I grew up and matured in Baptist churches and held a fairly
strict Baptist view of baptism—that it should be “believer’s baptism” and that
biblically it should be administered by immersion.
In the Navy, in
college, and later as an adult I came to know other strong believers from
various denominations who had experienced different modes of baptism either as
an infant or an adult. They were Christians just as I was. In some ways, I had
the experience Peter had in Joppa (see Acts 10) where the Lord had to show him
that others from different backgrounds were also part of the Kingdom.
I pastored a church,
baptizing new believers (by immersion) and dedicating the new babies of my
church members (asking the parents and the church to help bring up the child in
the knowledge of the Lord).
I witnessed babies
being “baptized” in a Methodist church, and being “dedicated” in an American
Baptist church in almost the same exact manner, but without the water.
To explain the
membership requirements for our former church, I wrote a brief article about baptism and the church’s
previously adopted policy that it would only practice believer’s baptism by
immersion but would accept as valid a new member’s prior baptism from any other
Christian denomination. It was similar to the position I had reached a few
years earlier in a piece I called “Baptism From A Pastoral
Perspective”. [for more on this subject I encourage you to see G.R. Beasley-Murray's book, "Baptism In The New Testament".]
Both of those pieces
were written from the standpoint of welcoming a Christian from a different
background into a Baptist church where I, as a pastor or leader had some
responsibility for helping others see baptism from a Baptist perspective.
Now I am faced with
the opposite situation—I am considering membership in a church where I would be
the Christian coming from another denomination into a church where “believer’s
baptism” by immersion is available but is not the norm. Now “the shoe is on the
other foot”, and I am the one who is asked to accept their policy. Importantly, even if that policy involves a "non-essential", that does not make it insignificant to those who believe that entry into the covenantal fellowship via infant baptism is desirable.
Interestingly, in the "Creek Explored" class for potential new members today, the leader asked us to review the pamphlet "The Essentials" for next week. Then she said that most of the problems people have who decide not to become a member are among the "non-essentials", not the "essentials". I'm thinking that baptism is one of those stumbling blocks for many. Indeed, that's why I have done so much thinking, praying, and writing on the issue. Is it something about which I can say affirmatively, "I can live with that difference."
I am only considering
membership though. I’m not thinking of becoming a pastor who would be expected
to administer infant baptisms myself. As a member, I can understand their
policy on baptism, and since it is a “non-essential” (in their policy and in mine as well), I am at liberty to agree
or disagree with it with charity. I may disagree, but I can say, "I can live with that. It's not something I would do, but I'm not going to make a big deal of it."
If I were a pastor though, my personal beliefs about
baptism would be involved, and I wouldn't be able to just say that I disagree.
I would be making a non-essential into an essential for me. And that decision would affect others who would also be faithful members of the church. Thankfully, I don’t have to consider that question right now.
Thanks be to God that
Jesus in Matthew 28:19,20 said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given
to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them
to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to
the very end of the age."
Jesus has the
authority. He gave the commands. He will be with us to the end. He said baptism
is to be “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. I
will leave it to Jesus and the local churches He has established to determine
what the policies should be about how and when that baptism is to be
administered.
My decision is whether
I can agree with a church’s policy. If the matter is significant enough and I
can’t agree, then I shouldn’t be a member of that church. I've been through that before on a different policy.
If there are some
disagreements, but they are not significant (or “essential” in the case of
Cherry Creek Presbyterian Church as an EPC member), then I could be a member as
I have been in every church in the past—in agreement on almost everything but
still having the right to disagree on non-essential matters.
Happily in this
situation, I am not coming without prior experience or study. My study (linked
above) has prepared me to fit in well with the EPC’s position:
In essentials…Unity
In non-essentials…Liberty
In All things…Charity
No comments:
Post a Comment