Joel Rainey is the Director of Missions at Mid-Maryland Baptist Association, an adjunct professor at Capital Bible Seminary and blogs at Themelios (Twitter – @joelrainey).
Hopefully, it will surprise no one reading these words to discover that I’m a Baptist. I was brought to a Baptist church for the first time when I was just a few days old. I heard the message of Jesus, and became one of His followers in a Baptist church. I was licensed and duly ordained as a Baptist minister, I’m a two-time graduate of a Baptist seminary, and I lead a Baptist missions entity. So I’m about as Baptist as they come.
And when I say I’m a Baptist, that’s more than merely a statement of how I was raised or who cuts my paycheck. I am confessionally, convictionally, Baptist. I love my Presbyterian brothers and sisters, believe we will be in heaven together, and greatly appreciate their focus on the continuity of the Biblical narrative as it is contained in Covenant Theology. Yet my best understanding of the Scriptures teaches me that infants are not, automatically, children of that covenant and thus, are not candidates for baptism. So I could never be a Presbyterian.
I also believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still active today–ALL of them, including the ones that make some of my fellow Baptists nervous. As such, I love and appreciate my Pentecostal brothers and sisters for their focus on the empowering necessity of the Holy Spirit. At the same time, the Pentecostal understanding of how miraculous phenomenon like speaking in tongues are connected to Holy Spirit baptism are problematic for a guy like me, who believes we are as immersed as we will ever be by the Holy Spirit at the moment of our conversion. So I wouldn’t make a very good, faithful Pentecostal either.
Additionally, I see the book of Acts revealing an early multiplication of very strong, and very free, self-governing churches, which means I’d be inelligible for inclusion in the United Methodist Church also. Just about any way you cut me, I bleed a brand of Christian faith that can accurately be called “Baptist.”
Yet even with the convictions I hold, I’ve been blessed, encouraged, empowered, informed, challenged, and grown by men and women from across the denominational spectrum of evangelicalism. In many ways, I would not be the man, husband, father, or pastor I am today without the positive influences of people like Tim Keller, Lawrence White, D. James Kennedy, Jack Hayford, Chuck Swindoll, Anne Graham Lotz, Bryan Chapel, Loran Livingston, Chuck Colson, Eric Metaxas, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, and a host of others. And none of the above-named people are Baptist!
In other words, I don’t mind belonging to a particular “tribe” of Christianity, so long as it doesn’t succumb to tribalism. Yet a movement is afoot in my denomination that would seek to “cleanse” us from anything, or any influence that isn’t distinctly Baptist. Sometimes this is motivated by an apparent fear that our people will join another denomination because of someone who influences them.
And yes, sometimes, a brother or sister may come to different convictions than I do about something that causes them to be true to their integrity, and join a tradition that more accurately alligns with their beliefs. Truly, there are worse things that can happen in our churches than the above display of doctrinal integrity. But honestly, if reading a single quote from D. James Kennedy turns one of my parishioners into a Presbyterian, I don’t think the problem is D. James Kennedy!
Currently, there is much discussion in our denomination about a number of movements and/or theological persuasions, and whether these pose a threat to our existence as Baptists. But of all the “isms” I know of that exist within our ranks, none from my vantage point seem to pose as big a threat as does “tribalism.”
Tribalism might be a threat to you if:
1. Denominationalism is a substitute for discipleship. By any measurable standard, the evangelical world as a whole is not “making disciples,” as Jesus commanded, at least not those of the Romans 12:1-2 sort. So, when you discover someone who is actually making disciples–marriages are strong, kids are raised in the fear of God, addictions are overcome, and society is positively changed as a result of the Gospel–is your first reaction to celebrate that fact, or is it to make sure that ministry performs baptisms the same way yours does, or holds to your own doctrinal position on alcohol consumption, Calvinism, or worship style? If so, you may be a victim of tribalism.
