Grass mowed?
Check.
Inflatable pool set up in the back yard?
Check.
Lesson prepped?
Check.
Everyone advised as to the change in locale?
Check
Rice ready?
Check.
Males ordained by a local incorporated church, trained to perform baptisms in keeping with convention norms and expectations?Umm….no.
New believer’s classes completed by baptismal candidates?
Yeah, we’re missing that one, too.
As you’ve likely figured out, this weekend we’ll be baptizing four people in an inflatable pool in our backyard. Two of them are my own kids, Emily and Zachary. The other two are locals, Deaf Ecuadorians who have expressed their faith in Christ, an awareness of their own sin, and an understanding of the unique hope that our Creator has offered us.
We usually meet in the basement of the hearing church across the street from the university, but we’ve decided, on the sly, to sneak over to our house for the baptism. We’re also planning a celebratory lunch afterwards; I’m providing the rice.
Still confused? I know what you’re thinking: Why have we left the church for a baptism, and what’s up with that thing about the ordained males? And the classes?
There’s a lot going on here. First off, our church plant focuses on Deaf Ecuadorians. We meet separately from others not in disunity, but for language and culture purposes. Second, we are trying to teach and train local Deaf leaders to guide the church in every way. Third, this is our group’s first baptism, and everything will be highly scrutinized, studied, and – eventually – copied under the assumption that it is all Biblical. Fourth, the hearing leaders at the church building assume that all baptisms will pass through their hands, denying our leaders the chance to learn. Fifth, we have no ordained men, and that’s because, sixth, we only have Christian women.
The plan this weekend is for me to baptize my children, and then to have the leader of our group baptize the next believer. That newly baptized believer will in turn baptize the next believer. We will do this in order to have the group continue to learn that every Christian has a part, a role, a duty in His body.
That’s the great part. Want to know the not-great part?
According to IMB rules, my children will be unable to become IMB workers due to their baptisms. Because our church is not formally incorporated, the notion of being baptized into and under the authority of the local church is a little bit of stretch; not out of the question, just a stretch. Add to this the fact that our children attend worship with the hearing folks and yet were baptized by a separate deaf church plant to which they are only partially connected. What’s more, while I certainly understand all the concepts involved in the purpose behind baptism and the security of the believer, most of our Christians are so new that they are somewhat weak in their comprehension of these important concepts.
Want to add insult to injury? We’re going to do this great thing, and yet in order to avoid problems locally we can’t mention it to people at the hearing church. These are great folks, willing to allow us to use space in their church building for free. They have been warm and loving, and yet if they were to find out that we chose not to bring the Deaf Christians to be baptized by the church’s pastor in the church’s baptistery after attending the church’s new believer’s class, they would likely ask us to leave.
It feels odd, this seeming lack of appreciation for a wonderful event. It seems as though the IMB would applaud the baptism of the nationals but frown on my children’s baptism. At the same time, I think the local church would accept my children’s baptism more easily than they would that of the Deaf nationals. Is there anyone who will recognize the validity of both sets of immersions?
Fellow blogger and IMB worker Guy Muse wrote a post (seen here) few years ago touching on some of these same issues with a few twists.. At rock bottom, we have to ask the same thing Guy did: were these people baptized Biblically?
Just as practically, what response shall we give those who object to our approach?
Likewise, the Ethiopian eunuch would not have been eligible either. Even though Philip had been a recognized leader in the Jerusalem church, he was not fulfilling that duty or acting in that capacity. He had since left the Jerusalem church to serve in Samaria, then left that area to go to Gaza, baptizing a man who had no intention of joining any local church, much less the church in Jerusalem or Samaria, and when he was done he went to Azotus.
I think we quibble over things that are really non-issues in the Bible. I remember someone tellling me a church I attended did the Lord’s Supper wrong because the pastor picked up his portion of the bread and the cup instead of the head deacon serving it to him.
I think we quibble over things that are really non-issues in the Bible. I remember someone telling me a church I attended did the Lord’s Supper wrong because the pastor picked up his portion of the bread and the cup instead of the head deacon serving it to him.
