There’s been some talk recently about some churches practicing “spontaneous baptisms” as a part of their services. Without getting into the validity of that specific practice, the largest complaint seems to be that quick baptisms like that downplay the significance of baptism and church membership. On the other hand, there are churches that require a person to jump through various hoops of lengthy classes and pastoral interviews before even allowing for baptism. After all, baptism is a first step of church membership, and to have a regenerate church membership you have to make sure the members are believers. It is something to think about: quick baptism or delayed baptism?
So, let’s consider for a moment: what does the biblical picture present to us concerning baptism and discipleship?
We know baptism is meant to be a post-conversion experience expressing our union with Jesus in salvation (Matthew 28, Romans 6). Baptism is for believers only. But how sure must we be about a person’s profession before we baptize them? One problem we face is that in answering this question we are left with no prescription (such as wait X number of days or do Y number of classes) but only descriptions about what the early church did. Yet from that example, surely we can draw a solid conclusion.
In Acts 2, the Holy Spirit came, Peter preached, 3000 people received his word and were baptized. In Acts 6, the Spirit led Philip to a eunuch reading Isaiah, Philip explained about Jesus, the eunuch believed and was baptized. In Acts 9, Paul was knocked to the ground and blinded, God sent Ananias to find him, Paul’s sight was restored and he was baptized. In Acts 10, Peter preaches to the gentiles, the Holy Spirit comes upon them similar to at Pentecost, and they were baptized. We’ll stop there.
Granted in certain cases, there was some insight we don’t receive today—Philip and Ananias being told by the Spirit and mass tongues-speaking for the gentiles—but the pattern in each case is the same: baptism follows salvation ASAP. Most likely in the case of the 3000, all the apostles had to go on was the profession of the people. There is no way they could have spent significant time interviewing each person. Likewise, today, the best way we can tell the “moment/occurrence” of salvation is a person’s profession. Now if they don’t understand the gospel, period, we need to work on that first. But if they rightly profess faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior, the pattern is that baptism is to follow as soon as possible. Maybe not spontaneous baptism, but certainly quick baptism.
But baptism is also never left alone: you’re baptized? Check. You’re a member, you’re good! No, but as Jesus said—baptize them, and teach them all that I commanded. Baptism is the recognition a person is a disciple and then they are moved into a slow, life-long process of discipleship within the local church. We teach them about Jesus and what it means to obey, we rebuke and correct their sin and wrong thinking, and we train them for righteousness.
It’s what we do here that I think is the real issue. Our problem as Baptists is not that we baptized too many people too quickly, or even that we baptize people who are not Christians though we initially thought they were. The problem is we don’t deal with people who fall into sin, remain in sin, and quit the fellowship of the church. You know—those millions of people who are on our roles because they got dunked at some point in time, then quit showing up.
Simple fact of the matter: it is a sin to not be regularly involved in the fellowship of a local church (Hebrews 10:23-25). But instead of going to the people, confronting their sin, pleading for their repentance and return, and removing them if they refuse (Matthew 18); we just let them keep on their merry way untouched, or we move them to an “inactive” role.
In my opinion, quick baptism is the biblical model, but so is a quick move to follow up with slow discipleship, and a quick response to at least try and go after those who seem to want to slip away.
Considering how horrible we are at discipleship, I’m surprised that this is even an issue.
Many of the pastors that I have the privilege to either know, work for, or sit under go out of their way to stress how the baptismal waters have no “magical” properties. So I find it hilarious that we’re upset about spontaneous baptisms.
Is there even a time limit?
We just had a kid who waited eighteen months to get baptized so his father could serve his tour in Afghanistan and be here to see his son get baptized.
We also had a man who got baptized about three days after he got saved because he was headed to Diego Garcia in five.
I think we’re really looking at the wrong end of the equation. I think we really ought to be looking at how horrible discipleship is in this day and age. I think we need to take a long look at that facet.
I think we’ll find that’s the reason for so many ills both within the Convention and our communities as a whole.
“”I think we’re really looking at the wrong end of the equation.””
Amen.
