolutely perfect unanimity on all and every issue. There will always be some red areas in our relationship! Norman Geisler[1] asks an important question: “Is the local church an institution of the edified or of edification? Is it a group of people who are already perfect or who are being perfected?” How you answer that question is a key determining factor in membership prerequisites.
What Are The Essentials?
Dr. Gary Inrig, in his book: Life In His Body[2], says, “The Bible does not make a distinction between requirements for membership in the Body of Christ and its local manifestation.” What he is saying is that there is no evidence in the Scriptures to differ between the requirements of salvation (thus becoming part of the universal Church) and the requirements of membership (becoming part of the local church). If Inrig is right (and I think he is) I believe there are 7 essential truths that are not for sale – they are ‘hills to die on’! (Now let me affirm that I’m not recommending that a church statement of faith be reduced to these. I’m simply suggesting that these are ‘must believes’ in order for any kind of congregational membership.)
A. WHAT MUST YOU KNOW TO BE SAVED?
#1. You must believe there is an infallible, inerrant, inspired Bible that is the basis for truth.
#2. You must believe there is a personal God. You must believe there is a God. In doing so, you acknowledge all the essential qualities of Deity. To believe He is personal, though, means He can be related to through His three essential personalities: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
#3. You must believe that there is an incarnate Lord and Savior. God became man, Jesus of Nazareth to show us the Father and to establish His lordship over our lives.
#4. You must believe that this Lord died for your sins, suffered triumphantly for your complete salvation and rose from the dead.
#5. You must believe that you are totally incapable of saving yourself and that salvation rests solely upon the gift of God, received by faith alone in Jesus the Lord.
#6. You must believe that this Lord and Savior is coming again as King of kings to judge and to rule; and without holiness know one will go to Heaven and that He has given the believer His Holy Spirit to enable us to progress toward that end.
#7. You must believe in the Bible’s demands on what to “do” to be saved.
B. WHAT MUST YOU DO TO BE SAVED?
Salvation is impossible apart from profession of faith. Only the Lord truly knows those who are His (2 Timothy 2:19) but we are expected to receive people based on their profession of faith. By what means does this profession take place? Answer: By repentance; belief in the Truth and baptism (for example: Acts 2:37-41). This baptism is a believer’s baptism. It is the choice of a maturing, rational person. It does not include infants. At no time in this discussion am I granting any validity to infant baptism in regard to the salvation or profession of the child. There is but one baptism that equates to a profession of faith and that is by a maturing, rational person.
“Is that all there is?” Of course not! That profession of faith with the mouth and that profession of faith in baptism ought to be supported by a lifestyle that is consistent with the New Testament’s characteristics of born-again people (1John, particularly).
Why Did Paul Call Us to Unity in Mind and Purpose?
The question might be asked, “Pastor Jim, then why did Paul call the church to such a high standard of unity in mind and purpose if your teaching is correct?” Well let’s look at each one of these ‘calls’ individually. (I’m not doing a comprehensive, technical exegesis on each of this. I share my conclusions and you can search the Scripture to discern the truthfulness of it.)
A. Philippians 2:2 (page 154 in the N.T.)
This verse says, “make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.” Now what did Paul mean when he wrote that? Did he mean that there needed to have unanimity on all matters? How would the Philippians have understood him? Well a careful reading of the text and context would point us to this: Jesus Christ is shown to be the archetype. What was the mind, intent, and purpose of Jesus? Answer: He became a servant. He lovingly identified himself with man. He was intent on obeying the Father – even to death. I am convinced that Paul is calling this Church to have that same mind of Christ: humble, obedient service. I believe that all church members ought to be unified on this: we serve God and one another with humble obedience (N.B.: This is what Christ taught in John 13).
B. Romans 15:5 (page 128 in the N.T.)
Now Paul makes a similar exhortation in this verse. He writes in Verse 5: “Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus.” Now again the context dismisses the notion that we are all to think exactly alike. The context dismisses the notion of “cookie-cutter Christians”. What does the context teach? John MacArthur sums it up beautifully in his Study Bible:
“Paul urges the strong and weak [those who differ over debatable issues of conscience], despite their differing views on these non-essential issues, to pursue loving, spiritual harmony in regard to matters on which the Bible is silent.”
I think that is very evident in the text. The third one is found in ….
Romans 12:16 (page 126 in the N.T.)
The verse reads, “Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation.” Again the context gives light to the meaning. Like James (chapter 2), Paul picks up this theme of partiality. To have the same mind to one another is to be devoid of conceit and feelings of superiority.
Summary of Unity Exhortations
In the membership of the local church then, we are all to have the same mind, same attitude, same purpose, etc. What should that look like? Absolutely no difference in doctrine or understanding? No! What the New Testament teaches is that unity on display means that we humbly serve one another, seeking to obey God, no matter what the cost. It means also that we don’t make non-essential issues divide us. It also means that we view each other without superiority or conceit.
The Case Before Us!
Now there is an issue before us that must be considered. Our current church position states that membership in
#1. That is not an unwarranted demand in a Baptist church. It ought to be deemed normal that a Baptist church teaches and practices baptism by immersion. It is not unusual that such a church would require acceptance of this of its members.
