Note: long rambling post ahead

A topic that has crossed a segment of the blog world in which I run recently is the issue of baptism and church membership. Specifically, credobaptist (believer’s baptism) churches barring pedobaptists (infant baptism) from church membership.

My tracking of the issue started with John Piper’s article responding to changes Wayne Grudem had made in baptism chapter in the latest printing of Systematic Theology. Basically, in the old wording, Grudem advocated that both pedobaptist and credobaptist churches should allow for members to be of the other persuasion, if informed and convicted by Scripture (grab your copy for his wording; it’s really quite good). Grudem changed it to state that churches should use their baptism practices as a filter for members.

Grudem then responded, and some more articles followed on the Desiring God blog. Of particular interest today was a reference on Jeremy Archer’s situation. To this, my wife replied with her personal story of how baptism and membership has caused pain and division.

Finally, for a quick-ish summary, see this roundup.

OK, that was a lot of links. Hopefully you are still tracking with me and are perhaps slightly up-to-speed.

This recent exchange has gotten me thinking (and talking with Jennifer) about this issue in terms I hadn’t previously. I was raised as (and still am) a credobaptist. Further, in the church contexts in which I grew up, believer’s baptism was a requirement for church membership. I was rather concerned when Cornerstone Church dropped the baptism requirement for membership. So if I hadn’t started thinking, my reaction would be "of course pedobaptists shouldn’t be permitted membership in a Baptist church."

But is the issue really that simple? There is a common mentality that membership isn’t required, or that perhaps it’s for special people; you can be a fully functioning, fully engaged "member" of a church body without being a formal member. Grudem espouses this view in his response; some others also express sentiments similar to this (such as stating that pedobaptists are living in unrepentant sin and as such shouldn’t be admitted to membership).

I think, though, that membership is far too important for this view. In the New Testament, you were either in the church or you weren’t. Scripture doesn’t indicate any kind of formal membership structure or process, other than belief and baptism. Now, Scripture doesn’t explicitly speak to everything that we encounter in the 21st century church. But it doesn’t seem to have any kind of a concept of a "regular attender" (or, as Dr. Piper called in this weekend’s sermon, "regular visitor") as opposed to a "member." You were either a member or excommunicate.

I think, therefore, that membership is a much more serious matter than some make it. Particularly, I believe that refusing membership is a matter of great weight, and should not be done at all lightly. Membership is a welcoming of a brother or sister into the body and bringing them under the fold of the church’s authority. To refuse to do that is tantamount to excommunication. It is to say to a brother or sister "No, you are not welcome as a member of our family."

Saying this is a strong and harsh statement. Scripture commands it only in the context of unrepentant sin (and then only after the person has been approached by varying levels of brethren and multiple warnings). With the exception of unrepentant sinners, heretics, and the like, the overwhelming command of the New Testament is unity. A Baptist could say that a convinced Lutheran or Presbyterian is living in unrepentant sin, but then the right response is kicking them out after appropriate confrontation, not saying they can stay but not be members. That is a strange and false situation.

The spirit of unity, then, seems to necessitate church membership being open to all true believers. I like the proposals Piper has made; allowing "informed pedobaptists" is reasonable. I don’t question at all that baptism should be a requirement for church membership. But if a brother was baptized as an infant and is fully convinced from Scripture and by the Holy Spirit, with prayer and appropriate humility, that such a baptism was a legitimate and correct baptism, then it would be a sin for such a brother to be rebaptized. To be rebaptized, one must reject one’s prior baptism as not being a true baptism. For the aforementioned pedobaptist, this would be a violation of conscience — something Scripture strongly warns against. I have to believe that a wise and godly elder board, with prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, would be able to discern such brethren and know that they are true brothers and qualified for membership in the local church.

I think to my own experiences also. In Ames, we have a group of friends who are mostly Baptist (or at least Baptist-ish). One member of our group is a Lutheran. Our group met (well, still meets, but we aren’t there) frequently for food and/or fellowship — in many ways, functioning as a small first century-style church. Our Lutheran brother was (and is) fully included, treated as a full brother. Should we have excluded him due to differing beliefs on baptism? By no means! To do so would be a repugnant stain on the face of the Church, destroy deep and meaningful friendships, violate Christian unity, and in general create a lousy situation.

There is one further issue that presents itself in the issue of baptism and membership — that of protecting teaching. If allowing pedobaptists to membership (and they should be full members, not some kind of auxiliary member, if they are to be members), how does the church preserve its church-wide convictions, doctrines, and teaching? I think Bethlehem Baptist has a start on this. They have 2 statements of faith (one a superset of the other). The first is the congregational statement of faith, to which all members must subscribe. The second is an elder affirmation of faith, with which all elders must be in agreement. The elder affirmation is much stronger and more particular than the congregational statement. I think that this approach would allow the church to protect its doctrines and teaching while still opening the doors of membership.

OK, I think I’ll close now. Sorry for my rambling, but this has been useful as a dump of my thoughts. Putting them in objective, written form to stare back at me lets me collect and solidify them, and hopefully will prove informational or at least thought-provoking to some.