In the late 1970s, in a class on Restoration History at Abilene Christian University (a "Church of Christ" school), Dr. Bill Humble explained that the Churches of Christ had begun as a nondenominational movement. They saw themselves as "Christians only, not the only Christians." However, he further explained that we had been evolving into a denomination, and that the evolution was virtually complete. It was an eye-opening examination of our roots and of the current state of our fellowship.
In the early 1980s I had my first experience of true nondenominational Christianity when I attended graduate school at Wheaton College, a nondenominational evangelical school. Professors from a variety of Christian traditions deepened my understanding of the Scriptures, matured my faith in Christ, and challenged my walk with God. Students from a variety of denominations joined together in study, worship, and fellowship. Denominational identities were relatively unimportant and virtually ignored (at that time, every member of the Theology faculty was attending a different denomination than the one in which he had been raised). What mattered most was that we shared a common faith in Christ, a common trust in the inspiration and authority of the Scripture, and a common fellowship in the family of God. I had grown up in churches and schools that claimed to be nondenominational, but it wasn't until I reached Wheaton that I realized how misleading those claims had been.
In the years that followed I had more and more opportunities to enjoy fellowship across denominational lines. In Promise Keepers rallies, local ministerial associations, church leadership conferences, gatherings of Pro-Life clergy, a city-wide prayer movement in Houston, and more, I would find myself in worship and prayer and study side-by-side with Christians from across the entire spectrum of the Christian church. I sang with Pentecostals, planned city-wide prayer services with Baptists, prayed for the unborn with Catholics, and learned about church growth from Methodists.
And throughout that journey, one objection has continually been raised by sincerely troubled members of my own fellowship—good folk who, knowingly or not, have rejected the nondenominational roots of our churches. "If you accept all those other groups as Christians," some will say, "then you are saying that baptism doesn't matter." What they are saying is that one must be properly baptized, as we understand the New Testament to teach baptism, in order to be Christian and be saved. If you say that someone can be a Christian and be saved without being properly baptized, then you are saying that baptism doesn't matter.
But is that really true? Are the only options either to say that correct baptism is an absolute, essential, indispensable requirement for salvation and fellowship or to say that baptism doesn't matter? Is there nothing in between?
Can I say that Jesus and the apostles commanded baptism, and that they practiced it by immersion; that God intended for all believers to be baptized as part of becoming a Christian and receiving his forgiveness; and that I believe God intended baptism to be "believer's baptism" (i.e., baptism based on one's own faith and repentance) rather than infant baptism; but, also acknowledge that many believers in Jesus (most, in fact) have sincerely reached different conclusions? Can't I also say that God is judge, not me; and, it is not my place to decide which persons who claim to be Christians may, in fact, be weeds which God may someday separate from the wheat? Can't I also say that since salvation is by grace through faith, not by works, that someone who believes in Jesus and is mistaken about baptism will be saved by the same grace and mercy of Jesus that I trust will save me in my own errors of understanding? Can't I acknowledge that the New Testament never directly addresses the issue of when to baptize children raised in Christian homes, and therefore acknowledge that as convinced as I am of the correctness of believer's baptism, some will sincerely come to different conclusions?
Are the only things that "matter" the ones which will keep you out of heaven? Is the Christian life just a "pass-fail" class, and the only things that matter are the ones required for you to pass? Isn't it important to try and do more than the minimum? Doesn't obedience matter, even if perfect obedience isn't required for salvation? Doesn't it matter for us to continue to teach "New Testament baptism" (as we understand it) to those who would follow Jesus, even though we may acknowledge that many have come to follow Jesus without being taught about that baptism? Doesn't it matter to practice and teach what we understand the Scriptures to teach, even though we trust that God's mercy will save both us and others who do not perfectly understand what the Scriptures teach? Doesn't it matter for us to do what we sincerely believe God wants us to do, without condemning those who sincerely think differently?
Yes, baptism matters!
I just think Jesus matters more.
6 comments:
i love this... this is a discussion we have as a church very often and i think you nailed it.... Baptism does matter, but Jesus matters MORE! AMEN!
"...errors in understanding?" We are not permitted errors of understanding. Everybody knows that. And why do we need forgiveness for errors of understanding since none of us in the "true church" have any errors of understanding. Right? :-)
(Just felt like being sarcastic today.)
Thanks, Christy. I'm convinced that the subject of baptism was pretty simple in the New Testament period. But it's sure become complicated over the centuries. Sometimes the only thing I know to do is just try and get the focus on what ultimately matters.
Rob
Sarcastic or not, Sean, I think you point to one of the real issues. Most Christians will acknowledge that no one has perfect understanding, and yet so often Christians seem to require perfect undertanding on a few subjects important to each one's own particular fellowship.