I think the ‘quick’ baptism is the scriptural model (the Etheopian eunuch, the jailer and his family). My question is how did baptism get tied up with church membership in the first place? Is that somewhere in scripture?
Only if the NT is taken as a whole. But I think it’s clearly there.
David writes:
“what does the biblical picture present to us concerning baptism . . . ”
Some reflections on biblical geography:
The Bible tells us the PLACE where the ancient Israelites first crossed through the Jordan River into the Promised Land.
The Bible tells us the PLACE where St. John the Baptizer baptized Our Lord in the Jordan River.
And we know that ‘the PLACE’ was the same spot in the Jordan River for both events. Significance ? Coincidence? Connection?
It is said that ‘the ancient realities of faith are always present and always new.’ When we read that some believe the event of a person’s baptism is to permit their ‘entry into’ the local Church,
we can also reflect about the geography of the PLACE where Our Lord Himself was baptized,
and that this also once the scene of the first crossing of God’s people into the Promised Land of milk and honey.
Is it true, this:
“‘the ancient realities of faith are always present and always new?
Is it true? What Augustine wrote:
‘the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New’ ?
I would say that what is written in the Bible can help us to reflect on the meaning of baptism; when even the history of the same place on the Jordan River, as mentioned in both the OT and the NT in Holy Scripture gives us something to ponder.
http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=0L9C4xRL3QE&feature=related
. . . ” Peter said to him in reply, “Lord, if it is You, command me to come to you on the water.”
Jesus said, “Come” . . . .
But when (Peter) saw how strong the wind was he became frightened; and,
beginning to sink, he cried out,
“LORD, SAVE ME.”
Immediately
Jesus stretched out His Hand
and caught him. . . ”
Beautiful . . .
Christiane:
Wonder what you thought of the election by the Catholic Bishops today. Did you follow it? Did the outcome please you?
One article that I read mentioned the possible influence of Catholic bloggers. Do you know if that is true? Did you blog about it or try to use your influence.
I would be very interested to know your take on this.
Hi LOUIS,
Can you give me a link, please?
If not, I will google it up and see what I can find out.
Hello LOUIS,
I did find THIS about the election of Archbishop Dolan:
“Archbishop Dolan has a solid reputation as an outspoken pro-life leader. He has insisted that Catholics should never honor anyone taking a pro-abortion position, and he was a strong opponent of Notre Dame’s decision to honour President Obama at their 2009 commencement. This fall, he joined the bishops of New York in calling on Catholics to make the right to life their primary concern at the ballot box.”
My reaction is that the good bishop wants to influence people to solve the abortion problem at the ballot box.
Will he have an influence on the Catholic voting?
We will take note. Of course.
But then we will vote according our consciences, as always.
It goes like this, LOUIS:
For some Catholic voters, if a ‘quick political fix’ fails to line up with the incredible manipulation of the base by SOME politicians who ‘declare’ that they are ‘anti-abortion’;
these Catholic voters will do their homework and check out the voting records of these politicians on ALL social issues, as well as political issues. (It’s a smell-test to see if the politician’s record has integrity on ALL fronts.)
If the equation doesn’t balance, and the candidate is not ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-family’ CONSISTENTLY,
then he/she won’t get supported by these Catholic voters, and if the candidate has shown integrity throughout their political career on ALL of the pertinent issues,
that Catholic voter will likely support him/her.
Then you have Catholic voters who will NOT check out the complete records of the candidates.
What happens with these Catholics is one of two things:
A. They will hear ‘anti-abortion’ and jump on the band-wagon.
B. They may not care about any single issue, and will vote more in line with other factors that may benefit them personally.
Of course, you have many other patterns, LOUIS, and Catholics are an extremely diverse lot.
My own pattern is to do my HOMEWORK big-time. It’s not always the candidate who says he/she is ‘anti-abortion’ who gives a darn about the issue or family values in general.
Doing my homework can help me make a responsible choice.
And for some Catholics, they will
Here’s a semi-related question if you will indulge. How many of you would agree to baptize someone who wished to be baptized (and you thought was an appropriate candidate) but did not, for whatever reason, wish to become a member of your church?
