Position Papers and Monographs
Baptism and Church Membership
by Dr. John C. Whitcomb
The symbol of water baptism which our
Lord taught us to observe throughout this church age (see Matt. 28:18-20) is an
effective testimony and witness to the tri-unity of God. But for the human
observer it is effective only to the extent that it visibly depicts the three
equally divine and glorious persons who have been involved in our redemption.
Our Lord Jesus Christ is none other than the Second Person of the Triune
Godhead, fully and eternally equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Triune
immersion visibly symbolizes this ultimate reality, while single
immersion, on the other hand, is effective as a witness to the tri-unity of
the Godhead only through the verbal explanations of the human baptizer,
not in the symbolic form itself.
We are not saying that people who
have been baptized as believers by single immersion (or even by sprinkling)
have not experienced the blessing of obeying what they thought was God's
commandment to them. A new believer will obey the instructions given to him by
the godly pastor who baptizes him. His conscience may be clear on this
question; but that does not exclude the possibility that he may receive further
light from God's Word at some later time with respect to biblical ordinances
and doctrines. Accepting new biblical insights (and acting immediately in the
light of them) is not a mark of inconsistency and instability. The story of
Apollos of Alexandria illustrates this truth very effectively (cf. Acts 18:26;
19:5).
Consider the tragic alternative.
Millions of professing (and some truly born again) Christians in America,
Europe, and elsewhere, are resisting the voice of the Holy Spirit through His
Word by rejecting further biblical illumination and binding themselves to a
particular church creed. This is traditionalism and creedalism in its worst
form. Christians everywhere must reject this attitude and strive, like the
Berean Christians of Paul's day (Acts 17:11-12), to "search the Scriptures
daily" on all matters pertaining to faith and practice in our life of
obedience to Christ.
Many Christians emotionally react to
the invitation to be baptized by triune immersion if they have already been
baptized as believers another way. They may even feel that to be
"re-baptized" would be to repudiate their former public confession of
Christ. But this is simply not true. As we have seen, a spiritually discerning
Christian will always act in the light of new biblical insights. If he has
discovered, through studying God's Word, that triune immersion is the form
which Christ really commanded the Church to observe, then he will realize that
he is not actually experiencing a "re-baptism," but instead, for the
first time in his life as a believer, true Christian baptism. This should bring
great joy rather than resentment.
Once this perspective is understood,
there can be no further question as to why our Lord did not specifically deal
with the "re-baptism" issue in His Great Commission in Matthew 28. If
He intended to teach triune immersion to visibly symbolize the triunity of
the Godhead, He could not, at the same time, discuss alternative forms of
water baptism ("Form B," "Form C," etc.) and then
specifically require that believers who had experienced "Form B"
should experience "Form A." Could anything be more contrary to the
teaching-style of our Lord? Any doctrine or practice or ordinance taught by the
Lord Jesus Christ is ultimate and final for the true believer. Alternatives
cannot even be considered--once we discover what Christ really taught! Thus, if
the Lord Jesus truly intended to command the observance of triune immersion,
each Christian should be triune immersed, regardless of what he or she may or
may not have done before.
Millions of born-again Christians
have been baptized by single immersion. When the ordinance of single immersion
is performed, the pastor almost always quotes our Lord's statement of the
triunity of the Godhead in Matthew 28:19. However, single immersion as a
form is inadequate to visibly demonstrate what our Lord wanted to demonstrate,
namely, that the man, Jesus Christ, into whose Name we are to be immersed in
the Holy Spirit, was not, like Adam was before the fall, a sinless but
finite man. In addition to possessing a full human nature (through virgin
conception through the Holy Spirit in the body of Mary) he always was, now is,
and always will be the infinite second Person of the Triune God. Most Jews
and other unitarians (including Muslims) have rejected and still reject this
ultimate truth of biblical revelation.
If triune immersion was the
commandment of our Lord to the Church, then why is it not mentioned in other
places in the New Testament? For example, Samaritan believers and John's
disciples were "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:16;
19:5); and Cornelius and his household were "baptized in the name of Jesus
Christ" (Acts 10:48).
The answer seems quite clear. No Jew
or Samaritan or Gentile proselyte (like Cornelius) would have questioned the
Lordship of God the Father. But to think of Jesus of Nazareth, a genuine (and
apparently mere) human being, as being also fully and completely God our
Creator and final Judge, and thus our ultimate LORD, was spiritually beyond
the capacity of sinful man (Matt. 16:17; 1 Cor. 2:14; 12:3). Thus, the point of
such abbreviated baptismal formulas was not to reduce the triunity formula of
Matthew 28, or to provide an alternative formula for new converts, but to
emphasize the one part of that formula which was humanly impossible for an
unsaved person to comprehend and accept.
We would hopefully all agree that a
mere form without the content of faith is worse than worthless. But an
abandonment of all symbolic ordinances of the church is obviously not the
answer either! For the true Church (as for ancient Israel), God-honoring faith,
together with a proper use of God-given symbols to visualize vital aspects
of His redemptive work on our behalf, constitutes the normative biblical
pattern.
How we respond to our Lord's command
concerning water baptism is therefore an important test of obedience. He
said, "if you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15).