But did they at least use the white sheet? Everyone knows it’s an abomination and not the true supper if you don’t use the white sheet. I think that’s somewhere in 3rd Corinthians…
We certainly do, unfortunately, take our doctrines and practices of men and turn them into commands of God.
I once had a man ask me if he could do the baptism of his daughter. My first reaction was “sure” but then I had to do a double take and rethink…
After all, the church constitution says the pastor will administer all ordinances. But what does that mean with baptism? Would I make people in my congregation mad if I let someone else do the dunking in the water? Or can it be like the Lord’s supper where (even though I don’t like the pattern we’re not ready for a change) we follow the “traditional baptist” way of the deacons preparing it and passing it out, while I just stand there, look pretty, read some Scripture, and tell people when to eat and drink.
Maybe I could administer baptism that way–stand before the congregation, point, and say “so and so’s going to baptize his daughter.”
All of that and yet what are the examples of baptism we have in Scripture? John the Baptist–a prophet, doing a lot. Jesus’ disciples baptizing while he was ministering on earth. The 12 overseeing a whole lot of baptisms (hard to imagine them surely doing 3000 themselves let alone interviewing each candidate carefully) at Pentecost when the NT church was born. Missionaries baptizing. Philip, a former deacon and present scattered missionary, baptizing.
Now I believe the 12 functioned as the first pastors, but the church was just getting off the ground when they baptized. So the closest thing we have to an example of any pastoral figure baptizing under the sure authority of the local church might be Paul in 1 Corinthians, but he says “I didn’t baptize but a few and I’m glad I didn’t baptize but a few so you all wouldn’t boast about it!”
Perhaps this is one of these things whereas to the “how” a local church practices it there is great freedom, but our agencies (and even some churches in saying what they recognize from others) corrupt that freedom by forcing a form w/o biblical precedence.
So the IMB wouldn’t accept baptisms of children done by an on-the-field missionary in a church plant?
I know about the eternal security and no baptismal regeneration rules, but I’m thinking you might be assuming the worst here about their response to your children’s baptisms. In the IMB process, I know there were many other candidates who were the children of career missionaries, some of which had to have been baptized overseas by missionary parents.
Josh, if we apply what I think (that’s an important word) is the letter of the law, then it would seem that technically my kids would fail the baptism part of IMB rules. I have no idea what allowances the IMB makes for people who did not grow up in the North American church system.
Consider: my children’s pastor did not baptize them. They were not baptized under the authority of the local church of which they were a part, and yet I do expect them to be active participants in their church. The person (me) who baptized them knows all the right things about the meaning, intent, and function of baptism; as well, I understand and apply eternal security. However, the other witnesses of the unincorporated church who were there are weak in their understanding and application of some of these concepts.
There seems to be an odd dichotomy here that most people will not encounter. The IMB would applaud (in a generic sense) the baptisms of the locals, but not for my kids (if they apply to the IMB some day). The local hearing church would applaud (while scratching their heads) the baptism of my children but would greatly object to the illegitimate baptisms of the locals.
Does the hearing church understand that you’re trying to plant a separate church for your people group as they are allowing you to use their building, or do they view this work as a subsidiary of their own church? If that issue has been clearly dealt with, then I’m wondering if the local church at least would object so much the baptisms done there.
I’m also guessing that your children would be fine, as there isn’t anything in the IMB policies (and I just re-read the longer “position paper” one can find online again) about the local church being required to be “incorporated” (which is more of an American non-profit legal term that wouldn’t apply to many places overseas) for it to be considered a “church” and have authority to carry out the ordinances. Otherwise, most of the house churches, etc. being planted by our workers could never baptize or do the Lord’s supper.
It’s good to hear situations like this that push back against these extra rules. I personally understand the part about immersion, after salvation, and non-salvific issues of baptism. I still don’t know what eternal security has to do with making a baptism legitimate. I agree with the doctrine, but still trying to figure out why it would invalidate baptism if the person has believed in Jesus.