I was rather astonished to see on another site people saying they ONLY baptized into their local church membership. I can’t imagine a good biblical case for that.
Church membership is one of those things that gets taken too lightly–either from the side as mentioned above that people join at will w/o discipleship, and fall off into an inactive oblivion, thus inflating our roles and showing little concern for sin; or people want to go to a church but not be a “member” for whatever reason.
Can a person be a Christian, be baptized, and not be a member of the local church they are in? Yeah. Should a Christian not be a member of a local church, especially the one they attend–no.
It’s one of those things: Jesus loves the church more than he loves any individual who makes up the church. The church is referred to as his bride and his body–neither are ever said about an individual Christian. Yes, the good shepherd goes after the one wandering sheep, but he brings it back to be a part of the flock. All these things are true of both the universal church and a particular local church expressing the universal in a certain place and time.
Being a regular and active part of a church assumes membership, and if a Christian doesn’t want to be a member why do they attend the church? It is within the bound of church we may receive discipline for our sins (Matthew 18). It is in the bound of church we are a part/member of one body (1 Corinthians 14). It is in the bound of church we declare the manifest wisdom of God to heavenly authorities and come to comprehend the breadth and length and height and depth of God (Ephesians 3). It is in the bound of the church we are a royal priesthood as a spiritual house.
Baptism is the entry way for membership. Therefore I wouldn’t separate baptism from membership, and it would have to be a very rare and very odd thing for me to baptize someone who did not then proceed to become a member.
It is one thing to make baptism a condition for membership, it is another to make membership a condition for baptism. Could you point out any biblical precedent for examining the baptismal candidate as to their plans for local church membership?
I agree that membership is often a neglected topic. However I don’t see what you are suggesting as a biblically tenable corrective.
However I can see that baptism followed by membership would be a normative order in most Baptist churches.
I have baptized people who made a genuine profession of faith but for one reason or another were not planning to be members of my church. I think that is reasonable, though some would not agree.
I like the way you said that, Bill. Baptism is a requirement for membership but membership is not a requirement for baptism.
I think however we formalize our practice of membership in each of our churches, it’s a clear picture from the NT, especially the letters that belonging to Christ means also belonging to his body. To belong to his universal body is primarily seen in space/time by belonging to a particular local body. So it is normative for a Christian to be a member joining with and submitting to other members of a local church, and peculiar for them not to be.
According to Romans 6, baptism is a display of our joining with Christ; thus it is a display of joining with his body, which then translates–it should be a display of joining with a local expression of his body.
I would have to ask the potential candidate if they asked to be baptized without joining: Why do you not want to join?
Sure, we each become a Christian based on our individual faith, but becoming a Christian also means we now belong to something bigger than our individual selves. A person who doesn’t want to join a local church might be saved, but they also show something is lacking in their basic understanding of the gospel.
As much as I’m pro quick-baptism and then slow discipleship, I also want them to have some grasp of the basic gospel before my church affirms their faith through baptism. In which it’s not just: you’re a sinner, turn to Jesus in faith, and be saved; but: you’re a sinner, turn to Jesus in faith, be saved, and belong to something greater. The gospel call is ultimately a call to join a family/a body, not just be a lone-gunman for Jesus.
That’s why, yes while there is no specific command–Do not baptize a person unless they also desire to join the church–when looking at the full picture, I’d be wary of someone who wants to be baptized but not join.
I agree, Mike. In 30 years of ministry, I could count on one hand the times I have done this.
I agree that is probably unusual for someone to want to be baptized but not join. But I don’t think I could justify preventing their obedience in the former because they are hesitating on the latter.
“Jesus loves the church more than he loves any individual who makes up the church”
Is this a Baptist teaching?
Baptism is an outward expression and testament to our personal salvation and it should be viewed as such. It should express our understanding that our life is now different than it was before because we have accepted Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Do we always understand where that will take us? No, perhaps not at the time we are baptized. I’ve observed a couple of different outcomes through the years. Some church leaders dunk and run. Others dunk and demand. In other words, “Here’s a Bible. You’re on your own to discover what lies ahead,” or “Here’s the rules and the required course schedule. You’re under our obligations.” Both of those situations can take away from the new Christian’s expectations of what it is like to finally walk with the Lord as a new creation and turn to Him.