And if it is important, then how can it best be protected from
misunderstanding and compromise, and effectively perpetuated? The only
answer is to obey His instructions reverently, carefully and
consistently. I believe, therefore, that to allow people to become members of
churches that teach triune immersion without personally experiencing it
themselves is to weaken the commitment of such churches to this symbol which
our Lord has entrusted to us. The only effective way a local church has to
perpetuate its form of baptism in the long term is to make it a requirement for
membership.
The early church found itself in a
situation very different from ours. There were no options or
alternatives available regarding water baptism or church membership. Every
professing Christian was assumed to be a member of a local church (for
identification with the visible manifestation of the body of Christ on earth
and for indoctrination and discipline in the Word of God), and every
member of a local church was required to be properly baptized. During at least
the first three hundred years of church history the form of water baptism was
the same in all churches, namely, triune immersion. The infant church was
spared the confusing diversity of baptismal forms we see today, because all
Christians at the very beginning of the church age were taught by none other
than the twelve apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ! Thus, they "were
baptized . . . and were continually devoting themselves to the apostles'
teaching" (Acts 2:41-42). But now triune immersion is being experienced by
only a tiny minority of true Christians, and its symbolic message is understood
by even fewer.
Of course, the mode of baptism which
a local church observes cannot be an ultimate test of the spiritual maturity of
its members. Sadly, many Christians who have been baptized by triune immersion
are immature in other areas of Christian life or understanding. By the same
token, it is perfectly obvious that many who have been single-immersed or
sprinkled, or who have not even experienced believer's baptism at all, have
achieved a much higher level of spiritual maturity than some of those who have
submitted to the biblical form of baptism.
But all of this is really beside the
point. If carried to its logical conclusion, there should be no Christian
ordinances at all, because they cannot guarantee spiritual maturity. However,
New Testament guidelines for local church government and ordinances cannot be
invalidated by the fact that some "spiritually mature" Christians do
not observe them.
Just because local churches during
the apostolic era emphasized spiritual priorities such as prayer and witnessing
does not mean that they were loose and flexible assemblies without membership
roles and requirements. Otherwise, how could the total number of believers have
been known (Acts 1:15, 2:41, 4:4)? How could church officers have been elected
(Acts 6:2-5)? How could believing widows over 60 years of age have been
"put on the list" (1 Tim 5:9)? And how could a professing Christian
be ex-communicated (1 Cor 5:13)?
In some evangelical circles today,
especially within "parachurch" groups, membership requirements
determined by local churches are often considered to be "legalistic"
restrictions upon the freedom of the individual Christian and thus a surrender
to denominational traditionalism or "creedalism." But if requiring
water baptism is considered to be legalistic, then logically it should not be
required of church elders either. Where in Scripture do we find such a division
between 'clergy' and 'laity' with regard to the Great Commission requirement of
water baptism? No, biblically-based guidelines for local church membership and
church government do not constitute a legalistic millstone around the neck of
the Christian believer and a hindrance to healthy church growth. The wholesome
and faithful participation of each Christian in the ordinances given by Christ
to His Church may be a relatively small part of God's plan for this age. But it
is at the same time a significant and important part of His plan.
God desires a re-dedication of our
hearts to believe and to obey "all things" He has commanded us in His
infallible Word. Then, and then only, may we expect a "well done"
from our Lord at his judgment throne in heaven, and on earth a true and lasting
revival and an effective Gospel outreach to all nations, in the power of the
Holy Spirit and for the glory of God's dear Son.
As one of our national leaders has
recently stated, the resolution of the baptism/church membership issue
"must be consistent with the biblical teaching and the theological
implications [of this teaching]." It is my conviction that the only resolution
to this point of tension in our Fellowship that would indeed be
"consistent with the biblical teaching" would be to terminate the
practice of accepting people into membership in Grace Brethren churches without
experiencing triune immersion.
Some Grace Brethren pastors feel very
strongly that granting church membership status to believers who have not
been triune immersed is (1) to deprive them of the joy and privilege of full
obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ with respect to His instructions concerning
water baptism; and (2) to introduce them into what actually amounts to a
second-class membership in our National Fellowship of Grace Brethren
Churches. According to the agreements of 1964-66, such members are (1) not
eligible to become Grace Brethren pastors, because only triune immersion
may be practiced in our churches; (2) not qualified to serve as
delegates to National Conference; and are (3) not permitted to vote at
our National Conference on issues related to water baptism and church
membership. Furthermore, lay delegate representation at National Conference
from each church is based on the number of triune immersed members.
It is perfectly clear, therefore,
that the 1964-66 agreements were at best concessions for the sake of
unity in the Fellowship. They were not intended to be an encouragement
to start new churches with an "open" policy of church membership
either in the U.S.A. or overseas. But this seems to be the new trend. Not only
so, but some churches which have adopted the "open" policy are no
longer reporting or even keeping records of non-triune-immersed members. Thus,
during the past quarter of a century, it has become increasingly obvious to
pastors on both sides of this issue that the agreements of the middle-sixties
have produced neither unity nor growth (in the biblical sense of those terms)
in our beloved Fellowship. Even when properly understood with respect to their
original intent, those agreements have proven to be unworkable on a practical
level and need to be replaced with biblically consistent guidelines. In this
way I believe God will be honored and His revealed truth promoted. As we seek
His strength and wisdom to obey the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the
Bible, we can count on receiving the spiritual strength and unity that only He
can give us.
Winona Lake,
Indiana
June, 1989