The hearing church gives strong lip-service to the notion that we are trying to establish a deaf church. However, many of their actions and statements to others indicate that they do not view us as a fairly autonomous group meeting within their walls. Before we ever began the work there, we sought out permission from the pastor and leaders to use their facilities to plant a deaf church with deaf leaders who determine the destiny of their deaf flock. We got permission, and yet I think somehow they agreed to a deaf church while thinking that meant we were an extension of them.
The national baptist convention here is filled with some fabulous men and women of God. However, sometimes the convention assumes that conventionality equals moral spirituality. For example, at a meeting of the leaders and pastors of the convention, some Quichua (tribal indigenous nation) pastors and worship leaders led the group in some traditional forms of worship unique to their people group. At the end, a convention head stood and said something to the effect of “…well, that sort of thing is all fine and good in a situation like this, provided we understand that worship in churches should conform to a higher standard.”
In other words, the convention here is as traditionally hide-bound as the SBC is in the U.S. Non-standard churches (cell, house), non-standard groupings (deaf, indigenous), non-standard practices (no baptismal classes, participation of lay members in leadership and service)….these things truly rock the convention’s world.
Guy Muse, at the M Blog, writes on this subject frequently. Check him out at http://guymuse.blogspot.com He lives here in Ecuador, though he’s about 7 horizontal hours and 10,000 vertical feet from here.
Thanks for the additional insight. I will be praying for your work. You face a common problem with international partnerships, in that not only are you attempting to communicate cross-culturally, but there are also different “cultures” within that you are navigating.
A great article!
Friends, we need to keep shinning the light on this issue until the BOT of the IMB takes corrective action.
I fully appreciate that there were “personnel issues” at the time that needed to be addressed within our missionary appointing process that lead to the policy changes we now have in place at the IMB.
However, in this case the cure has been far worse than the disease… Surely there must be a way to address these “personnel issues” without placing an Un-biblical requirement for baptism upon our missionary personnel?
I am humbly asking the current members of the BOT of the IMB to prayerfully consider readdressing this policy… I am asking them to do the right thing and take a stand for Biblical Truth and Unity within the SBC, and I encourage you to do the same thing.
Grace for the Journey,
Amen.
I’m in agreement with you on the concern for the weird loophole regarding baptism. But–though I do not know you–your approach to this whole situation sounds off. First, why are you planting an all-deaf church? I can see an evangelism-driven event, but I think the NT shows a picture of an integrated church. Second, I don’t see any biblical warrant for your deception. It seems like maybe you should sit down with these leaders and openly discuss the issue(s). Again, I don’t know you or the details of the situation. But from what you’ve shared, I would have serious misgivings.
Your brother in Christ
You raise legitimate questions, to my way of thinking. However, to answer your concerns would require a response long enough to qualify as a separate post. I am not sure if it would be of general interest here, nor if it qualifies as an SBC issue. King Dave likes to keep us focusing on SBC life, and the specific missions strategy and philosophy of one infinitesimally small cog might not be of general interest.
If he asks, I’ll do it. If not and if you really have way too much time on your hands, I’ll send you a personal reply. Sound ok?
Changing lanes here, what deception are you talking about? I’m not sure if I know what you are talking about. We haven’t mislead or lied to anyone in this situation.
How does this square with the consistent battle cry of “autonomy of the local church”? Seems there is a local church, with a solid leader, who wants to baptize his children, but there is the possibility that this baptism won’t be recognized as valid. If that is true, something is very wrong.
It reminds me of the church government issue whereby one local church decides to be “elder led” and they get a bunch of flack from the “autonomy of the local church” folks. The irony is pretty blatant.
I guess the thing in my mind is “how far do you take the autonomy thing?”
Jeff, there is not a possibility that this baptism won’t be recognized by the IMB as Valid… there is a “Certainty” that it wont be recognized by the IMB as Valid.
That is the issue here…
I know that my church accepts people with backgrounds in other denominations who have been baptized by immersion albeit not in the SBC. I’m one of those. So are you saying that members of SBC churches who weren’t baptized in an SBC church are ineligible to work in the IMB although they are members in good standing with demonstrated fidelity to their SBC church over time?
