;)
Questions about the Baptist Faith & Message
Posted by David Rogers in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology
Today is my turn to post here at sbc IMPACT!, but lately I have been very busy with other responsibilities, and have not had much time to put together a normal post. I do have some questions, though, that I would like to bounce off of you our sbc IMPACT! readers that I think may provide for some good discussion, and also possibly help me to better think through some issues I am wrestling with.
1. Is the Baptist Faith & Message in essence a descriptive document or a prescriptive document?
I realize that, as Baptists, our guide in matters of belief and practice is to be the Bible itself. I trust and hope that any good Baptist will not look to the BF&M to determine their beliefs and practices, but rather the Bible.
I also realize that various agencies of the SBC currently use the BF&M as a doctrinal guide for determining who is qualified and who is not to serve as an employee of their agency. Personally, I see no problem with this. There must be some doctrinal guide for whom and what we are going to collectively support, unless we want to go to the other extreme, and say, “anything goes.”
However, what I am asking about here is this: Is the BF&M intended to reflect current beliefs and practices of the local congregations that make up the SBC, or rather to instruct local congregations and believers on what they ought to believe?
2. If the Baptist Faith & Message is in essence a descriptive document, is it meant to be descriptive of the beliefs of Baptists today, the beliefs of Baptists throughout history, or a combination of both?
3. Does the Baptist Faith & Message (2000) accurately reflect the present beliefs and practices of the majority of Southern Baptist congregations and their members regarding the issue of open/close/closed communion? Is anyone aware of any empirical study documenting the views of Southern Baptists on this particular issue?
4. If the Baptist Faith & Message is in essence a descriptive document of the beliefs of Baptists today, and it does not accurately reflect the present beliefs and practices of the majority of Southern Baptist congregations and their members regarding open/close/closed communion, what is the argument, if any, for saying that SBC agencies should demand total conformity on this particular issue as a qualification for employment?
5. Does anyone out there have any knowledge on whether or not the BF&M 2000 committee specifically considered the matter of open/close/closed communion during their discussions?
Although my father was the chairman of this committee, I never had the opportunity to discuss this particular matter with him.
At this link (or try here), it is possible to listen to the proceedings of the 2000 convention on the proposal for approving the new BF&M. It is interesting to me that, toward the end of the session (at minute 39:55), Jim Goodroe made a motion to amend the clause on the open/close/closed communion issue. However, it is not clear, from the answer given, whether the specific question brought up by Goodroe was ever seriously considered within the committee. At minute 43:00, my father states: “Our statement does not deal with the issue that has been spoken of.” I am unsure exactly what he meant by this. The following explanation given by Richard Land was, in my opinion, confusing, leading some to conclude that Goodroe’s proposed amendment called into question the importance of baptism. The further explanation of the amendment by Paige Patterson was also confusing. I have my doubts on whether many of those voting understood what they were voting for on this specific amendment. If anyone reading this (perhaps an actual committee member) has any personal information regarding this, especially the previous discussion within the committee, I would be most grateful to have your insights on this matter, provided it is appropriate to share them.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
David,
Doesn’t the Preamble pretty well cover the prescriptive/descriptive issue?
Bob,
Thanks for your feedback.
To be honest, I find some phrases in the preamble that could be interpreted more as supporting a descriptive view:
(e.g. The 1963 committee rightly sought to identify and affirm “certain definite doctrines that Baptists believe, cherish, and with which they have been and are now closely identified.” Our living faith is established upon eternal truths. “Thus this generation of Southern Baptists is in historic succession of intent and purpose as it endeavors to state for its time and theological climate those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us.”
It is the purpose of this statement of faith and message to set forth certain teachings which we believe.}
And some, that appear to at least open a door for a more prescriptive view:
(e.g. Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as INSTRUMENTS OF DOCTRINAL ACCOUNTABILITY. We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as ESSENTIAL to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice.)
What do you see in the preamble: more support for the descriptive or the prescriptive view?
Also, do you have any opinion regarding the other questions I ask?
David, it is interesting that the two phrases you highlighted that indicate a “prescriptive” statement show up only in the BFM 2000. Thus, did something significant take place in the new preamble that might have radically changed how the document is to be interpreted?
Kevin,
Yes, that is interesting. Do you remember ever reading someone explaining the intention of the committee in including these new statements?
Brother David,
These are excellent questions, and are questions I have wrestled with more passionately during the last few years. In my mind the BFM2000 is a mixed bag. It seems to be for the most part descriptive doc, but with a huge lean toward accommodation. This may be where the rub is for those that think their views may land in a more Baptist Identity posture (where the BFM2000 is a good prescriptive doc), and for those that believe their views are more biblically clarified (where the BFM2000 is better seen to them as accommodating). Of course both groups with argue that their views are biblical.
My view falls into the later group, because I believe it is clear that the BFM2000 is obviously descriptive with overt accommodation, thus not essentially clear for teaching sound doctrine on its own. This does not make the statement wrong,…but I do believe it simply sets forth a guide at best. For instance, if one tries to teach doctrine from what is written in the statement, they will be woefully short of clarifying any doctrine. But, if one wants to know some general leanings of Southern Baptists, this document is broad enough to accommodate a consensus.
