Several years ago, in a different ministry context, the pastoral staff was asked if we could do a favor for one of the relatives of a church member. The sister of one of the ladies in the church had recently accepted Christ as her Savior and wanted to be baptized, but lived several hours away. Since she was coming in to visit, the request was made to the pastoral staff if she could be baptized at our church while she was in town.
What should we have done? Should churches baptize people from out of town? Should baptism occur separate from church membership? Is the church commanded to baptize a part from the ongoing process of discipleship?
We discussed this situation in great detail among our staff. Though opinions varied and disagreement was expressed, we finally agreed that we would not baptize her but would encourage her to find a local church in her area, follow the Lord in baptism, and join that fellowship for accountability and fellowship.
There are several reasons why I believe that churches should not separate baptism from church membership.
1) Baptism symbolizes union with Christ and His body.
It is true that the church exists universally (all believers) and locally (believers in a local church). However, the universal church is expressed through the local body of believers. Baptism points to union with Christ (Romans 6:1-4) and union with Christ is expressed through the participation of the local church (Romans 12, 1 Cor 10:16-17, Eph 1:22-23, 2:16; Col 1:18, 2:19, 3:15, and many others). Therefore, you cannot separate union with Christ from union with His body, expressed locally in covenantal community.
Think of it this way…
Baptism shows union with Christ—Union with Christ is shown through participation in His body—participation in His body is shown through local church membership.
2) The Great Commission does not separate baptism and discipleship.
The three participles in the Great Commission involve “going, baptizing, and teaching.” Therefore, when churches separate baptizing from the ongoing teaching and discipleship in a local congregation, they are not fulfilling the Great Commission.
3) Baptism is a “church ordinance” not an “individual expression.”
I have said often that baptism is not an individual event, it is a congregational event. In baptism, the person expressions identification with Christ, the church is affirming that profession, and the local faith community is proclaiming the gospel to one another. That is why we believe there are two ordinances…baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Just as you would not (or at least should not) participate in the Lord Supper in isolation of the local church, baptism is not to be separated from the local body either. You don’t take your wife out to eat and say, “I think we should take the Lord Supper together tonight.” Why? Because it is a church ordnance to be practiced within the local covenantal community…as does baptism. Baptism was practiced in the early church under Apostolic authority within the context of the visible church (Matt 16:16-18).
4) The teaching of Acts 2.
The clear order of Acts chapter 2 is the preaching of the gospel, the baptism of believers, and the addition into the local church. Though the phrase “the church” is not given, verse 42 speaks of life and function of the local church. Words like “Trinity” or “rapture” are not given, but we see their process and function.
5) It is spiritually dangerous to baptize someone without participation in the local church.
More than anything, new believers need the local teaching, accountability, and discipline of the local church. To allow individuals to be baptized (affirmed by that congregation) and not placed under the watch-care of the church can have dangerous consequences upon the believer.
There are other reasons why I believe that baptism and church membership should be connected. Those who disagree often point to the Ethiopian eunuch as not being baptized into the local church. There are a few problems with this example.
a) It is likely that there was no church in Ethiopia at the time because the gospel was starting to spread.
b) We are not given enough follow-up information concerning this situation as to discern what happened after his baptism.
c) One should never take one example (of which we do not have all the surrounding information) and a make a universal principle out of it when the entire rest of the New Testament demonstrates to practice of baptism into the local body.
The decisions like we made in the situation described above are not always easy. But at the end of the day we felt (and I was thankful) that the best thing for that new believer was to find a Bible-teaching congregation in her community, profess her identification with Christ to that body, and submit herself that covenantal community of faith. That, in our opinion, was the best favor we could do for her.
Pastor Wes
We discussed this situation in great detail among our staff. Though opinions varied and disagreement was expressed, we finally agreed that we would not baptize her but would encourage her to find a local church in her area, follow the Lord in baptism, and join that fellowship for accountability and fellowship.
There are several reasons why I believe that churches should not separate baptism from church membership.
1) Baptism symbolizes union with Christ and His body.
It is true that the church exists universally (all believers) and locally (believers in a local church). However, the universal church is expressed through the local body of believers. Baptism points to union with Christ (Romans 6:1-4) and union with Christ is expressed through the participation of the local church (Romans 12, 1 Cor 10:16-17, Eph 1:22-23, 2:16; Col 1:18, 2:19, 3:15, and many others). Therefore, you cannot separate union with Christ from union with His body, expressed locally in covenantal community.
Think of it this way…
Baptism shows union with Christ—Union with Christ is shown through participation in His body—participation in His body is shown through local church membership.
2) The Great Commission does not separate baptism and discipleship.
The three participles in the Great Commission involve “going, baptizing, and teaching.” Therefore, when churches separate baptizing from the ongoing teaching and discipleship in a local congregation, they are not fulfilling the Great Commission.
3) Baptism is a “church ordinance” not an “individual expression.”
I have said often that baptism is not an individual event, it is a congregational event. In baptism, the person expressions identification with Christ, the church is affirming that profession, and the local faith community is proclaiming the gospel to one another. That is why we believe there are two ordinances…baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Just as you would not (or at least should not) participate in the Lord Supper in isolation of the local church, baptism is not to be separated from the local body either. You don’t take your wife out to eat and say, “I think we should take the Lord Supper together tonight.” Why? Because it is a church ordnance to be practiced within the local covenantal community…as does baptism. Baptism was practiced in the early church under Apostolic authority within the context of the visible church (Matt 16:16-18).
4) The teaching of Acts 2.
The clear order of Acts chapter 2 is the preaching of the gospel, the baptism of believers, and the addition into the local church. Though the phrase “the church” is not given, verse 42 speaks of life and function of the local church. Words like “Trinity” or “rapture” are not given, but we see their process and function.
5) It is spiritually dangerous to baptize someone without participation in the local church.
More than anything, new believers need the local teaching, accountability, and discipline of the local church. To allow individuals to be baptized (affirmed by that congregation) and not placed under the watch-care of the church can have dangerous consequences upon the believer.
There are other reasons why I believe that baptism and church membership should be connected. Those who disagree often point to the Ethiopian eunuch as not being baptized into the local church. There are a few problems with this example.
a) It is likely that there was no church in Ethiopia at the time because the gospel was starting to spread.
b) We are not given enough follow-up information concerning this situation as to discern what happened after his baptism.
c) One should never take one example (of which we do not have all the surrounding information) and a make a universal principle out of it when the entire rest of the New Testament demonstrates to practice of baptism into the local body.
The decisions like we made in the situation described above are not always easy. But at the end of the day we felt (and I was thankful) that the best thing for that new believer was to find a Bible-teaching congregation in her community, profess her identification with Christ to that body, and submit herself that covenantal community of faith. That, in our opinion, was the best favor we could do for her.
Pastor Wes
No comments:
Post a Comment