Jim,
They have to be active members in good standing of an SBC church for at least 3 years. Some of those baptized by immersion as believers outside the SBC would be fine. However, if they come from a church that teaches baptismal regeneration (like Church of Christ) or a church that does not teach eternal security (Nazarene for example), they would have to be “baptized” again in the SBC church, according to the current policies. Even if the people themselves did not hold to baptismal regeneration and believed in eternal security at their baptism, the church that baptized them also has to teach correctly.
I know in our application for IMB we had to get some letters from my wife’s home church because Evangelical Free Church of America doesn’t have a stated doctrinal view on either believer’s only baptism or eternal security. However, her home church does so in its teaching, and we had to get letters from both the current and former leadership saying what is taught there concerning those issues in order for her baptism to be considered “legit”.
Josh, our replies to Jim hit the net simultaneously. Your explanation is better than mine, though. Good job.
A few years ago, for some long-winded reasons, the IMB determined that their employees needed to have been baptized in a church that took a clear SBC view of baptism and salvation. The established church, in performing one its key functions (baptism), had to affirm the security of salvation, and the non-salvific nature of baptism.
Should someone transfer from a denomination with a different view of these tings, that person would have to request a baptism within a church that agreed with SBC thinking on this issue. Yes, fidelity to the convention is an aspect of an IMB applicant’s past, but that is held to be distinct from the baptism issue.
The policy states that the baptismal candidate, the person performing the baptism and the established church must all hold to the baptistic definition of baptism and salvation. This is where my kids might end up falling through the gaps. They were not baptized as part of an established church, nor into an established church, that fully understood and developed a position on these issues.
I guess this is my question, is this a church plant, registered or not? If it is, and it ever becomes registered, it would simply include in its history the baptisms of your kids. If not registered, is it not being estabished as a part of your work and ministry, and if that is the case, wouldn’t your testimony be an appropriate substitute?
IMB policy is harsh in its application many times. Little policy things do prevent some from serving through the board. I think though, your situation is one where conversation might trump policy. Either way, thank for both your obedience and your courage. God bless.
Stephen
http://beyondoutreach.blogspot.com
http://smy2brazil.blogspot.com
http://stephenmyoung2.blogspot.com
How does one register a church? Never heard of that one.
By that I meant incorporated. Sorry for any confusion.
I don’t know how to incorporate a church, nor what that really has to do with church planting. Not a critique or critical comment of those who do: I am just admitting my ignorance.
I think this story and a few comments illustrate part of why I have a problem with the current IMB rule: rather than accept a person’s testimony of their own baptism, we’re insisting on background checking the church that did it. If your children understand that they’re being baptized as a testimony of faith in an act of obedience, it’s by immersion, and that it’s not saving them, that testimony should be adequate in years to come. Likewise for Josh C’s comment: the IMB is not endorsing or funding the church you came from. They’re coordinating the support from churches that are sending you now.
I fully understand the “active membership in an SBC church for 2 years (or 3)” rule, but that should be adequate. Not only because we claim that all local churches are autonomous, but because we especially claim that the SBC church you’re currently a member of is autonomous. To reject an SBC church member in good standing over their baptism is an unnecessary criticism of that church’s policy.
I do hope that as time goes, you’re able to strengthen ties with the building-host church so that they understand what’s going on, what the goal is, and how they can strengthen you to get there.
All,
I keep hearing the word “rebaptism” come up in these discussion on the IMB Baptism policy. Let me reiterate once again that “rebaptism” is not a Biblical Word or Concept…
Give it some thought…
Greg:
I always thought 1 baptism was sufficient.
Tom,
Exactly!
Exactly – again!
Who is saying it isn’t? But, it has to be baptism, not simply getting wet.
Can you point out someone who said one biblical baptism is not sufficient? I could have missed it.
Frank,
Will you please… please… define what “IS” a “Biblical Baptism” and what is not?
After you answer my question, perhaps.
Frank,
I really don’t have the time to play games with you…
If you are not willing to define what is a “Biblical Baptism” and what is not a “Biblical Baptism” then how can someone possibly tell someone else their baptism is not valid?
I’m not trying to win any debate points here, all I am trying to do is get us all to think through these issues Biblical.
Greg,
Inuendo will probably not get people thinking “Biblically” (which you define as agreeing with you).