Discipleship, long-neglected, is vital to helping a new Christian find his or her place to serve, once they understand that serving Christ is part of accepting Him. We need to model it as we teach it, not just outline a course and check their progress and eventually proclaim them now fit to do this or that responsibility within the church.
I don’t see any basis for us telling anyone who feels the call to salvation and seeks to be baptized that we somehow need to inspect them first. We all know people who have been baptized more than once because the first time did not feel real to them as they matured. God tends to correct the decisions that some may have made in haste
I baptize people on their profession. Not being a “seer”, I cannot always determine the reality of their profession.
I do not put people through an obstacle course before baptism. I agree with you. We do not “inspect them first” but baptize upon profession. I do ask questioins to make sure they understand what they are doing. But if you profess faith in Christ (and seem to understand what it means), it is my obligation to assist you in obeying this biblical command as soon as possible.
Christiane:
Thanks for the reply.
You apparently did not even know what I was talking about?
I assumed Catholics took an interest in whom the Bishops elect to lead the church in the U.S., but your response indicates that you didn’t even know it had happened.
I am not finding fault with you at all. People follow and take interest in whatever they take interest in. I just assumed devout Catholics (not Catholic in name only) followed this stuff. You seem to be active in your church. I am sorry if I was too forward.
Also, I really wasn’t talking about how you or other Catholics might vote in an election in the U.S. I appreciate your thoughts on how you might vote and the process of being informed.
Catholics don’t get to vote for the leadership of the Catholic Church, so how you would vote is not germane and is not what I was interested in, though you made it interesting, as always.
I was interested more in your reaction to the Bishops’ vote on who would be the church’s human leader in the U.S.
It appears that you were not even aware of it, so I caught you off guard. I am sorry that I foisted an obligation on you to give me an opinion about something you were not aware of or taking an interest in.
If you have any opinions on the Bishops’ election, or if you develop any after you learn about it, I would be interested in any thoughts that you might have about it and what it may mean for the Catholic Church in the U.S., in your opinion.
On the other hand, you really don’t have to start keeping up with the Catholic Church Bishops’ elections in the U.S. Keeping up with that might be, to you, like watching paint dry.
You can follow your interests here in Baptist land where the politics are direct and apparently more interesting. We are happy to adopt you!!!
I bet you are beginning to see, if you have not already discovered, why your grandmother was a Baptist.
Hi LOUIS,
You may be a bit confused about the role of the USCCB:
United States Council of Catholic Bishops.
What you wrote to me sounds like that very well may be the case.
This post evidences the change in the Baptist Blogging world in the last year.
For several years, many blogging battles were centered around the Baptist Identity movement. They are not Landmarkists, but have several views in common with that group. They emphasize the local church almost exclusively.
In the BI movement, baptism is only valid if performed in direct supervision of (under the authority of) a local church. The IMB policies on Baptism are a result of this.
Its just weird how the BI movement has disappeared.
I agree with Mike here. Every baptism performed in Acts takes place directly after baptism. There is no intervening membership class or discipleship process. The discipleship process begins immediately thereafter.
The NT model seems to be conversion – baptism – discipleship, not conversion – discipleship – baptism.
On the other hand, the baptismal practices of the churches that were referenced in the beginning of the process seem a little crass.
I’m actually encouraged by spontaneous baptisms–and I am a fan of IX Marks. We don’t see sinner’s prayers, cards or aisle walking (or the other Finneyisms) in the New Testament–we see a call to believe and be baptized.
The fact of the matter is that baptism and conversion go hand in hand in the New Testament. Paul has the Roman believers recall not a sinner’s prayer, hand raising, or a “moment of faith,” but he has them recall their baptism. In Colossians he identifies baptism with burial with Christ. We see baptism as a fundamental element of conversion in Acts. Does baptism convert, no, it doesn’t convert anymore than someone praying a sinner’s prayer. It is faith, given by God, that converts–not some sort of an act that we do. Yet, baptism is spoken of in connection with our conversion in the New Testament. Baptism is our identification with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection. It is the sign and seal (seal from God) of our union with Christ. We probably wouldn’t be in this mess about baptism in Baptist circles had we not embraced Finney’s method and replaced baptism with cards, aisles and repeated prayers.
