In North Africa in the early 4th century, a presumably theological point of contention morphed into a ecclesiological debate that ultimately split the church in that area.
Yawn.
The issue behind it all related to Christians who had crumbled during one of the more recent rounds of persecution; specifically, church leaders who turned over copies of the Scriptures to the authorities for burning. Once the persecution ceased, the church had to decide what to do with these traditores of the faith. One group (the laxists) encouraged the church to respond gracefully, forgiving these lapsed Christians and restoring them to the body in some fashion. The other side of the debate included those who believed the lapsed no longer had a place in the kingdom.
As the debate raged, the office of bishop in the important city of Carthage suddenly had a vacancy. The laxist group won the election and placed their own bishop, Caecilian, in office. The rival group eventually named their own bishop, a man named Donatus; one city, one church, two bishops.
The Donatists, as they came to be called, declared Caecilian’s consecration invalid. One of the bishops involved in Caecilian’s consecration ceremony was reputed to be a traditor and as such lacked the proper spiritual authority to ordain. In fact, the Donatists maintained, any spiritual act performed by the supposedly lapsed bishop was invalid: baptism, wedding, communion, ordination, etc. Anyone subsequently consecrated by the false bishop was not actually consecrated and therefore, all of his spiritual acts were lacking in validity as well.
In the end, the theological side of the discussion boiled down to this: the Donatists posited that the validity of the sacraments depended on the character and purity of the one performing them. Therefore, baptism was only as good as the one doing the dunking. Ordination was only as pure as the one doing the ordaining. The Lord’s Supper was only as special as the one serving the bread. Anyone on the receiving end of a sacrament performed by a lapsed bishop or someone he had appointed needed to experience that sacrament again.
The supporters of Caecilian countered that the sacraments were valid of themselves, and were in no way reflective of the spiritual state of the person administering them. The sacraments are holy in a sense that was entirely independent of the worth of the distributor. Therefore, no spiritual act performed by a formerly lapsed bishop, nor an act carried out by one of his appointees, needed repeating.
____________
I’m an IMB guy. I believe in this large, unwieldy, flawed, messy, kingdom-oriented organization. It is an inherently mistake-filled organization primarily because it is filled with people, carbon-based (mostly) sentient bipedal humanoids. I believe that while we, as a group, occasionally blow it, our focus on the kingdom of God and His righteousness will ultimately smooth over our low points and turn them into His high points.
One of the more slippery issues that still rankles some folks is baptism of IMB applicants. All those who apply for a missionary job with the IMB must be able to recount a baptismal experience in which both the church and the minister believed in the non-regenerational aspect of baptism. In other words, the IMB places a higher priority on the church leader’s attitude towards baptism than on the candidate’s understanding of his own baptism. Any applicant who was not baptized in a church with the proper understanding of baptism by immersion must be baptized properly in a church with better theology.
Sound familiar? Maybe…maybe not.
Let’s clear up a few things:
1. The IMB is not claiming that a bad baptism results in a lack or loss of salvation. Their rule applies to job applicants, not members of the Kingdom.
2. The IMB makes no claim of being the one true church, holding fast to the spiritual high ground while all the other Christians out there get it wrong.
3. The IMB is not encouraging re-baptisms; instead, I think, they are saying the original dousing was not a true baptism because it was applied under incorrect theological understandings.
4. The IMB is striving to place their workers above reproach in a world where the fundamentals of the Christian faith are twisted and manipulated into meaning just whatever people want them to mean.
More than any other branch of SBC life, the IMB exists in a pluralistic world of cults, sects, animism, shamanism, half-churches, syncretism, and accidentally heretical religions. In other words, the IMB worker enters an international world not too different from the first or third or fifth centuries. Yes, yes, I know: the US has a lot of these things, too. That’s true. However, it is also true that most North American Christians can and will spend months without running into the sorts of things that many IMB workers encounter daily. IMB workers, far from being sheltered from this spiritual mess, actually go looking for it.
________________
The Donatist schism was to scar the church in north Africa until the late seventh century. Their later years were filled with mob violence, class strife, and claims of being the “true church.” New theological writings came along in order just to refute Bishop Donatus’ perception of the the worthiness of leaders administering the sacraments.
The IMB, for all the similarity on the issue of the validity of baptism, isn’t the Donatist movement reincarnated. The IMB doesn’t bring their “troops” to SBC meetings, using missionaries to stuff ballot boxes in order to control the convention. The IMB isn’t challenging anyone’s salvation experience. They are not rewriting evangelical theology to justify their hiring patterns. Instead, the organization is aiming for an admittedly high standard within the relatively cloistered confines of the North American church before sending new missionaries into the world. In this, the IMB has more in common with the early church’s practice of rigorous spiritual discipline for new Christians than with the schismatics of north Africa.