#2. Having said that, we recall that nearly 19 years ago, this membership did already take three individuals who had been affused or sprinkled into membership. We recognized them as having a true and credible profession of faith and acted accordingly. These people are still members.
#3. The issue that is being discussed and debated is NOT baptism. I am neither recommending nor advocating a change in baptistic mode. I am convinced that the Bible teaches believer’s baptism by immersion. As long as I pastor this church, this will be the mode taught and practiced.
The key question in this discussion is, “What is the essential criteria by which a person is taken into membership?” Let me remind you that the task of the local church is to ascertain whether or not a person has a credible and observable profession of faith. That is what recognizes a person as part of the Body of Christ. It is not the role of the church to demand perfection in all things. Growing in grace and knowledge is what ought to occur in all our lives.
If you arrive at a point where an immersed person is deemed to have a credible profession of faith and a person sprinkled is viewed as NOT having a credible profession of faith – you can readily see how odious this.
As John MacArthur writes[3]: “. . . if a person, in good faith, was raised in that environment, or converted in an environment where sprinkling was the mode of baptism, and in good faith they made their public testimony of their faith in Jesus Christ, and were instructed that this is the manner in which you do that--their conscience was clear and they were obedient to that which was taught to them--we would acknowledge that . . . we wouldn't want to eliminate their membership because of the mode.”
To eliminate a person from membership in the Church due only to the mode of their believer’s baptism is to essentially deny their profession of faith. That is why I see this as incredibly detrimental to the Body of Christ.
Some Objections
I have sought for some time to requisition objections from formidable Christian leaders and our denomination. There have been mainly 2 objections offered. The first I won’t deal with very extensively. The second more so …
#1. The Denominational Association Issue
It is viewed by some that to officially adopt a position permitting, at some level, non-immersed, baptized believers into membership would break association with our Fellowship. To that concern I suggest the following:
a. We have asked that the matter be discussed and debated. That request was refused.
b. I have asked that if I have erred in the Biblical understanding as I have expressed it, that I be shown how that is so. I was told that essentially there was no dispute with. In fact the two pastors that were sent to interview me said they agreed with the position.
c. Most importantly, as on any issue, we are left to resolve the matter on our own and do what is right, first and foremost, according to Scripture.
#2. The ‘Slippery Slope’ Issue
Someone might say that they understand the rationale of the argument and even agree with it, but to let a non-immersed believer into membership would slowly erode the baptistic position on immersion. They call it a slippery slope.
Let me suggest a number of responses to that:
a. The 20 year history of our membership would refute that fear.
b. We already permit membership wherein we do not require absolute agreement with doctrines that are far more significant than the mode of baptism. There are members who have or would disagree on other doctrines including God’s character, man’s nature in sin, predestination and eternal security to name a few. It is my opinion that it is illogical to hold the line on lesser matters of faith while being tolerant on momentous ones.
c. Prospective members are normally not asked to agree without reservation to the Statement of Faith, but are asked to respect it and abide by it.
d. I would also suggest that it be requisite for the elders of the Church to agree with the current statement of faith without reservation and in its entirety. I also suggest that teachers in the church who knowingly give instruction contrary to the Statement of Faith ought to be subject to corrective action.
e. I have drafted a statement that would call for a serious dialogue and decision to occur prior to anyone being recommended for membership who has not been immersed; but who has been affused or sprinkled as a maturing rational believer. It is worded like this:
A person may be considered by the membership wherein an individual:
(1) Has been baptized with understanding and by personal decision, as a believer in Christ, by another mode, proclaiming his/her saving relationship with Christ Jesus;
(2) Where after considerable prayer, study, and interaction with our church elders, the candidates are taught biblical immersion with the aim of bringing about a change of mind;
(3) Where they can give satisfactory and biblical understanding of their baptism;
(4) Where they sincerely and humbly believe that it would be contrary to Scripture and conscience to be re-baptized by immersion;
(5) Where the individual(s) being considered will respond in submission to the Church Statement of Faith and resolve not to be contentious;
(6) Where all other applicant requirements are satisfactorily met; and
(7) Where the church elders unreservedly recommend to the membership the reception of these applicants.
This does not open the door widely, but it does permit an attitude of Christian charity where an individual with deep biblical conviction and conscience holds to baptism by affusion or sprinkling.
Conclusion
Again, am I backpedaling on immersion? Not in the least! Am I backpedaling on the necessity of baptism for membership? No! I’m simply suggesting that there may be cases where mercy takes precedent over ritual. I’m suggesting that there may be cases where it amounts to idolatry to strain at the gnat and fail to have compassion.
Obviously this teaching places me in a very tenuous position as a pastor of a Baptist church. I choose not to be melodramatic, but unless convinced of Scripture and of Biblical wisdom, I hold this position with great humility. If you as a congregation choose not to accept this position, I will accept your decision as from the Lord until He shows otherwise. I simply ask that you give prayerful, Bible saturated consideration to this. I ask that you be Berean in every sense of that word (Acts 17:11). The primary ethos of this teaching is that the mode itself is not a “hill to die on”. I will not make it so no matter what the final outcome is.
No comments:
Post a Comment