I have a hard time calling someone “brother” who has yet to be baptized. Yet, to the one who professes faith and requests baptism I am more than willing to call brother. The one who prays a prayer but won’t proclaim through the Biblical means that he is disassociating himself with what was before and identify with Christ and His people, I won’t call brother. We must not gloss over this entry rite. I don’t see that Phillip had any special insight other than the verbal assurance (assuming you accept that as part of the text) that the eunuch believed.
On the other hand, we baptists in the 20th century seemed to have bought into the dispensational emphasis on the universal church (a concept I do affirm–the universal church that is) at the expense of the local church. It is in the context of the ministry of the local church that discipleship occurs (the pastor-teacher–namely the elder–is a fundamental part of the development of believers in Eph. 4) . Church discipline (the ousting of the unrepentant in hope of their repentance–not some secretive form of discipline where someone is under “discipline” and doesn’t know it) is an essential part of that discipleship.
I myself am more than ready to baptize quickly as an act associated with conversion. As a matter of fact, I had a regular attender approach us about baptism, we gave him some reading material about it (what it is, the mode, what to expect, etc.) and were ready to schedule the use of a nearby baptistry, when he called me and said he didn’t think he believed yet. While disappointed, I was encouraged by his honesty. He still attends and I visit the issue with him on a regular basis and continue pointing him to faith and ask him if he wishes to be baptized.
Baptism is the Christian initiation rite. If we ask someone to be baptized as their mark of conversion, we’re asking them to proclaim to all watching that they are now part of the Christ and His church. We’re asking them to publicly disassociate themselves (with every eye open and every head up) from from their idols and to associate with Christ. In most contexts of the world, this ain’t cheap. I don’t know how having spontaneous baptisms cheapens baptism–it strengthens baptism, imho. It also lets the new believer know that we welcome them and wish to identify with him/her and be their support.
Anyway, back to my dissertation writing.
Mark
Christiane:
I am sure that when it comes to Catholic polity, a more than a “bit” confused.
I only know what little I have read – the Bishops had an election.
I was really interested in your following of it, your involvement (if any) and your thoughts. Got any?
Louis
Hi LOUIS,
My thoughts: no major changes forecast, I think.
The USCCB is not a canonical authority. It does have some presence in Washington, D.C., I believe.
And it DOES advocate for moral issues to do with right to life (from conception to natural death), peace, and social issues to do with justice in recognition of the dignity of the human person.
As far as any effect on Catholic voters, I don’t see any major changes forecast.
Reason: the abortion issue is NOT the only issue Catholic voters deeply care about. And many Catholics tie the ‘right-to-life’ issue not just to abortion laws, but also to laws affecting the justice of the social common good.
It that way, my Church departs greatly from the ‘far-right’ mantra. So, Louis, it’s complicated.
If you want to understand why it is that Catholic voters are, above all Christians, most likely not to be ‘one-issue voters’, take a look at the social justice teachings of my Church:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
I think there are many problems discussing quick or slow, immediate or delayed baptism today as compared to those recorded in Acts considering culture, historical context, and ecclesiology are almost completely out of phase with each other.
To begin with, I don’t agree with Mark that there is an emphasis on the “universal church” although there is too much emphasis on dispensationalism. Most of the discussion on baptism is unfortunely rooted in the Landmark controversies that had a heavy influence on the SBC in the late 19th & early 20th Cen and still do today. The fact that “baptism” is so frequently linked with “membership” (a foreign concept to scripture I believe) rather than slavation is evidence of this. SBC ecclesiology is backwards (local autonomous body vs catholic body) and is a direct reflection on our reactions to Roman Catholics and particularly to Methodists circuit riders in the 17th & 18th Cen. What part of the human body is autonomous from any other part???