Additionally, I do not believe it is the responsibility of the convention to teach doctrine for the churches. It should be the church forming as churches locally throughout the world that depend upon the Spirit’s gifting of qualified leaders and teachers that are determined to teach and clarify doctrine with the church on a daily basis in their cities. That would make for a healthy convention and a more cooperating convention.
Just some thoughts,
Blessings,
Chris
David,
These are interesting questions. On my blog I have been going through the articles weekly, trying to flesh out how I feel about them and how they fall into line with previous versions and confessions of faith that may be applicable to us as Baptists (like the Abstract of Principles, New Hampshire, &tc). All along the understanding I have been working under, which I think I garnered from the recent debate over communion between Malcolm Yarnell and Tom Ascol, is that the BF&M is meant to be the standard of orthodoxy for an SBC church. That meaning, no church can claim something to be an orthodox SBC belief if it is not in line with the BF&M.
Thus, for instance, a church like FBC-Decatur can not claim that Southern Baptists believe that women are qualified for the pastorate (see Article VI), even though they are themselves a Southern Baptist church that is practicing this. Similarly, one would seemingly have to reject open communion as something a Southern Baptist belief. In this sense, I guess it would be a descriptive document.
I think we also move to the descriptive side when we think about the ambiguity of the document on certain issues such as election and church polity. That is why so many, like Danny Akin, are arguing that it is wrong to say that the SBC favors Calvinists or non-Calvinists. Neither are explicitly rejected by the BF&M and so both should be accepted fully in Southern Baptist life.
David,
These answers to your questions are my opinion and not necessarily answers that I am pleased to give, but I think are right:
1. Is the Baptist Faith & Message in essence a descriptive document or a prescriptive document?
* The “accountability” and “Essential” statements in the preamble make it a hardcore prescriptive document. There is no such thing as looking at the BF&M and dividing it up into what is essential and not essential. It is ALL [peace and war, the Spirit baptizing, etc.] essential according to its own preamble for passing as fully Baptist.
2. If the Baptist Faith & Message is in essence a descriptive document, is it meant to be descriptive of the beliefs of Baptists today, the beliefs of Baptists throughout history, or a combination of both?
* I think it is at least intended to be descriptive of what Southern Baptists have believed in the past–notice the statement on “tradition” in the preamble.
3. Does the Baptist Faith & Message (2000) accurately reflect the present beliefs and practices of the majority of Southern Baptist congregations and their members regarding the issue of open/close/closed communion?
* No
Is anyone aware of any empirical study documenting the views of Southern Baptists on this particular issue?
* No. And I doubt lifeway would attempt to do a fair and empirical study on this. I think there would be too much political pressure to not attempt this. However, I have been wrong before.
4. If the Baptist Faith & Message is in essence a descriptive document of the beliefs of Baptists today, and it does not accurately reflect the present beliefs and practices of the majority of Southern Baptist congregations and their members regarding open/close/closed communion, what is the argument, if any, for saying that SBC agencies should demand total conformity on this particular issue as a qualification for employment?
* I think the argument some might make [possibly in private] is this: It should be required of employees because this is what Baptists have historically believed and the local churches have moved away from their roots through the moderate influence on them during the 20th century.
Another argument might go like this: It should be required because it is biblical and we should not compromise on what is biblical.
5. Does anyone out there have any knowledge on whether or not the BF&M 2000 committee specifically considered the matter of open/close/closed communion during their discussions?
* Not on my end.
God Bless,
Benji
Re: #3 (Does the BF&M “accurately reflect the present beliefs and practices of the majority of Southern Baptist congregations…”.)
No, it does not. And it won’t until we change the nature of the Annual Meeting. Dave Samples and I – and others – have written about the need to utilize current technologies to increase the attendance at our Annual Meetings.
The current venue is weighted toward pastors, laity who live near the meeting city, and the retired/self employed who have more flexible schedules.
In addition to the above groups, the issues-of-the-day (whatever they are, they change from year to year) will always draw the true believers from both sides of the issue; people willing to make tremendous sacrifices in money and time who end up polarizing the debate. I have no problem with the debate itself being polarized; I think the Convention would be better served with as large a representation as possible to provide the vote(s).
The whole issue of the BF&M relative to open/close/closed communion is one that is, in my opinion, surrounded with quite a bit of imprecision when it comes to implementation in actual practice.
In my view, a “literal reading” of the BF&M 2K allows for both “closed” and “close” communion. However, it has been my observation that many SBC congregations, don’t actually practice either “close” or “closed” communion — even if they nominally support that position.
For example, when we moved here to Oklahoma and joined First Southern Baptist in Del City and attended the “new members” class we were told the church’s practice for membership was that in order to be accepted into membership based upon your previous membership at another church that the other church had to have “like faith and order”. Implied but not explicitly stated was you had to be from a congregation that holds to believer’s baptism by immersion. This idea is consistent with what the BF&M 2K says.