2. Secondary issues are elevated to Gospel issues. A few years ago, one of our mission boards actually stated that baptism by immersion as a sign of conversion wasn’t enough to be a “Baptist” missionary. It had to have taken place in a church that affirms “eternal security.” So, if you were confessionally, convictionally Baptist, but were immersed in a Pentecostal or Nazarene environment, you were put out to pasture, unless you agreed to be “baptized” in an SBC church. When I asked one trustee about this decision, I was actually told that holiness and Pentecostal churches teach “a works salvation in reverse.” This man demonstrated both a horrible misunderstanding of the historical and theological underpinnings of Arminianism, as well as a grotesquely myopic view of the meaning of baptism. I’m not sure which of these caused the other in this “chicken-egg” conundrum, but the end result was a claim that because Pentecostals don’t believe as we do on an issue not central to saving faith, they don’t proclaim the Gospel at all. When a command of Jesus is domesticated and perverted to the extent that you believe it identifies you with a denominational tradition more than the King of Kings, you might be a victim of tribalism.
3. Identity turns to Isolation. Occasionally, I run into this in the church planting world, when I’m told, in spite of the fact that there may be multiple Gospel-preaching churches in a given area, that we may need to put a church there anyway because “there is no BAPTIST work there.” Thankfully, such hubris doesn’t exist in my Association or state convention, but I’ve certainly heard this sort of thing in the larger Baptist world. If you think we don’t need other Christian traditions working with us to accomplish the Great Commission–or worse yet, if you think the Great Commission can’t be accomplished unless we are driving the work in a given area–you may be a victim of tribalism.
I think our work is important, and I think our identity is important. As the head of a Baptist missions entity, that’s why I won’t put a Lutheran on the field to plant a church, or encourage one of my established churches to hire a Pentecostal, or consider anyone for missionary service under our banner who would be OK with throwing water on a baby and calling it baptism. But I don’t have to be your twin to be your brother, and the sooner all Southern Baptists realize our dire need for the wider body of Christ to accomplish His mission, the healthier and more effective we will be within our own tribe. Ironically, that will also be the moment when our identity is more firmly established, because it will be in Jesus.
Good post, Joel
“I think our work is important, and I think our identity is important. As the head of a Baptist missions entity, that’s why I won’t put a Lutheran on the field to plant a church, or encourage one of my established churches to hire a Pentecostal, or consider anyone for missionary service under our banner who would be OK with throwing water on a baby and calling it baptism. ”
That makes sense.
I don’t want to be tribal or divisive, but Canadians are simply not allowed on SBC Voices for the next 48 to 72 hours.
Now THAT is something worth fighting over! 🙂
I have a question…
Why are they ever allowed at all? 😉
oops…delete that please, Dave…NSFW
Greg, what goes on the internet, stays on the internet. 😉
Yeah…oh well…what can I say. Usually I can spot stuff like that on my first scan.
I took it down for ya
Now I’m curious.
You can find it in the comment trash can if you really want…
It was a poem that played off the phrase “Canuck-nuck-nuck” that my brain put together between your comment and the Three Stooges “nyuck-nyuck-nyuck”. It was actually hilarious, but it dropped an f-bomb which isn’t acceptable at my workplace. I missed it on my first scan but the concern about rhymes with “Canuck” made me do a second scan.
Great post, Joel! May your tribe increase.
Thanks Todd. Sometimes Im a little slow to notice things, & just now saw the pun intended part of this post. So only now can I truly say “I see what you did there.”
Maybe ANTI Tribe is a Tribe? Maybe yall are into Tribalism, big time?
David 🙂
Lol….
Years ago it was “cool” among some teenaged girls to claim to be nonconformists and dress in all black, wearing black lipstick, nail polish and such….I always playfully mocked them saying “if you band together dress alike and act alike, you’re not exactly non conformists”. Lol.
Just so we’re clear, Joel, the ridiculous IMB policy requiring baptism in a church that believes in eternal security is still in place.
And, I too was given the rationale by the trustee who crafted the policy that Arminians supposedly teach a false gospel. This policy has received much criticism over the years and even sparked an effort and an approved motion from the SBC floor (aka the “Garner” motion). It’s time for that policy to be revised!
I agree the policy essentially requiring baptism in a Southern Baptist church is without a doubt, as a teacher of mine was fond of saying, a superfluity of poppycock.
There may be a little more to that requirement under the surface. Landmarkism is still an influence in some areas of the SBC. Of course, that too is a superfluity of poppycock.
No question that landmarkist error was a hugely influential force behind this decision.