I do agree that baptism is an initiation into membership in the Body of Christ, which is THE CHURCH. There should be a major distinction here that one does not get baptized into FBC Wherever; however that is exactly what we do. In Acts, there is a clear record that they were meeting everyday, they were in each others lives and worked together; in short they were family. Also, they were likely not begged by the disciples to “do the work of ministry…” they were compeled. Also, they were not invited to make a public profession of faith, they asked what to do to avoid God’s wrath (Ac 2) or adked to be baptized (Ac 8:36) or had a sign of salvation that preceeded baptsim (Ac 10). We “do church” differently (namely that church is a place and not a thing)and cannot compare apples to oranges.
I believe that today (unless we radically change to a 1st Cen model) that we should make a CLEAR distinction between baptism unto salvation and membership. No more alter calls should be with heads bowed and eyes closed and there should probably be fewer of them or at least short (sorry, no chance to repreach the sermon in the invitation prayer 🙂 ). Also, we should not be “sensitive” to the lost people in creating our worship services: they are for the worship of the One True God by His church, not an outreach event for lost people to attend and be convinced. As my buddy in Iowa put it: Lost people get saved before they ever come to church. Baptism should be restored to having a deeply spiritual meaning, not just a mandatory membership rite. I’d think that Noah & Co. probably had a VERY high veiw of the Ark (1 Pt 3:20-22).
Personally I’m tired of hearing pastors run down as useless, the very first thing that Jesus told us to do: “No we know that baptism doesn’t do anything….” but you gotta do it anyway. How much more of a non-sequiter beginning to ones discipleship could we possibly have ??? I agree with Peter, baptism doesn’t save, but it is NOT useless… unless Noah’s Ark was useless too. Again, membership is not one of those uses.
Hi GREG BUCHANAN,
You wrote this:
“No we know that baptism doesn’t do anything….” but you gotta do it anyway. How much more of a non-sequiter beginning to ones discipleship could we possibly have ??? I agree with Peter, baptism doesn’t save, but it is NOT useless… unless Noah’s Ark was useless too. Again, membership is not one of those uses.”
It sounds like you may be familiar with the concept of the prefigurement of baptism” that is be seen by some Christians in the O.T. Scriptures about ‘Noah’s Ark’.
Only as mentioned by the apostle Peter in his first letter. I don’t remember if that was discussed in my OT class in seminary.
For my above post, I’m defining “membership” as one’s name on a formal list at some local brick-and-mortar box, voting privileges, committee membership opportunities, etc. I believe that once saved, one becomes a member of the Body of Christ, no paperwork required; the only necessary “membership” role is the Lamb’s Book of Life 🙂 This definition is not intended to construe meaning into or out of baptism, just “membership.
In eastern Kentucky, things change a little slower than the rest of the world. In some ways, the small Baptist church I attend is very modern; we have Praise & Worship on Sunday evenings, with a band and lyrics projected on the big screen. The entire campus has public wi-fi. In other ways, it’s kind of like going to church in the 1950’s; There are Brotherhood breakfasts, prayer meetings at 9:30 in the choir room, and we march the American and Christian flags into the sanctuary during VBS. But one thing has changed, just in the past year or two.
When a new convert makes a profession of faith, we don’t schedule a baptism the following week. We walked through a long line and shake the person’s hand, but he or she is then enrolled in a new believer’s class. After completing that course, including what it means to be baptized, if that convert is still with us then we have a baptism. The easiest thing in the world to do is join a Baptist church. Sometimes the hardest thing to do is find those people.
Try joining a Catholic church sometime and see what is required.
🙂
We’ve all no doubt heard the story about the squirrel problem three churches in a small town were having. The Presbyterian minister said, “We placed a live trap in the attic and captured the squirrels. We took them far out into the woods and relaesed them, but by the time Sunday rolled around they were back in the attic.” The Methodist minister said, “We did the same thing, but we took them even further away and you know in a couple of weeks they were back.” The Baptist pastor said, “We took care of the problem. We captured those squirrels, baptized them, and made them church members and we haven’t seen them since!”
I love that joke. Although the version I heard included the synagogue. The Baptists got them down to Christmas and Easter.
The Rabbi said “Baptism? All I said was circumcision, and we haven’t seen them since!”