Rob
Hi Rob,
I'm sympathetic to your case, but in the end - I hope you will take this in the spirit of honest and frank discussion - find it to be somewhat of a cop-out. "Baptism matters, but Jesus matters more." In what sense, exactly, does baptism matter? You've just spent the whole article saying, in effect, that it doesn't really matter, that it is basically a matter of indifference in relations with the other denominations. But I know you can't say directly that it doesn't matter, even if you consciously thought about it in that way, because there would be controversy tomorrow.
I have a friend who sincerely believes baptism and the Lord's Supper to be obsolete, completely non-applicable to our generation. He doesn't believe you need to be sprinkled, poured upon, or immersed, whether as a baby or an adult. He's hardly the only one to come to such a conclusion. How would you relate to those sincere believers in Jesus who don't believe in or practice baptism at all? And what does it say about whether baptism actually matters? It seems to me that your approach reduces baptism - again, not deliberately or consciously, but in effect - to the level of mere denominational preference, such as whether or not to put a cross in front of the building.
Here's what your case seems to imply to me: That there is another way of salvation other than that spelled out explicitly in the New Testament. We've read between the lines, and are sure it is there, at least in spirit. (If there was an explicit case to be made from the Bible, it wouldn't be necessary to persuade using a series of rhetorical/leading questions devoid of reference to specific verses). But you can't blame those who are skeptical of such between-the-lines reasoning. And for those who interpret baptism as the new birth, aren't they reasonable for believing that Jesus' categorical statement ("No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the spirit") necessarily excludes those who have not been baptized? We can't just dismiss them as divisive extremists. They came to their views sincerely as well.
I allow for a lot latitude on this issue, and generally am inclined to treat other believers as brothers. I know it is what I want to believe, but am not certain it is so. There is nothing definitive in the New Testament to support what I want to believe, though; I'm capable of seeing that. And I would feel compelled, in anything much beyond a superficial association with other believers, to explain what I believe the Bible requires, and then leave the matter up to them. That much is owed them, at least.
Kind regards,
C. Perkins
Casey,
Thanks for posting. I always appreciate our conversations. But to be honest, this post puzzles me. Most of my blog was about "in what sense does baptism matter." What I tried to say is that it doesn't have to be a heaven-or-hell, get-it-exactly-right-or-nothing-else-matters issue to matter. Take a look again at the questions in the latter part of the blog. They are sincere. Don't other things matter besides something you have to do or be lost? For example, I believe obedience matters, though perfect obedience is not demanded to get to heaven. But because obedience matters, baptism matters. That means it is important to teach, important to try and understand, important to do. But "important" and "heaven or hell" do not mean the same thing to me.
And for the record, if I thought baptism didn't really matter, then I would say so.
As for scriptures, part of the problem is that there are no scriptures about how to view Christians who see baptism differently than I do, because at that time there don't seem to have been the debates on this subject we have now. As I noted in the blog, there are no passages whatsoever about how baptism relates to children who grow up in the church. None. Not to support infant baptism. Not to support adolescent baptism. Believers baptism supporters like us put the emphasis on the baptism of repentance passages and try to figure how they apply to kids who always believed. Infant baptists talk about circumsion in the Old Testament and point to Col. 2. I think they have a point, but I think their interpretation is flawed. They feel the same about me. So in the end, I have to admit this is a matter of interpretation. Yes, some view John 3 in the way you mentioned (be baptized or you can't be saved); but that too is an interpretation open to debate. I don't dismiss their view, but I reject it.
What I object to is being told that seeing other Christians as my brothers and sisters amounts to saying that baptism doesn't matter. Once again, why does something have to be a heaven or hell issue to matter. Is there no other way in which something matters? Does it matter whether we take the Lord's Supper every Sunday? I think so. But I don't think you'll go to hell if you don't. Does it matter if we tithe? I believe it does, but I don't think you aren't a Christian if you don't. Does it matter if I divorce my wife? Absolutely! But I think divorced people can and do receive God's mercy.
Baptism matters enough to me that I have baptized every person I've ever converted. It matters enough that I have taught those baptized as infants that they need to be baptized in baptism of repentance, and I baptized them. It matters enough that I baptized my daughter and son. It matters enough that I think membership in our church should involve sharing a commitment to believers baptism.
But I do think that belief in Jesus matters more than shared understandings of baptism when it comes to being regarded as followers of Jesus, members of the family of God, and sharers in the hope of heaven. I believe that because of my understanding of Ephesians and Romans, not just because it's what I want to believe.
I hope that helps clarify my intent. Thanks again for the discussion.
Rob
Post a Comment