100% of the historical data mentioned here came from Justo L. Gonzalez’s “The Story of Christianity: Volume One” chapter 16. It is a fascinating book, well-written and accessible to most anyone. I highly recommend it.
The early anabaptists were often identified as Donatists, because of their insistence on ecclesiological purity.
They were Dunkin’ Donatists. (drum roll, please).
I’ve never been a fan of these policies, Jeremy, to say the very least. In fact, I got into blogging to oppose them. But you give a reasonable defense of them.
Good article.
LOL ‘dunkin . . .
oh, please, David . . .
ROFL
FYI, Mike Bergman’s post “What if we all thought this way?” will go up in a few hours. I accidentally double posted. My bad. It appears in the blog roll, but is not posted yet.
Dave, I agree that there is an awfully slippery slope that can be seen from here. Another example in history of “that’s not valid!” came in the 14th century duing the papal schism. Two popes, two sets of cardinals, bishops, etc each claiming that faithful members of the other party were not properly shriven, baptized, etc. “Gotta do it again!” was the refrain.
And yet, while it is very tempting to see the IMB as following in those footsteps, there’s a different flavor here. I would not want to celebrate baptism again, either, but let’s take a long, hard look at what IMB wasn’t trying to do.
On a side note, I am interviewing some IMB workers for a paper I am doing about baptism. Maybe I can wring another post out of this.
Jeremy,
Thanks for the post.
From what I understand, Justo L. Gonzalez is a good historian, but he’s on the liberal side of most theological matters. Have you been reading his book and thought to yourself, “Why is he painting this guy so positively?”
He does write things from time to time that cause me to scratch my head, but at the same time I value his ability to express the history so clearly. I accept that bias is unavoidable and I take the education he gives me with that in mind.
As one who is always mindful—and weary—of liberal theological bias, I can honestly say that González’s two volumes are some of the best history texts I’ve ever read. I picked them up on the recommendation of a good friend, (who’s an SBC pastor in Louisiana), and I confidently recommend them to others. Like any history text, you have to be aware of the perspective, but these particular González’s texts have always struck me as remarkably even and well-balanced. For my money, as a non-seminarian, this is one of the best histories of the early church through modern times.
Jeremy,
Like Dave alludes to above, most of us who have been involved in Baptist blogging the last 5 or 6 years have been around and around on this one.
It seems to me that basing the validity of baptism on the orthodoxy and fidelity of the baptizer gets the cart before the horse. We are baptized spiritually into Christ in order to become members of the Church (big C). And as Baptists, we accept members in local churches on the basis of their membership in the Universal Church. Water baptism is a picture of Spirit baptism, as well as a token of obedience to Christ as a first step of discipleship. Thus, it is not baptism by the right organization or individual that makes it legitimate, but what it represents for the one being baptized.
The bottom line, as I see it, is the IMB trustees defining authentic baptism in a way the NT does not define it. We are not baptized into the Baptist church, nor into agreement on second-tier doctrinal issues. We are baptized into Christ, which implies submission to and acceptance of the gospel of Christ (i.e. genuine faith and repentance), nothing more, nothing less.
Encouraging those who have already been legitimately baptized under this understanding to be baptized again is, as I understand it, a cheapening of the meaning of baptism, not a renewed emphasis on the importance of baptism.
Some say, “What harm does it do to be baptized again for the sake of meeting IMB requirements? A little water never hurt anyone.” During the Radical Reformation, so-called “re-baptism” was a major issue. The Anabaptists never admitted to truly “re-baptizing,” and they would, no doubt, be opposed to the practice today.
Also, having a stricter policy on baptism does not necessarily translate into having a more doctrinally sound missionary body. If anything (if my understanding of baptism is right), it only creates a more doctrinally shaky foundation for what we do. It is doctrinal knowledge and faithfulness itself that makes one more prepared to deal with false doctrine and religion on the mission field, not a willingness to submit to man-made rules.
What is weird to me, David, is how little interest this subject gets now. Back in 2008 or 2009 this thing would have blown up and have about 250 comments.
Things have changed.
I think most of us involved in this “battle” saw little hope of it being resolved favorably, at least for the time being, and since we had already turned over every stone there was to be turned over got a bit “battle-weary.” Frankly, I think many of those responsible for this policy counted on this being the case–“Wait it out; the furor will eventually die down.”