To be clear…I think both believers baptism by immersion and a personal conviction to it on the part of the SBC Zmissionary should be required….
But to go so far as prohibiting a qualified missionary on the basis that he/she was baptized in a church or by a pastor who doesn’t walk the line is a little much.
I’m sure some who were baptized in SBC churches were potentially baptized by pastors who may deny scriptural inerrancy or authority (they do exist in the SBC)…but as for the candidate they’ve rejected that teaching and demonstrated such….are they prohibited too?
“I’m sure some who were baptized in SBC churches were potentially baptized by pastors who may deny scriptural inerrancy or authority (they do exist in the SBC . . . ”
Right as the rain. . . . and therein did lay the problem with much of the IMB wars which launched Baptist Blogging to a second branch of Baptist Press.
A lot of what sparked all the blogging wasn’t as much about Landmarkism, as it was about having a sound belief about baptism. We had people advocating baptisms by Mormons as being okay. We had people saying that it was an okay baptism, if a Momma baptized her child in the backyard, kiddy pool with just her and the child involved. And, we even had people saying that baptisms by the Church of Christ should be looked upon as being allowed and accepted. The question then discussed was….who had to be okay with the baptism? the person? or, the Church?… Read more »
David, absolutely no one advocated baptism by Mormons. That was a twisting if his statement which was continued for political purposes even after clarification. Unfair.
It was stated that the person would accept the baptism of the person, who had been baptized by a Mormon Church, if the person was truly saved, and did not believe that the baptism saved him.
That’s the truth of it. And, it’s still accepting a Mormon baptism, no matter which way you slice it.
David
Just saw this. I haven’t been checking the comment streams for a couple of days. David, Everyone who has followed Baptist blogs closely for sometime now knows you are talking about me. I appreciate you not naming names, and understand why you did not, but that still does not excuse what you have done here. There is some nuance involved, and I admit it may appear convoluted to some, because the issues are somewhat complicated; but the way you have stated your case here (if indeed you are referring to me) is simply not true, and can be interpreted as… Read more »
David Rogers, I truly do not mean to slander you, or anyone else. What was the false statement? Did you not state that you believed that we should accept the baptism of someone, who was baptized by a Mormon? It is truly my understanding that this is a Mormon baptism, no matter how you slice it. I just can’t see it any other way. Honestly. So, if you can explain it to me, I’d be glad to say that you wouldn’t fit into the category of accepting a Mormon baptism. Although, I’d bet that there are others, out there, who… Read more »
Okay, David. I accept your apology, and I don’t judge your motives. 1. When I wrote about this way back, I was responding to a question that was asked that set me up. I did not bring up the topic myself, nor had any reason to bring it up. 2. The issue at stake is the absolute necessity of a so-called valid administrator in order to make baptism valid. If we say that only those who are truly saved and have truly gospel doctrine are the only valid administrators, we run into a problem. Many people are baptized by those… Read more »
By the way, the following article by Kevin DeYoung, who is a Presbyterian, and a true brother in Christ with whom I agree on many things, is a good example to me of where the teaching that baptism hinges on a valid adminstrator leads you.
I think the many people who commented refuting his arguments (or at least the great majority of them) are spot on, and point out the biblical inconsistencies with this line of thinking. I recommend reading all the comments.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/mobile/article/kevindeyoung/who-can-baptize
Why was my comment deleted, Dave? I honestly cannot understand why that comment with a quote from David R. Would be deleted???
Boy, y’all are really get delete happy.
David
David, I am not sure exactly why your comment was deleted, but I can imagine why. As part of the team of contributors here, I was able to look in the deleted comments folder and found your comment. Though it was indeed a quote of mine from a blogpost of several years ago, it did not add any new information to what I have already stated here. I was saying essentially the same thing in that comment as I have said here in my lengthy six-point comment, only I explain myself with greater detail here. To be totally honest, I… Read more »
I still don’t think my comment should’ve been deleted. I’m just scratching my head at why it would be. I was just trying to show from the comment why I thought the way I did, and it was not slander, to be saying what I said.
David
David Worley,
For what it’s worth, I agree – your comment should not have been deleted.
You were simply defending and explaining what you said.
But then, a number of my comments here have also been deleted.