If you will read the thread I already outlined my view of what is “biblical baptism.” I did not at any point say that “biblical baptism” was insufficient as you charged.
I also did not read anybody else making that charge. With you it is always a “game.” There must be a winner (you) and loser–people with whom you disagree; or even people whom you think you might disagree.
So, read the thread and I outline my position. Feel free not to engage my posts to prevent wasting your time.
And . . . still the question goes unanswered.
I think what people are getting at is that the example of the baptism in the blog is biblical, but it may not fit IMB policy, thus not sufficient for service with IMB.
Stephen, Exactly!!!
Frank, See… it’s really not all that hard to understand 🙂
1) What are talking about with the go back and read the thread for your outlined position? Where? You have not outlined anything on this thread.
2) You ask “Can you point out someone who said one biblical baptism is not sufficient? I could have missed it.” Not surprised that you missed it… you to busy trying to start fight… Anyway, The Answer is “The BOT of the IMB”
3) You dont have to think “Biblically” if you don’t want to… and you are free to disagree with me if you want to be wrong… makes do difference to me. 🙂
My bottom line on this issue is “Can you, or the BOT of the IMB, defend this policy from the Scriptures?” The answer of course is NO!
I know you think I am too stupid to understand your deep thoughts. It really isn’t that hard to understand you, it’s just I would rather take my chances with thinking for myself.
I am sure you have your followers. I am just not one of them.
Frank,
1) Still waiting on your outlined position on what constitutes a Biblical Baptism?
2) Again, It was the BOT of the IMB that said that one Biblical Baptism was not sufficient.
3) You say “I am sure you have your followers. I am just not one of them.” — Thank God for small blessings!
Smile, and have a nice day… 🙂
Alford,
Not worth my time.
I think some could make the case that this is not re-baptism. The logic would be that the first water-exposure was not done within proper Biblical principles and therefore was not actually a baptism. It was just getting wet.
Jeremy,
I would sure like to see someone make the case that “the first water-exposure was not done within proper Biblical principles”
I would sure like to see it…
I said that’s the logic behind calling the first “baptism” nothing and insisting on a new first baptism. Didn’t say that I agreed with it, just that the thinking seemed to bend that way.
Here’s an extreme example: my mother-in-law was baptized as a baby. Yes, she was exposed to water in a church setting. No, it was not sinner’s baptism, a symbolic act that followed repentance. Later in life, she asked me to baptize her as a Christian. Was it a re-baptism? I would understand those who might claim that no, it was not. The first one wasn’t a Biblical baptism, therefore it was a baptism at all. Like I said, it was exposure to water. No first baptism, therefore no re-baptism. Just a first baptism later in life.
That’s the thinking, I believe.
Jeremy, I fully agree with your position that in the case you share the first exposure to water was not a N.T. Believers Baptism at all, and that you were right to Baptize you mother-in-law.
However, I would caution us all not to refer to such a Baptism as a re-baptism… as this can cause confusion between a legitimate N.T. Believers Baptism and a illegitimate religious ritual.
My question to you, and my question to Ben below, were intended more to get us all to go to the Scriptures to verify and be sure that we have a Biblical foundation for our doctrine of Baptism… It is my opinion that the current IMB policy does not have a Biblical foundation and cannot be sufficiently defended from Scripture.
Grace for the Journey,
Regarding believer’s baptism and re-baptism. I don’t think we have any Biblical precedent for such. (The closest we might have is Paul baptizing the followers of John who had been baptized in the baptism of repentance, but this is obviously an example of believer’s baptism supersceding another kind of baptism. I use this story a lot with catholics.)
That being said, I do think it is understandable for a church or its missions sending agency to research a person’s testimony, of which baptism is a part. The IMB developed its policy with certain criteria and reasoning for it. It is good, but often rigid. This post possibly warns of a rigidity that is problematic. In cases like these, real personal research (two or more witnesses kind of thing) could reveal that their believer’s baptism is biblical, and they could be approved for service with the IMB.
As is is now, the IMB rejecting them is a hypothetical, so I don’t think anyone should get too righteously indignant. 🙂
A mature position for both parties might be something like this in the future interview.