If bringing it up again can help to get the wheels turning for some type of reversal, though, I am all for it. Maybe the time is right. I think it depends, to some degree, on the current makeup of the BoT.
No one looks forward to another big controversy at this time, though. The Great Commission is too important to get sidetracked by squabbles over issues like this.
Brother David,
I agree with your opening statement here. I also agree with your closing paragraph. It is the details in the middle that cause me concern.
Blessings,
Tim
This is where I come down. The policies make baptism less important, not more.
So, you dont think that baptisms should be done in the right way for the right reason? That they shouldnt be done in the most Scriptural way? Is that not important to you?
David
David, I think this is close to what the ancient debate was about.
If you think “the right way” depends largely on the minister and the church, then re-baptism is needed. However, if you believe “the right way” depends on the immersion and the beliefs of the new Christian, then re-baptism is NOT needed.
If a person is baptized as a believer, by immersion, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as an act of obedience, then it was done in a scriptural way, period. I am not willing to say that all of our arminian credo-baptist brethren have NOT been baptized. I would not bar them from the Lord’s Supper as not being baptized.
So, a Momma baptizing her children in the backyard swimming pool would be good for you? I mean, she led litle Matilda, and Bubba, and Sweet Susie to the Lord, and she took them to the swimming pool…baptised them… that would be a good one?
David
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Momma is innocent until proven scripturally guilty. Then, let’s take our scriptural evidence (and there is no doubt in my mind that you and I each believe the Bible is our guide) and prove her guilty of….bad baptism. We’ll leave our charge at that.
OK? I will admit up front that I can’t prove her guilty. Out-do me…please. I mean that sincerely and without a shred of sarcasm.
Remember….Bible only!
David: And I realize that in your eyes it wouldn’t be, but why wouldn’t it be valid. I believe I would have the authority to baptize. It was given to the church as in body of believers not an authoratative group of leaders you call the church. The main character to keep our eyes on in even baptism is Christ. The same Christ who gave us authority to baptize.
Are all our Arminian credobaptist brethren un-baptized? Would you re-baptize someone baptized as a believer in a Nazarene or Weslyan church? Would you bar them from the Lord’s Supper as being un-baptized?
Forget Momma and little Susie. How often does that happen? Let’s talk about real world examples.
The right way for the right reason? Christ is the reason, the right way would be a born again Christian baptizing by dunking. Obviously I don’t see your way as right.
I think baptism should be administered only to those who consciously profess Jesus as Lord and Savior. I don’t honestly believe they must be dunked. Indeed, people may not always have access to enough water to do that. I’m always amazed that immersion came to be a qualification. I think it’s a nice way to do it if you have the opportunity. But I don’t think it’s required.
I realize this debate went through a while back, but I was overseas at the time and missed it. I stumbled across this little thing from history and the parallels drew me in.
A day late and a dollar short…story of my life.
Jeremy,
Yes, indeed, the parallels with the Donatist controversy are very curious. And I suppose you are right that some important aspects are also different.
Hopefully, in the meantime, the overall effectiveness of Great Commission ministry has not been hampered. I suppose only eternity will show this for sure.
Jeremy – This is an excellent and insightful blog. I too have been on the side of “hey, that’s not right” but your explanation here makes sense. It would also explain why Paul circumcised Timothy (Acts 16).
I understand that in the realm of Christian freedom (definitely meat, not milk of scripture) we understand that our spiritual heritage is actually only 1 layer deep: from me through Jesus directly to the Father. But many cultures think linearly of heritage (person to person); not having a Christian world view, they have no choice but to do so. This practice, whatever theological limits it sets, could actually aid in removing a stumbling block or in forming relationships.
I have to wonder what the situation really was with the “church” that formed initially at Pentecost, reported in Acts Chapter Two. I wonder how “pure” their theology and ecclesiology were.
Those who responded to Peter’s sermon, about 2 minutes long, asked what they needed to do to be saved. The answer was “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.”
I can’t see how they would have, at that time, held the view that Baptism was not necessary for salvation .. those masses who had to ask how to be saved. Thus, my curiosity as to how correct their theology and ecclesiology could have been.
Or perhaps it is simply that they were saved, but couldn’t have been missionaries with an SBC entity. And maybe not eligible for membership in an SBC church, either.
I just clicked the “Like” Button…
I also wonder how robust their theology of eternal security was.
I was thinking about all the ‘rules’ to do with ‘who baptizes’, ‘in what way’, and ‘what baptism is all about’. And in the middle of all the history, the controversy, and the splintering, something remains central and cannot be denied:
The waters of holy baptism will accomplish the Will of Him who ordained it. He cares for us.