David R. Brumbelow
Thanks, David B.
David W.
It was a bad policy then and it still is now.
Dave, As I’ve said before….many times….I’m not a Landmarkist. I would be willing to accept any baptism, if it’s done because the person was saved, and it was by immersion, and the Church believed in salvation by grace thru faith. So, if a baptism was done by a Church that believes like we do about salvation and baptism, then it should be considered a good, Scriptural baptism….whether it’s by Freewill Church, or Providence Church, or by Hallelujah People’s Church, or Cross Pointe Church, or CrossWay Church, or Life Point Church, or Grace Point Church, or by Holy Spirit Assembly of… Read more »
So…..
I know of many Presbyterian churches that if they have someone come to faith as a teen or adult (particularly if it is on a missions trip or youth camp), they will baptize them (assuming they were not baptized as an infant), through immersion. And I don’t know of any presbyterian church that does not believe in Sola Gratia and Sola Fida.
So, would you accept that baptism? It fits all your criteria.
SVMUS,
OF course, I would be for accepting that baptism. Yes. But, of course, it’s a Church decision….so, it depends on the Church.
And, the IMB should accept such baptisms….IMHO.
David
I assume you’re referring to the more conservative and Reformed Presbyterian churches?
SVM,
That is true. I know Presbyterian ministers (PCA) who would baptize by immersion upon a profession of faith. It is fairly rare but does occur. It should also be noted that PCA baptisms are to occur in the context of a worship service where the word is preached and is to be performed by a duly ordained minister of the gospel.
Question: Would you all receive that baptism if the recipient then immediately upon baptism also partook of communion and drank wine from that little cup? 🙂 🙂
Now Les, you know good and well that If they use real wine…Volfan woukd say that is “unwise”. 😉
Tarheel,
You know me well.
David 🙂
Tarheel,
I was just trying to add a little levity (not the synonym “light-headedness”).
BTW, is there such a thing a unreal wine? 🙂
Lol.
I was joining in the fun…and to answer your question…
NO. 🙂
Tarheel,
You get Presbyterian, sprinkling and wine in the comment thread on a Baptist blog and well… 🙂
Les. Prouty and Tarheel,
The use of beverage alcohol kills more children than do all illegal drugs combined. The use of alcohol as a beverage is unwise. You may try as you please, but you will never be able to “wash that down” no matter how much you drink to try.
The use of wine in communion, or a single glass with a dinner every once in a while, or the enjoyment of a beverage by one who never reaches intoxication….does all that?
Wow.
Jesus and the apostles really started something when they occasionally drank it didn’t they?! 🙂
CB, Where is that statistic? I found this: Number of deaths for leading causes of death • Heart disease: 597,689 • Cancer: 574,743 • Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080 • Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476 • Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859 • Alzheimer’s disease: 83,494 • Diabetes: 69,071 • Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476 • Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097 • Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364 Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2010, table 10 and… Cause of death (Data from 2010 unless otherwise noted) Number All Causes 2,468,435 Diseases of Heart 780,213 Malignant Neoplasms [Cancer] 574,743 Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases 138,080 Cerebrovascular Diseases 129,476… Read more »
Yep.
Leave the stuff alone. You will grow up far more healthy, wealthy, and far, far more wise.
Les Pourty,
Start with these guys and work your through it for a few days:
The Council on Alcohol and Drugs, livedrugfree.org
Or, just keep laughing. The choice is yours.
CB, I’m not laughing. Seriously. Any death is not a laughing matter. I just had not seen that stat before. I’ll look it up.
CB, I went to the link. I can’t find stats. Maybe one needs to be a member or something. Seriously interested in the stats though, so if you or someone could find a link that would be much appreciated.
Les Prouty, Did you think I just made that up? Do you think I just woke up one day and said, I know, I’ll just jump on guys who use Beverage alcohol and give them a hard time for the fun of it.”?? It is not funny to me either. To me, it is a shame that is going to come back to bite far too many who think they were able to handle what they can’t. . . . and kids die because of it. I like you Les Prouty. I think highly of your ministry to children. But… Read more »
No CB I don’t think you just made it up. I would just like to see the report containing the stats. I will use it to teach as well. What you stated is tragic. Children should not be using beverage alcohol or illegal drugs. This can be an excellent teaching tool. I will need the report to back up what I say though. I just could not find it where you pointed me. So if you can point me to the report that will be greatly appreciated. For adult consumption of beverage alcohol, “you are as wrong as you can… Read more »
Les Prouty,
You will find it. I did. And yes, I do belong to and support the Southeast Georgia Alcohol Abuse Prevention Initiative. However, the material is not blocked or hidden. You can find it and you should.