IMB: “We have reviewed your background and your endorsement and your studies and still have one question. We can’t find any verifiable evidence of your baptism. Can you tell us about how and when you were baptized.”
Candidate: “Oh sure. I was an MK and my dad was developing a ministry among the deaf. He was trying to start a church, but it never really got off the ground. It was during this time that I was sure that I, too, believed in Jesus and wanted to be baptized as his follower. When dad was organizing the baptism of the deaf Christians, I was baptized together with them. The church never got off the ground, though, so there isn’t a record of the baptism.”
IMB: “Wonderful story. We do need to verify everything because of policy. Are there any people who were there with whom you still have contact, that can vouch for your testimony?”
Option 1:
Candidate: “Sure, my dad and so-and-so.”
IMB: “Okay, we are satisfied and will recommend you.”
Option 2:
Candidate: “Unfortunately, no.”
IMB: “We don’t doubt your story, but to maintain consistancy with our policy on baptism, would you mind being baptized for the record at a local SBC church?”
Candidate: “I’d be glad to, on the condition I be allowed to tell my story at the baptism.”
IMB:”Deal”
Hmmmmmmmmmm. I always thought Acts 19:1-5 was a rebaptism.
Ben,
Not so… The Baptism of John was not a “Christian Baptism”… but a “Jewish Baptism”… Two entirely different meanings.
Jeremy,
There are several questions here.
1. Is your group a church or Bible study? The Great Commission (and the command to baptism) was given to the local church. That is why the vast majority of Southern Baptists declare that baptism is a church ordinance. Baptism should not be administered by para church organizations such as the Gideons or FCA, but why and through local churches.
2. Why do you insist on every Christian baptizing? While it is true that “every Christian has a part” to play in the church, you do not see every Christian baptizing in the New Testament.
3. If you are truly partnering with the hearing church, why not allow them to join in this baptism? I’m sure they would rejoice to see how God is working in your midst. I do not see a good reason why you will not do this. At the very least you should tell the church what you are doing and ask for them to give you the authority to baptize these people. Hiding what you are doing seems very unethical.
Excellent questions, one and all. I’ll answer them all, even if it means being too wordy. I won’t type the questions out, though.
1. Our group is a church plant. We study the Bible, have the Lord’s Supper, work out praise “songs” in a way that makes sense to those who do not hear music. We push the group to evangelize, pray together, uphold their witness, worship, etc. We openly presented the work as a legitimate church plant to the hearing leadership before we ever started meeting at their building. They agreed to the arrangement of a different linguistic group meeting in their building while having their own leadership. The deaf see it as a growing church; my wife and I do, too. Since that is the goal, the objective, and the collective understanding, then we have no problem baptizing our own people. Does that help with section 1?
2. You are correct in that not all Chrstians mentioned in the NT baptize others. However, in every old church I have seen, a few people do all the work. In every new church plant I’ve either observed or worked in, the locals assume the missionary will do it all. We work to push nationals to forefront, and we work to impress on them the fact that all people play a role in the church, not just a few leaders. Having them do the baptisms, turn-taking, is a part of that lesson. They learn from the earliest moments of their lives in the church that this is, humanly speaking, THEIR church that belongs to each of them. Too often in Latin America the church belongs, in a sense, to the leaders. We actively work to teach Christians at the churches we plant that each and every person has a duty. Make sense? Perhaps most of them will only ever baptize a single person, but at least they will have a tangible picture of their involvement to help guide them into involvement in the future.
3. The reasons behind not involving the hearing church are many, and include a couple of different dynamics.
The first part is that if the hearing are involved, they will take over the baptism. Simple as that. I know you might disagree, but I’ve seen it too often. In that case, our people will never learn to do it on their own (as I said in the original post) because the hearing church will hand the deaf candidates over to the hearing leaders. Poof…no lessons learned about total participation, no training of our leaders to do things themselves, no way of knowing what baptism is about (since the hearing do not know sign language), nothing. Essentially, we will be a church except for being able to baptize people. Saying, “we’re having a baptism!” means “baptize our members for us and exclude us from the process!”