It is not the waters of baptism that accomplish God’s will, but his grace. If your faith is in baptism, you are trusting in your works – an unsure foundation for salvation which dooms us eternally.
Christiane, I pray you will place your faith in the saving grace of Jesus Christ and not the so-called sacraments of the church. Only God’s grace saves. Baptism is a picture of God’s great grace – buried with Christ into death and raised to walk a new life.
But it is Christ who saves, not the waters of baptism. I hope and pray that God will give you the light to understand the difference between the dead works of religion and a living faith in Jesus Christ.
Thank you for responding, DAVID.
It is Christ who blesses and makes holy. He is the source of our salvation and of all blessing. Perhaps we agree on that?
“See where you are baptized, see where Baptism comes from,
if not from the cross of Christ, from His death.
There is the whole mystery: He died for you.
In Him you are redeemed,
in Him you are saved “
(St. Ambrose)
We agree on that confession, Christianne, but so many of your other comments give me pause as to whether we interpret faith in Christ the same way. That is no small issue, but one on which eternity hangs.
Brother Dave,
Not trying to be divisive, but this is the first time I have seen you go this far. Are you questioning if Christianne is saved or not?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim, I’m guessing if I said the sky was up, you’d disagree and question my motives for saying it, right?
And, actually, Christianne and I have had several exchanges about the biblical gospel vs. false gospels of works and religion over the years.
Yes, and I have been grateful for the opportunity of those exchanges.
Here’s something on Baptism which most of you here have probably never heard before:
http://theoldadam.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/baptism-free-will-and-other-good-stuff.mp3
Not that you will agree with it, but in hearing it you will have a better understanding of why many, many Christians believe that God is the One who actually does the baptizing, and that He has chosen to save people that way, also. (1st Peter 3:21)
Thanks.
Jeremy,
I believe that the Lord gave the 2 ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper to the Church….a local assembly of Believers. In the NT, I really believe you see baptism as a celebration of the Church…..we’re not cowboy Christians riding the ole range out there all by our lonesome…individualistic…doing our own thing…
We are the Church…seen in a local assembly….I believe the NT is full of this scenario playing out….
Jeremy, who is supposed to do Church discipline? Who is supposed to observe the Lord’s Supper? Who has Pastors/Elders and Deacons? Who shared their things with each other?
So, if all of these things were supposed to happen in a local assembly setting…then why in the world would we all of a sudden put baptism in an individual setting?
Baptism should be done by a Church family celebrating the new birth of a new family member…..
David
St. Augustine of Hippo, in “The City of God,” decided that sacraments administered were always valid simply because the person assumed a role when they did it. They acted as pastor, bishop, etc. That’s sufficient.
Bill Mac,
I do not believe that baptism has to be done by a Baptist Church. In other words, I dont believe that a person has to be baptized by a Bapt. Church in order for it to be a true baptism. If the Church baptizing the person believes correctly about salvation and baptism, and baptizes Believers by immersion, then I’m fine with thier baptism.
In other words, I would not be for accepting a Church of Christ(Campbellite) baptism, because of their works view of salvation. I would not be for accepting the infant baptism of the Presbyterians. I would not accept the sprinkling baptism of a Methodist, nor the pouring baptism of a Nazarene. Those are most certainly not valid, Scriptural baptisms.
Also, I would not accept the baptism of a mother baptising her children out back in the swimming pool…with them doing this without the Church involved….Now, if the Church was gathered in her backyard…around her swimming pool…and she and her husband baptised them…with the Church celebrating with them….then, I’d have no problem with this whatsoever. But, to have some fella just going around baptising people like some kind of individual cowboy riding the ole plains….doing his own thing….like he can just go out all by his own self…individualistic…. not in a church context….not starting a new church in a town…. then no…that would not be a valid, Scriptural baptism.
But, I, personally, would accept the baptism of any Church, who believes in salvation by grace thru faith, believers baptism by immersion as a symbollic act…a public statement of thier salvation. I believe this would satisfy the Scriptures teaching about baptism.
QUOTE: But, to have some fella just going around baptising people like some kind of individual cowboy riding the ole plains….doing his own thing….like he can just go out all by his own self…individualistic…. not in a church context….not starting a new church in a town…. then no…that would not be a valid, Scriptural baptism. /END QUOTE
So…John the Baptist then was not doing valid Scriptural baptisms?
Smus,
So, you’re really gonna compare John the Baptist’s baptisms with the NT Church and baptism? Really?
David
Actually JTB was doing Jewish mitzvahs. I betcha dollar to a donut that Jesus was bar mitzvah’d too.
