More on Baptism Matters

I've been thinking a little more about how to explain what I mean by "baptism matters." Let me expand a little on the education analogy (acknowledging that no analogy is perfect).

To say that baptism doesn't matter unless it is a get-it-right-or-be-lost issue seems to me to say that the only things that matter are those that keep you out of heaven. To me that says that following Jesus is just a pass-fail class and nothing matters except what is required to pass the class. I'm reminded of those students in a college class (I've had some of these in my classes) who don't care about anything but the minimum required to pass. If you don't have to do it to pass, then it doesn't matter to them.

But better students want more than just to pass. They want to learn. They want to become competent in a field of study. They want to be good students. They want to be the best they can be. They want to grow. Other things matter to these students than just what it takes to pass. They want to know what it will take to make an A. They want to do more, read more, study more, discuss more, and attend class more than students who only care about passing.

Aren't there things in the Christian faith that matter even if failure to do them or understand them correctly doesn't keep you out of heaven? Do I really want to stand before God and say, "Nothing you said in the Bible mattered to me except what I thought was a requirement to get into heaven"?

Figuring out what is on the "heaven or hell" list is not always easy. But I think Jesus put his emphasis on something other than baptism.

Rob

Does Baptism Matter?

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.

A Compliment I Don’t Like Hearing

"You're the coolest 'Church of Christ' preacher I've ever met."

When a lady said this to me, I had to remind myself that she was trying to express an enthusiastic compliment. But somehow it was hard to feel very grateful. I might have felt differently if she was impressed with my undeniably cool personality or my sharp fashion sense or my familiarity with the latest cultural trends. But that was not what she meant.

The comment was made at the end of a gathering of local church leaders and members to discuss how our churches could cooperate in meeting the needs of the poor in our community. Her point was that she had known other ministers from Churches of Christ who would not have participated in such gatherings and were not open to such fellowship with other Christians.

Several times recently I've received compliments like that. One kind person said, "Some of my relatives are 'Church of Christ'—but you're not anything like them!" Now mind you, I enjoy a compliment as much as anybody. And I certainly appreciate it when people like me. But that kind of compliment causes me as much pain as it does pleasure. Such statements are not merely affirmations of something about me, they are criticisms of my religious heritage. More than criticisms, they are in fact condemnations (though probably not intentionally so) of the sectarian arrogance that has too often characterized the interactions of Church of Christ ministers and members with other followers of Jesus.

The irony, of course, is that the sectarian reputation by which Churches of Christ are too often known is completely contrary to the original vision and attitude of our movement. We began with the call to be "Christians only, but not the only Christians." Somewhere along the way, many of our churches replaced that identity with "Christians only and the only Christians" (though few if any would have openly proclaimed those words). Sadly, a nondenominational movement zealously committed to Christian unity has become widely known as a narrowly sectarian denomination.

A few days ago I sat at a luncheon for our local ministerial association. At one point in the meal, a minister attending the association for the first time looked at me with a puzzled expression and said, "Now…I have to ask something…" (I looked over at a colleague from my church and said, "Here it comes." This has happened so many times over the years that I can almost see it coming before any words come out.) Searching for the right words, he continued, "You…uh…you are from the Church of Christ, right?" ("I told you.")

"Not that kind of 'Church of Christ,'" I replied.

Everyone at the table was laughing.

I wanted to cry.

Who’s Next?

I have just learned that the standard directory of the Churches of Christ (meaning the a cappella branch of the Restoration Movement founded 200 years ago by Barton Stone and Thomas and Alexander Campbell; not the "Christian Churches/Churches of Christ," another branch of the same movement which uses instrumental music in worship; nor the International Churches of Christ, formerly known as the Crossroads/Boston/Discipling Movement, a splinter group that broke off the from Churches of Christ; nor the United Church of Christ, an entirely separate denomination with ties only in the distant past) has removed 21 churches from the 2009 edition of the directory.

Note I said "removed," not "labeled." The directory has long included a wide variety of Churches of Christ in its listings. Past editors have indicated the diversity with labels designating congregations that are one-cup, or non-class, or non-institutional, or predominately African-American, and so on. At one time they had an "ecumenical" label for those congregations that were less sectarian and less traditional than other Churches of Christ (I don't know if that designation is still used). But in this case they chose not to label these congregations. They completely removed them.

Some of those 21 churches have reportedly broken ties with the rest of the a cappella fellowship. In that case, their removal seems justified for a directory that intends to serve that fellowship. But for others, the decision is very disturbing, including the Richland Hills Church of Christ in Fort Worth (the largest Church of Christ in America) and the Farmers Branch Church of Christ in Dallas (where my son has been attending) and the Redwood Church in Redwood City, CA (where a good friend of mine now preaches, who used to serve with me as our youth minister in Houston).

And why have they been removed? Because of their use of instrumental music in one of their worship services on Sunday morning. Those three churches each have an a cappella worship service on Sunday morning, but they have also added an instrumental service (that's right—the largest a cappella Church of Christ in America also has an instrumental service on Sunday morning). And for that they are no longer listed in our directory.

These churches have not broken ties with our fellowship. Their ministers and their members still attend events and go to schools sponsored by Churches of Christ. They still baptize by immersion; keep weekly communion; believe in the authority of Scripture; and proclaim Jesus as Lord (of course, not in that order of importance). And they still value our a cappella heritage and continue to have a cappella services.

But they have decided to be both/and churches rather than either/or churches. They have decided they don't have to choose to be either exclusively a cappella or exclusively instrumental. They can offer both a cappella and instrumental services and give their members and visitors the freedom to choose. For this the editors of the directory, published by 21st Century Christian here in Nashville, have decided they are no longer one of us. (Click here for the story in The
Christian Chronicle.).

So what does this mean? Am I supposed to withdraw fellowship from the preachers at these churches, all of whom are friends of mine? Are the other Churches of Christ in their area supposed to stop inviting them to 5th Sunday Singings and area-wide Bible Bowls? (Do we still do those things?) Do we not tell members moving to those cities that these churches exist?

And who's next? If these churches are out because of Sunday morning services, what about the many Churches of Christ all over the country that have instrumental music in events at other times? That probably includes most of the largest Churches of Christ in the Nashville area. Hey, that includes my church! Are we going to be cut out of the next edition?

And what will get you cut out? Does it have to be a live instrument? What if you show a music video in the worship service? Will that get you kicked out? Or what if you show a clip from a movie during the sermon, and the movie has a sound track that includes a musical instrument? What if your Sunday School uses a CD of songs for children? What if your teens are listening to their ipods during church? (Ok, ok. Now I'm being sarcastic. But I just want to know what the rules are.)

And who gets to decide? Do the editors of this directory (apparently they think they do). Maybe we need to appoint a denominational board to rule on who is in and who is out. But wait, that won't work—we aren't a denomination . . . Right?