Pure Church

Sometimes answering the basic questions helps us see larger issues more clearly. Take for example the issue of church membership. There's a fair amount of ink spilled on that topic by folks arguing for and against membership. And it can seem like an odd thing to assert or deny if you start at the question of membership itself. But if you go back to basics, the answer seems much simpler and clearer, at least to me.

Take for example this quote from James V. Brownson's The Promise of Baptism: An Introduction to Baptism in Scripture and the Reformed Tradition. He's answering the question, "What is a Christian?" Brownson first talks about what it means to be an individual Christian:

So Christians are disciples, followers of Jesus who seek to learn and to grow, and who live their lives trusting that God has called and chosen them before they even made their own choice to become disciples. They are thus deeply aware of God's kindness and grace which precedes and empowers their own commitment to Christ. Disciples live by faith, trusting in this grace as the foundation for their lives. (p. 5-6)

He then moves on to consider the wonderful truth about our union Christ, summing up this way: "Christians are always learning and growing toward becoming in their daily lives the kind of persons that they already are in their union with Christ." (p. 7)

Finally, he draws out the corporate implications of what it means to be an individual Christian united to Christ:

Up to this point, we have been discussing what it means to be a Christian. But in a very real sense, there is no such thing as an individual Christian. When God joins Christians to Jesus, God also joins them to something bigger than themselves; they become incorporated into the church, the "body of Christ." In the New Testament, it is inconceivable for Christians to think of themselves as united to Christ without also thinking about the ways they are united to other Christians. This was true even in Jesus' own ministry. He didn't have one disciple; He had twelve, and many more beyond his "inner circle." Almost all of the learning of Jesus' disciples took place as a group, rather than one-on-one interactions with Jesus. This same pattern continued in the early church, as Christians gathered in groups called ekklesiai (the Greek word for "churches," which can also be translated "meetings" or "assemblies"). From the beginning, it was unimaginable that someone might become a Christian without also becoming part of a church, a local gathering of disciples of Jesus. The union with Christ experienced by Christians also unites them to each other. (p. 7)

If we're clear on what the thing is, we're clearer on subsequent questions. If we know what a Christian is beyond "my personal relationship with Jesus," then we're likely to be clearer on the nature and necessity of church membership. I wonder if those who oppose church membership aren't guilty of not having thought enough about what it basically means to be a Christian.

I don't quote Barth very much (okay... I don't think I've ever quoted Barth), but this was an interesting statement on baptism:

The real reason for the persistent adherence to infant baptism is quite simply the fact that without it the church would suddenly be in a remarkably embarrassing position. Every individual would then have to decide whether he wanted to be a Christian. But how many Christians would there be in that case? The whole concept of a national church (or national religion) would be shaken. That must not happen; and so one proposes argument upon argument for infant baptism and yet cannot speak convincingly because fundamentally he has a bad conscience. The introduction of adult baptism in itself would of course not reform the church which needs reforming. The adherence to infant baptism is only one — a very important one — of many symptoms that the church is not alive and bold, that it is afraid to walk on the water like Peter to meet the Lord, that it therefore does not seek a sure foundation but only deceptive props.

“Die christliche Lehre nach dem Heidelberger Katechismus,” Lectures given at the University of Bonn, Summer Semester, 1947.

HT: Inhabitatio Dei

I listened to John Folmar, pastor of UCCD, on Ephesians 1.

And I watched this YouTube video of a recent baptismal testimony here at FBC.


What a joy to recall the sovereign work of God's grace among us! This is partly why baptism services are my favorite services.

That's the question John Piper tackles in the first of a three-part series addressing baptism and church membership. Should be a good series. Listen or watch here.

The blogosphere's recent roil over baaptism, membership and the Lord's supper has cooled a bit. That's probably good. It's the kind of conversation that requires reflection, not speed. But my wife passed along this personal situation involving baptism and membership. Obviously this situation is exceptional, but it's worth the read, prayer and counsel for our brother. For my money, make the local church's practice of baptism a higher priority than that of the parachurch organization.

When I was at CHBC, I had the joy of participating in membership interviews, often sitting in as other pastors conducted them and often conducting them myself. In the last couple of months there, it seemed the Lord had me conduct all the interviews with people who struggled with believer's baptism. They were often people who had come from paedobaptist traditions and the idea of being "baptized again" (as they would put it) troubled them.



But here's what I notice. Objections to the credobaptist position runs along two lines usually. Some people have theological convictions. They're committed to a paedo perspective and are perhaps well-trained in that understanding. But, honestly, that's a minority of people I see.

One would think that most baptists are "died in the wool baptists," by which I mean are knowledgeable about what baptism is and why it's important, and maybe even a little zealous for the practice. But if the truth be told, most evangelicals--baptists among them--are "soft" on baptism. Far from zealous, many are indifferent.

As a convinced baptist, that saddens me. It saddens me because of the rich theology, symbolism and meaning of this ordinance left to us by our God and Savior himself. So, it's with some delight that I saw JT's reference to Van Neste's paper "Reinvigorating Baptist Practice of the Ordinances." It's also timely because, Lord willing, we'll be considering Matthew 3 on Sunday morning, a text where baptism figures prominently.