JAKE,
I think you might be referring to the ‘mikveh’, the ritual immersion baths of the Jewish people.
David: I don’t think I disagree with what you’ve said. My point was that proper baptism is credo-baptism by immersion as an act of obedience. Thus to the extent that our arminian brethren baptize along those guidelines, those baptisms are acceptable. But, that is not what the IMB policies say. Those properly baptized in the Nazarene and Wesleyan churches would be forced to be re-baptized to serve as missionaries. This, in my opinion, is unbiblical and diminishes baptism.
To what degree does the fact that IMB is only requiring this extra step for employment, and not Scriptural obedience, influence your thinking? I mean, like the post said, the IMB does not seem to be doubting anyone’s salvation. Is it possible to view this as “covering the bases” without introducing a charge of being unbiblical?
I think there are two vital points: what is Biblical baptism and what is the IMB really, really trying to do with this policy.
Jeremy,
There is a huge difference between the IMB doing something employment based, such as requiring an alcohol abstention pledge, and messing around with only one of two biblical ordinances. The IMB must be saying that Wesleyan and Nazarene baptism are absolutely invalid. To say that Arminian baptisms are valid in general but that rebaptism is required for employment is absolutely unthinkable. That, in my opinion, would make baptism meaningless and I sincerely hope that whoever came up with this ill conceived idea hasn’t gone that far.
Bill Mac,
You Sir are 100% Correct!!!
Bill Mac,
I dont think its unBiblical, nor do I think it diminishes baptisms. I dont exactly agree with them…..but, these are thier requirements. I dont exacly go along with my own Church’s view….theyre more of a Landmark view than me….my Church wont accept anyones baptism except if a person was baptised by another Southern Baptist Church…..but, I live with it. Its the Church’s decision to make….I live by what they decide. I think the same applies to our IMB. Maybe one day they’ll change that….if they can figure out a way they can, and it be something they can honestly live with…..that they can accept, and put into practice. But, that’s up to them.
David
Bill Mac,
it all comes down to if baptism is a church ordinance or not. The Baptist Faith and Message declares it is. Virtually all Baptists agree the Great Commission and the command to baptize was given to the first church. It is the church’s responsibility to baptize converts.
The question is: Do Nazarene and Wesleyan churches qualify as New Testament churches? Wesleyan churches baptize babies and baptize by sprinkling. Nazarene churches believe you can lose your salvation and receive sprinkling as a valid baptism. Neither group resembles the churches of the New Testament. Therefore on the basis of Romans 16:17 many Baptists (including myself) reject their baptisms as invalid (regardless if they are immersions or not) and Scripturally baptize anyone from them who wants to join a Baptist church.
Jeremy, for me the issue here is that the IMB was created to serve the Churches of the SBC. In the Baptism policy it declares that certain members of SBC churches do not qualify. Fair enough, there are lots of qualifications including physical and mental health that are not ‘scriptural’. But this qualification has nothing to do with ability or with the applicant’s own theology. This qualification was saying to the churches that their own standards were not adequate. Fair enough. Lots of churches in the SBC hold to things that make the rest of us cringe. But then they established a requirement that was not in the BFandM or had any scriptural reference. The BoT is in effect making up a rule out of thin air and disqualifying SBC church members who were sent to them in good faith. It was not, is not right.
Volfan- your scenerios are inadequate because the issue has never been about what the applicant believes. We are not talking about some mom in a backyard, we are talking about the IMB saying YOUR church member doesn’t cut it because of a requirement they made up. The people being denied are SBC church members whose pastors and fellow church members have already vouched for them. They have written up extensive theological papers that prove they are in compliance with BF and M. These are the people who are being denied assignment.
On the other hand, the whole thing is mute since we don’t have enough money to send anyone, much less qualified applicants.
Strider,
I was talking to Jeremy and Bill Mac and anyone else about what is a Scriptural baptism, and whether its a Church ordinance or an individual ordinance. I wasnt discussing the IMB’s policy at that point.
But, like you said…concerning the IMB’s policy…..they have many policies which are not in the BFM, nor straight from the Bbile….now, we may not like them, but they most certainly have the right to make those rules and regulations…to have those policies…..and we can change them by electing the Board members, who feel like we do about them. Right?
But, until that time, then they have the right to make those decisions. Thus, they have made that requirement about baptism. And, until its changed, then we all just have to live by it.
David
We’ll either live with them or carry plaques around Wall St. right?
If protesting floats your boat, go for it! 🙂 Because, here in the USA, you have that right. And, in the world of the SBC and the IMB, you can either abide by their policies, or you can change them. Of course, you could always go to the mission field in other ways. You dont have to go thru the IMB.