Once that begins, we will lose having the Lord’s Supper, and training our people to do it in a way that reflects a cultural approach to Biblical concepts. The hearing, seeing our group’s interest in the practices of the church, will insist on their doing the Lord’s Supper and, by extension, insist on our group not doing it. Trust me on this; I’ve seen it too many times.
This introduces another dynamic, that of hearing domination and control of the deaf. Hearing people (in every culture I have seen) assume that the deaf are stupid, don’t know what to do, or need a mommy to care for them. Sure, it varies by degree culture by culture, but the basic attitudes are still there. When hearing leadership begins to exert their will over the deaf group, the deaf fall into a submissive pattern that characterizes deaf/hearing interactions. In the past, it typically means the deaf stop baptizing because the hearing said so. Then they stop teaching, because the hearing told them to come to hearing sunday school. Then, the deaf settle into what I call a spiritual welfare state, sitting there with their spiritual mouths open waiting for someone to stuff food in it; well, milk really. That’s when growth stops and you end up with 3 passive deaf whose lives revolve around the concept “…because that’s what the hearing said.”
Adding to this dynamic is the fact that deaf Ecuadorians spend a lot of time tolerating the hearing world. When given the chance, they prefer to gather with other deaf people where the language is the same and where everyone makes the same assumptions about interaction. Asking deaf people to come to a church gathering dominated by hearing folks is almost, but not quite, pretty stupid.
We haven’t even talked about the communication aspect. For most deaf cultures in which I have lived and worked, communication trumps everything. If there is no communication (in sign language), the deaf are not interested. To take something vital to the life of the church and Christians, something like baptism, and turn it over to the hearing (by the slight act of inviting the hearing)….just foolish. Such a thing isolates the deaf from the event, and keeps them from being a part of something beautiful.
The sad part is that the hearing don’t see any of this. They really don’t. To most hearing members, the leaders do it all, so they would not understand the lesson we are trying to teach. They don’t understand what it is like to be in a culture but not understanding what is going on, so they don’t grasp how communication is so important. For them, communication isn’t valued; instead, it’s assumed. THey don’t see how their attitudes towards the deaf could contribute to crushing a growing church plant. They don’t see any of it.
In a perfect world, they would understand, and would be willing to show up and enjoy the moment without dominating it, or subjecting it to their approach, or removing the meaning of it. However, we live in a less than perfect world; these are the breaks.
I suspect we will soon leave the church building and meet elsewhere. That’s not my call, though. The deaf leaders will make that call themselves. One of the biggest reasons will be an incompatibility between our congregation and the hearing one. No bitterness or anger; just an acceptance that not all partnerships are destined to work.
Does this help?
Ben:
Not trying at all to argue with you. I have a point on this, but I am interested in your statement that the Great Commission (and Baptism) was given to the local church?
What is that based on? Were there many “local” churches at the time, and Jesus gave the command to one local church? Or did Jesus give it to the Apostles, which would make it applicable to all Christians and all churches founded through them?
Please do your best to help me out here.
Is “local” church even a biblical term?
The disciples of John were “re-baptized.” At least, in principle, there is the concept of baptizing a person who did not receive a biblical baptism. How we try to apply to to today, however…
Andrew… see my comment to Ben above 🙂
Greg,
I must have missed that part where all the disciples and the multitudes that John the Baptist baptized were baptized again.
John’s baptism was the only baptism Jesus had. John’s baptism was a requirement to be an apostle. John’s baptism was a symbolic believer’s immersion. Sounds pretty “Christian” to me.
There must have been some other reason why those folks in Acts 19 were rebaptized. I wonder what it was??
Ben,
I don’t want to get in any sort of argument with you here… But there was no salvation… no regeneration… and no Christians at all… before the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ, and the coming of the Holy Spirit.
Ben,
You assert that “John’s baptism was a requirement to be an apostle.” I know that Andrew and probably Peter were baptized by John, maybe–BIG maybe–James and John, but where is it stated that the others all were? And uh . . . I am pretty sure Paul never said he was baptized by John, and he (in Scripture no less) calls himself an “apostle.”