And no, I am not wrong about adult use of beverage alcohol. Les, where do you think kids get their beverage alcohol? From Wes Kenney’s mule? Not hardly.
CB, I finally found the quote on a linked site. Now looking for the source for the statement. No direct link was provided for the statement.
Thanks.
We have argued the moderate use of beverage alcohol forever but here are some good stats for using red wine:
https://www.yahoo.com/food/is-red-wine-the-absolute-best-thing-you-can-drink-77734088911.html
David, If the IMB would revise their policy by simply cutting and pasting your paragraph above into their manual, I’d be for it, and I think you and they would find that this issue would quickly no longer be an issue. The problem is that the BoT went much further. I’m with you–allowing a Mormon baptism would be to take away from the Scriptural meaning of the ordinance, because Mormons–wonderful people as they are–do not believe or proclaim the Christian Gospel. But Pentecostals, Nazarenes, and other Arminian churches who practice believer’s baptism by immersion do, so to say baptisms taking… Read more »
Wow, this discussion has that deja vu feeling; doesn’t it?
David
Its deja vu all over again.
But, I absolutely would NOT be for accepting baptisms by a Mormon Church, or by the JW’s, or by the Campbellite Church of Christs, or by any Church, which doesn’t believe in Believers baptism by immersion and salvation by grace thru faith. And, I wouldn’t be for any baptisms that Uncle Sammy did, in the back of the bar, after leading his fellow drinker to the Lord; or by Big Momma, who just led her 5 yr old to the Lord, and decided to go ahead and baptize her little boy in the pond behind the house; or by Rev.… Read more »
Vol’s comment is as it was. That became the rub for many of us.
However, it must be stated; Some of the BoT of the IMB were nuts as a March hare and Packinghouse Rats. It is also true that flocks of those who opposed them were Wild Geese and just as nuts.
The whole ordeal of the IMB War became the Baptist French Revelation.
Volfan: The problem with some Baptists relative to accepting various baptisms is that there is an inference that the person was has been previously been baptized both understands and agrees with whatever flavor of baptism that the other church practices. In my case, I was baptized by immersion in a Christian Church (i.e. Disciples of Christ). I didn’t know the theological details of whether I was being baptized because I was joining the church vs. being baptized because I had become a Christian. I was a teenager at the time. Later when I joined a Southern Baptist church I was… Read more »
Roger, I can identify with your baptism journey. I was sprinkled by the Methodist as a lost boy. I later was immersed by a Baptist Church…in order to join the Church….and, was still lost. Later, I got baptized for real, after really being saved…..and, I got it right….getting baptized because I was saved. Again Roger, I believe that the ordinance of baptism and the Lord’s Supper was given to the Church, a local body of Believers, and not to a single, individual person. Therefore, our baptism has to be acceptable tot he Church that you want to join, or to… Read more »
David,
Do you believe that the Church is always a local body of believers?
John,
Of course, the universal Church is all the Believers all over the world. BUT, the universal Church is always seen in the visible, local body of Believers….in a local Church. There aren’t supposed to be any Lone Ranger Christians, out there, just doing thier own thing, however they want to do it. God made us to belong to a community of Believers called the Church. The NT is full of this teaching.
David
Stop being so reasonable, David: we’ll never get to 666 comments if you keep that up…
Greg,
🙂
David
Joel, et al,
Let’s not forget that many denominations that by their name ought to be Christian have now become apostate, and are no more a part of the true Church than the Mormons. It does not matter if they have a respectable name, such as Baptist, if they have thrown out the Bible and accept gay marriage, etc.
I think this is the balance that we are constantly trying to find in the SBC. We are a tribe of like-minded folks, but when we become tribal, superior, arrogant, judgmental – that is when it gets bad.
I really like this one, Joel. The guy who decided to post it here at Voices was brilliant.