David
David: Your two cries are “You don’t have to stay in the Southern Baptist church” and “You don’t have to go through the IMB.”
That’s exclusion David. These rules were not made because they were Biblical and there was a concern for staying with the Bible or the BFM 2000. They were made for a specific agenda.
Strider,
Very well said…
“But then they established a requirement that was not in the BF&M or had any scriptural reference. The BoT is in effect making up a rule out of thin air and disqualifying SBC church members who were sent to them in good faith. It was not, is not right.”
Jim: Do you know why creation was created? Why we were created? Not because we were necessary. We aren’t. Creation isn’t. It is to glorify God.
I think it’s a little more than that, Debbie. That’s one way of putting it, but so much else is subsumed within it that I’d like to hear it broken down.
Whoops. 🙂
I put this comment on the wrong thread. My mistake. Sal I can gladly answer that on the right thread.
That’s fine. We want to sum things up and much is lost in that process.
I just stumbled upon this website as I have been formulating my Sunday school lesson on “essential doctrines”. I am an elder in a Church of Christ so I wanted to add my 2cents worth and listen to the replies!
1) With regards to baptism and WHO does it…..GOD does the working in baptism NOT man so why does it matter where or when or by whom it is done? It sounds like some of you are making baptism into more of a work than you accuse the CofC of doing!!
2) With regards to water regeneration ( altho not specifically mentioned as such in the posts I read ), as an elder and teacher in our church, I have never heard it preached that “water saves” as some must think we thump from the pulpit every Sunday! It is obviously Jesus blood that is the atoning sacrifice and of course Paul in Ephesians states that “we are saved by grace thru faith…”. It seems to me that the actual issue then, is “WHEN and AT WHAT MOMENT we have “called upon the name of the Lord”? I can’t understand anyone seperating the calling upon the name of the Lord with baptism, nor with repentance, nor with belief. In other words, I “called upon the name of the Lord” as I was placing my faith in Him….not my faith in a baptism or a faith in my repentance or a faith in my…..Faith!! It almost seems that some want to take baptism out sooooo bad that they become prideful in their own FAITH to the point they almost appear that their faith has saved them. This of course is in error because our FAITH doesn’t save us any more than ou BAPTISM saves us. These are what brings us to God’s saving grace and Jesus blood being applied to our lives.
There!! fire away and tell me where an elder in the local CofC is wrong.
Oh… It’s on now!
Laughing Out Loud… No offence intended Matthew, but this is just funny, I don’t care who you are!
Our “Church of Christ” Brother has just taken us “Southern Baptist” to the Woodshed over our lack of understanding, and misuse, of the ordnance of Baptism!
Thanks Matthew!
Thanks for the input, Matthew. As a Southern Baptist who thinks our arguments over baptism and “alien immersion” and so on are tempests in a teapot, arguments for the sake of argument, and largely are agenda-driven (and that agenda NOT being New Testament in any healthy sense), I appreciate what you said.
John
The IMB did not ask me, of course, what I thought of the policy nor did they explain themselves fully to me. I dislike the notion that a policy like this is needed, and yet I trust my leaders’ judgment in the matter.
Consider for the moment the possibility that while awkward, this rule is the lesser of evils. How, you ask, is that possible?
1. Evangelical plurality in the US gives rise to multiple interpretations of baptism (as seen in this discussion). Since the missionary force is drawn from a broader pool than ever before, the odds are good that some applicants, currently SBC members, will have come from different backgrounds with differing views of the exact process of baptism.
2. Trustees within both the SBC and IMB are bombarded with “Are our missionaries….?” questions. With greater variability in backgrounds, a subsequent rise is seen in questions from various committees and churches regarding baptismal backgrounds.
Putting #1 and #2 together, pressure to ensure that IMB applicants are above the highest possible standard results in discussions for this policy. But wait….there’s more….
The IMB, as I mentioned above, sends its workers into a hugely diverse spiritual world and faces every imaginable variation of “christian” faith. Heresy and syncretism abounds. Spiritual people who claim, “Oh, we’re pretty much Christians, too” exist in every country. It’s pretty hard to take a stand out there on the local indigenous church’s poor baptismal practices when the missionary on the scene was baptized under a similarly poor baptismal philosophy. Said another way, Missionary X, who understood fully his own baptism, finds it hard to critique a local church in Asia when his own baptizing church was similarly flawed.
The distasteful solution to both domestic pressures and international consistency? Standardize baptism rules for applicants.