Of course, we may be defining “apostle” differently. I am going primarily by the meaning of the Greek term as “a sent one.” If you are defining it as an office occuppied by the Twelve and codified by someone (Jesus? themselves? the early church?), with the requirement that each “apostle” had been part of either the inner circle of 12 or the outer circle of 72, perhaps there would be some difference in our conclusions. But if you define apostle that way, there is that fly in the ointment, Paul, calling himself an apostle when he certainly did was not a disciple until well after Jesus’ death, and apparently never followed the Twelve to learn from them.
I have no idea how many of those John baptized were later baptized into the church. I think Scripture is silent on that issue. But considering the numbers who were baptized in the opening chapters of Acts, it’s a good bet some were. The reason: I agree with Greg that John’s baptism was not Christian baptism. It may have been by immersion, but it was in anticipation of the forgiveness of sin, not in celebration of it. Or, maybe they were not as hung up on forms as we seem to be.
John
My point, and I don’t think anyone would disagree with me on this, is that from the example of the disciples of John, if something is called baptism but does not meet the requirements of “Christian” or “biblical” baptism, there is a precedent for having those individuals baptized because the legitimacy of the prior “baptism” is denied.
No one who has had a “Christian” baptism should be baptized again (re-baptized). The issue is, What do we consider to be an authentic “Christian” baptism? That is where the issue arises. I don’t think anyone has suggested that people who’ve had a “Christian” baptism should be re-baptized.
Exactly! Very well said! 🙂
I’d hope the more “conventional” baptist churches wouldn’t object, but would, instead, be out there looking for the 60% of the “properly baptized” folks they can’t find on Sunday.
Jeremy –
I love your post and applaud and cheer you on in the Spirit to continue preaching the Word to the lost and making disciples, not just padding the numbers for some monthly report.
I think the problems you mentioned may be deeper than just the IMB rules, but that it goes to SBC ecclesiology. All of the things mentioned so far: baptism, ordination, conmmunion, membership, etc depend greatly on one’s point of view regarding what constitutes “church.”
If one takes a narrow (more landmarkist) view of “church,” one will be more likely to think in terms of “the church” as only the local gathering place and the people therein. If one takes a broader (not liberal) view of “the church” then the idea of anyone other than an official pastor baptizing or serving one another during communion is not such a stumbling block.
Sorry, that was a partial post…
In other words, those of a more narrow view will be inclined to think that only those baptized or offered communion in a properly constituted “church” by a properly ordained pastor are deemed as valid. Those of a broader view are more likely to accept baptism and/or communion whether done in the church or in a lake at a camp or even in the confines of a committed group of believers trying to sharpen one another so long as the scriptural understandings are upheld (believers baptism, non regenerative, perseverence of the saints, etc)
Bachanan,
Very good summary…
Now what I would like to see is the Biblical defense for each position.
What many of us who have opposed this policy from day one have been saying to the BOT of the IMB all along is: “If you have a Personnel Issue that needs to be addressed, then address it some other way. Do not attempt to fix your Personnel Issue at the IMB with what many of us consider to be an Extra-Biblical mandate upon the Churches to perform a “Re-Baptism” that is neither Biblical, nor Proper.”
Grace for the Journey,
The amazing thing is that I was not writing in order to call attention to the IMB’s policies specifically. My point was the ways in which various churches and groups place different understandings and restrictiongs on baptisms. Personally, I think the IMB is trying to make sure their candidates are above reproach in a number of different ways in order to present the best possible face to the lost world. As well, I think the local hearing church is doing their best to make sure they handle their congregation appropriately.
What I am seeking is a way to be faithful to Biblical principles, to be consistent in my work as a church planter, to be respectful to my employers, and to be steadfast in my example to locals. However, in doing all these things, I find that I (and my kids, and the deaf nationals) are running into problems and barriers with everything except the Biblical part; at least, as far as I can tell.
I find it fascinating that most of the comments here have addressed the IMB’s perspective/problems/policies instead of wondering whether the hearing church is being overly controlling; and while few comments have centered on our actions, to be perfectly fair we should be scrutinized as much as the IMB has been.