The weight of baptism

(This is the third in a series of posts that began on February 6, 2006.)

Because the early Baptists saw the church ordinances as signs and seals of their covenant relationship with God and one another (see previous post), their writings about the ordinances brings further insight into their membership practices. Since the time of John Smyth, Baptists required believer’s baptism as a prerequisite to church membership. In fact, baptism became their way of identifying themselves and contrasting their fellowship with that of others.[1] Smyth included the baptismal requirement in his definition of the Church: “…the church of Christ is a company of the faithful; baptized after confession of sin and of faith, endowed with the power of Christ.”[2] He also believed baptism to be symbolic and external, not having any effectual saving power of its own.[3]

The London Confession of 1644 also included baptism in the definition of the church, but went further in incorporating wording which expressed the covenantal nature of this baptism: “Which Church, as it is visible to us, is a company of visible saints… being baptized into that faith, and joined to the Lord, and each other…”[4] Baptism, according to this statement, is as much a symbol of unity with other believers as it is a symbol of unity with Christ. The Somerset Confession of 1656 also expresses this belief when it says that those baptized are “planted in the visible church or body of Christ… [who] walk together in communion in all the commandments of Jesus.”[5] In 1679, the Baptists of London wrote The Orthodox Creed, which clearly expresses the Baptist connection between baptism, covenant, and church membership. In this work, baptism is defined as “a sign of our entrance into the covenant of grace, and ingrafting into Christ, and into the body of Christ, which is his church.”[6]

Baptism was not only required for church membership (entrance into the covenant relationship), but an applicant for church membership had to give evidence for their regeneration before many churches would baptize them and admit them into the fellowship. The Charleston Association’s Summary of Church Discipline typifies the common practice of the day:

Persons making application are to be admitted into the communion of a church by the common suffrage of its members; being first satisfied that they have the qualifications… candidates must come under examination before the church; and if it should happen that they do not give satisfaction, they should be set aside until a more satisfactory profession is made.[7]

Another common practice among Baptist churches was the requirement of a baptismal candidate to participate in a catechism. Keach’s catechism, written in 1693, consisted of 114 questions of doctrine and practice that a new believer had to show mastery over before being brought into the fellowship by baptism.[8]

As the recognition of the covenant nature of church membership began to decline, so did the care taken in examining baptismal candidates for evidence of regeneration and understanding of the commitments which come upon baptism into the church body. Rarely is an applicant for membership expected to do more than walk an aisle, speak to a pastor, and fill out a form which gathers contact information. In many Southern Baptist churches today, a congregation may be expected to whole heartedly admit a complete stranger into their fellowship without any degree of knowledge regarding the stranger’s testimony, Christian witness, or desire to bind together with other believers.

Article VII on baptism and the Lord’s Supper in The Baptist Faith and Message puts forth only the symbolic meaning of baptism, all the while saying nothing about the act as being an initiation into a covenant relationship. The relationship between baptism and covenant entrance is at best vaguely implied in article IV on the Church, which defines a congregation as “baptized believers, associated together by covenant in the faith and fellowship in the gospel.”

In my opinion, one is not overstating the case to say that in the vast majority of Baptist churches today baptism is taken far too lightly and administered far too readily. I have been a pastor for less than two years but I have already denied baptism to three different individuals, not feeling certain or convinced of their profession of faith in Christ as Lord. And at the same time, I admit to feeling tremendous pressure from congregational expectations about readiness to accept newcomers as members of our local fellowship. It is my conviction that Baptists must once again hold baptism in high esteem as a privilege administered only to those whose commitment has been examined.

References:
[1] Brackney, The Baptists, 56.
[2] Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 101.
[3] Brackney, The Baptists, 56.
[4] Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 165.
[5] Ibid., 209.
[6] Ibid., 317.
[7] Association, A Summary of Church Discipline, 123.
[8] George, Baptist Confessions, Covenants, and Catechisms, 241.

~ by jakeporter on February 17, 2006.