Jeremy,
I see your point, but: Standardize baptism rules? Easy. Credobaptism by immersion as a non-salvific act of obedience. Easy, and what is more, biblical. Re-baptism is not a distasteful but necessary (or even practical) option. It says either: Arminian churches are not true NT churches, or, baptism doesn’t really matter, since we can ask people to simply do it again.
Trusting leadership in this is where we differ Jeremy. I think they were dead wrong in passing this policy and they had a motive for passing this policy and that was to get rid of Jerry Rankin. It was not pure motives which drove them. I began blogging during this time when this was passed along with the no private prayer language policy. Remember now all this passed at the same time.
Many missionaries were either having to lie, which is sin, or being honest knew they were going to be excluded. We need to be more discerning and to say trust the leaders at that time was to trust a corrupt set of leaders who were attaining a goal not having anything to do with Christ. In fact Christ was excluded. It was a dirty, corrupt time among IMB trustees at that time. Trusting leadership was not a option. Although the BI group would disagree.
Excellent post.
One source of confusion when people try to apply the Donatist controversy to modern times is this: They often conflate the question of the authority of the individual administrator with the question of the authority of the church. Your post is strong because you have avoided this confusion.
The contest in the Donatist controversy was between, on the one hand, people who thought that sacraments could be invalidated by defects in the individual person who administered the sacrament and, on the other hand, people who thought that sacraments administered by a valid church to valid recipients were valid.
There is nobody in the SBC landscape arguing that, for example, when a pastor is found out to be a lost person, all of his baptisms, ordinations, weddings, etc., are invalidated because of his personal lostness. Rather, the SBC position is the Catholic (shudder) position in the Donatist controversy: An ordinance performed by a valid church for valid recipients is valid.
The position which argues that an ordinance performed by an invalid church for valid recipients is valid…well, that’s not a position that surfaced in the fourth century. Nor at all until very recent times.
A college professor warned us, “If you let your opponent frame the terms of the debate, you will always lose the debate.”
You have, of course, done an excellent job here of framing the terms of the debate in such a way as to win the debate concerning baptism. However, I am afraid that your framing does a better job of making your point than of accurately reflecting what people who oppose the BI view advocate or believe.
You have framed the issue in terms of whether an invalid church can perform a valid baptism and have implied that those of us who opposed the BI viewpoint here advocate the position that invalid churches can perform valid baptism – a nearly untenable position, but not one that we have advocated.
We have said:
1) That there is little evidence in the NT of specific church oversight of the process of baptism. One can argue that a baptism must be performed under the oversight of the church, but it cannot be done by simple observation of scripture’s evidence.
2) The issue is not (as you have implied) whether invalid churches can perform baptisms, but about whether a church that does not hold to eternal security is an invalid church. I think our neighbors across the street (AoG) are wrong on the issue of security, but they believe in salvation by grace through faith alone and baptize by immersion those who believe. I think they are a valid church and so baptisms done by them are valid baptisms.
3) David Rogers has argued (help me here, David, if I misrepresent your views) that the primary concern is not the faith and doctrine of the church or of the baptizer, but of the baptized. Why did the recipient get baptized and what was he intending to symbolize?
But the issue is not, as you have presented it, whether anyone believes an ordinance performed by an invalid church is valid.
Dave,
Actually, I was not attempting to re-argue the IMB policies, and I mentioned them nowhere in my comment. Instead, I simply argued…
1. The sine qua non of the Donatist controversy was an argument that individual, personal worthiness of the administrator of sacraments was necessary for the validity of those sacraments.
2. That nobody in any party anywhere in the SBC is arguing about that central component of the Donatist controversy.
3. Therefore, the Donatist controversy does not correlate closely to any present-day SBC controversy.
Finally, I made the point that, if, as you say you and David believe, “the primary concern is not the faith and doctrine of the church…but of the baptized,” then that most certainly must imply that an ordinance performed by an invalid church must be valid, provided that the important thing, “the faith and doctrine…of the baptized,” is valid.
I made no argument whatsoever as to whether that position of yours is worthy or reasonable or well-founded. I have no desire to regurgitate all of that.
Rather, I just wanted to make the point that THAT position—that “the primary concern is not the faith and doctrine of the church or of the baptizer, but of the baptized. Why did the recipient get baptized and what was he intending to symbolize?”—was a point of view entirely absent from the Donatist controversy.
My area of speciality is not patristics. I may be mistaken. I will be glad to read sources from fourth-century Christians articulating the quoted point-of-view. Having read them, I will be better educated about the beliefs of that period.
In Christ,
Bart
Bart,
I know you have written about this before, but could you refresh my memory on what you consider to be the criteria for distinguishing between a valid and an invalid church?
It seems ironic to me that someone who, as in individual, is not an authentic member of the Universal Church, but is technically regarded as representing a valid local church, is more qualified to administer baptism than someone who is an authentic member of the Universal Church, but is not technically regarded as representing a valid local church.
Also, I would ask, was the Great Commission given to the Universal Church by way of the representative disciples present, or only to those who were technically representing specific local churches?
Perhaps, another way of posing this question is: Is the Universal Church comprised of the totality of redeemed individuals, or the totality of constituted organizations recognized as valid local churches?
Evidently, the question is anachronistic, and is almost certainly one that no one in the first-century church would have posed. But that is my point. Are we transferring questions brought up by modern-day theological debates, most specifically during the Landmark controversy, and reading them into a 1st-century context?
This issue goes way back before the Landmark controversy. Tertullian said that the baptism of heretics should be rejected.
Dave,
At this point, if it’s OK with you, especially in light of my having written on this topic before (which I’ve never been able to do well without doing so at great length), I’d like to refrain from answering that question. My primary reason for doing so in this context is my desire to emphasize, in this context, the people with widely divergent ideas of what is or what is not a valid church can be in agreement that valid ordinances come only in connection with valid churches.
The point, with regard to the Donatist controversy (which is the subject matter of this post) is simply to indicate that a broad swath of people’s opinions about what is or what is not a valid church might equally fit within the non-Donatist position in the Donatist controversy. That point is made best, I believe, by refusing to delve into sub-divisions of that position created by differing understandings of the essence of church validity.
OK, that should be “David” rather than “Dave” on that last one.
Bart,
Fine, I can certainly understand your reluctance to open up that can of worms again here. The answers can indeed get complicated.
When all is said and done, though, I think that question will need to be answered if we are going to come to a satisfactory answer to the IMB policy question.
People like Ben are willing to give a clear answer, but most people who support the IMB policy are not wlling, like he is, to be identified as Landmarkist. From my perspective, that position calls out for some alternative explanation.
Salvation only happens once. Likewise baptism should only happen once. To say that arminian baptisms are not valid is one thing. I disagree, but at least we aren’t talking about re-baptism (at least in the mind of the people requiring Baptist baptism). But to require someone who has been validly baptized as a Christian to be re-baptized, for any reason is beyond outrageous. It denigrates baptism and the person. It says that their most important act of obedience as a Christian wasn’t quite good enough.
Hi Bill,
There are Arminian Baptists, you know. There are lots and lots of ’em, whether they call themselves Arminians or not.
I agree with you about one baptism. I was baptized (immersed) as a believer by a United Brethren (very Arminian) preacher in a Baptist baptistry. If anyone thinks my baptism is invalid because a Baptist did not perform it will just miss out on my (and my family’s) fellowship, because I refuse to repeat it.
Jim G.
Jim,
I take your point, and I know there seems to be a (recent?) idea that Arminians really do believe in eternal security, but I’m using the word Arminian as shorthand for groups that are essentially baptistic except for eternal security, at least for this discussion.
Wherever my own faith journey takes me, no one will convince me to renounce my former baptism and accept another.
Hi Bill,
You are thinking more of Wesleyan Arminians (Methodists and like-minded folk). They largely reject eternal security.
Classical Arminians can go either way. Some hold to perseverance and some do not. Although, in my opinion, perseverance and eternal security are not quite the same thing. Arminius, after all, was Dutch Reformed.
Jim G.
Dave Miller and David Rogers:
Thanks for the post and the good dialogue.
The saddest part about all of this, in my opinion, is how the IMB’s position on this question has eroded the confidence of many, at some level, in the IMB as expressed by the Trustees that adopted this policy.
What we have is a large contingent of people laughing/crying at the IMB pronouncement on this question. Most folks I know believe what David Rogers has written above. But people are “checking the box” to get approved. In other words, you have people entering the system because the system is in place, but they disagree with the system and are just not willing to say so – so as not to rock the boat.
That’s a good thing in terms of priority.
But it’s always a bad thing when people don’t agree with the vision and mission of an organization on a point like this that got so much press and they just go along.
It reveals a lack of agreement on vision and mission. That takes a toll on the true enthusiasm and effectiveness of an organization. It’s like working for a boss you really don’t respect.
The IMB is not any closer to convincing more Baptists that people baptized in certain churches were not legitimately baptized than they were a few years ago when this came out.
This will eventually be corrected. I think that all the controversy prevented it from being dealt with at the time.