However, when we have the Lord’s Supper the pastor is not too explicit regarding what constitutes the proper pre-requisite for partaking the ordinance. For example, I think a person sitting in the room could “honestly” partake even if his baptism was sprinkling as an infant. We don’t come right out and say that infant baptism and/or sprinkling is bogus.
I don’t know if the BF&M is supposed to be “prescriptive” or “descriptive”. I guess in some areas, such as qualifications for the church membership (and thus the Lord’s supper) the question is moot since churches in real-world situations free-lance quite a bit regardless of what they formally believe and regardless of what the BF&M says.
Based upon anecodtal evidence, I’d say the vast majority that most SBC congregations actually practice “open” communion even if they claim something more restrictive.
Sorry, prescriptive/descriptive, I think neither is quite what I meant to say. How about some language from logic instead. I think that the view I gave of the BF&M being the “standard of orthodoxy in the SBC” means that it is a document of what is necessary to be considered an orthodox Southern Baptist. However, I do not believe it a sufficient summary of any one complete theology, and thus is accommodating to the idea of BF&M + ‘stuff’ (i.e. BF&M + Calvinism, BF&M + Multi-site churches, BF&M + Sabbatarianism).
Chris & Todd,
The preamble also states:
“Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches.”
As I understand that, each local congregation is free, before God, to pick and choose what from the BF&M they hold to or not. Now, if someone else wants to say that, if they don’t hold to 100%, they are not legitimate Baptists, that is their opinion, and they have the right to their opinion. In the long run, what someone else’s opinion of me might be is not all that important, though, at least as I see it.
Also, local associations and state conventions are autonomous bodies that are free to accept or exclude whomever they want, on the criteria they choose to do so.
Where the rubber meets the road, though, is when people are going to be disqualified from service and employment due to a position they take.
My basic question continues to be: Does it make sense to exclude someone from denominational service or employment whose views are not different from those of the majority of the churches and members making up the convention?
Bowden,
I think you bring up a good point. However, I question whether the “close/closed communion” option has even represented the views of the majority of covention messengers present in recent years.
In the meantime, until the system is changed, I suppose we must stick with the guidelines and structures that have been set up, though.
David,
You said “Now, if someone else wants to say that, if they don’t hold to 100%, they are not legitimate Baptists, that is their opinion, and they have the right to their opinion”
The thing is it is not just about what “someone else” wants to say. The BF&M 2000 preamble says you, and I, and B.H. Carroll are not 100% legitimate Baptists by way of implication.
“We are not embarrassed to state before the world that THESE are doctrines we hold precious and as ESSENTIAL to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice.” (emphasis mine)
If people want to disagree with me on that, then that is fine. However, I would like to see what reason(s) they give.
God Bless,
Benji
Benji,
There seems to be a bit of ambivalence on the questions of descriptive-prescriptive, and tradition-present belief and practice.
The following sentences, for example, seem to refer to both aspects:
“The 1963 committee rightly sought to identify and affirm ‘certain definite doctrines that Baptists believe, cherish, and with which they have been and are now closely identified.’ Our living faith is established upon eternal truths. ‘Thus this generation of Southern Baptists is in historic succession of intent and purpose as it endeavors to state for its time and theological climate those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us.’”
However, to me, the fact that the BF&M has been amended several times, together with this statement—”As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time”—seems to me give the priority to present views, whenever the two may be in conflict with each other.
Roger,
Thanks for your thoughts.
All the “anecdotal” evidence I can find seems to support what you say here. However, finding anything beyond this seems to be a bit elusive. If anyone out there knows of anything, it would sure be good to know.
David,
Honestly, this statement “Thus this generation of Southern Baptists is in historic succession of intent and purpose as it endeavors to state for its time and theological climate those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us” from the preamble blows my mind.
How anyone could think back in 2000 that close/closed communion was “most surely held among us” is incredible to me.
Now, I don’t think most people were thinking the confession contained a statement on this in the first place. However, for those who did know full well what the confession said on communion AND what was taking place on the ground in the churches, it is amazing to me that they could affirm this.
God bless,
Benji
I’m not sure whether the BFM 2000 is prescriptive or descriptive. Here are some things that I am very glad it includes:
1) The office of pastor is open only to men and that husbands are to be the servant leader in their home with the wife submitting herself to her own husband. I am glad that it articulates a complimentarian point of view since that is what the bible clearly teaches.
2) Homosexuality is always immoral and sinful. While want to pretend that homosexuality is compatibile with biblical Christianity, it is clear that the bible does not teach anything that would remotely suggest such nonsense.
3) I am glad the phrase that said something like “The bible is to be interpreted through Jesus Christ” was replaced. The bible is clearly the revelation of God and Jesus from beginning to end. However, such a phrase gave liberals the opportunity to say that the bible couldn’t possibly mean that women couldn’t be pastors because Christ wouldn’t exclude anyone or that unrepentant homosexuals could still be Christians because Jesus loves everybody.
I get postively giddy when I think of how “moderates” feel left out or marginalized as a result of these changes. I’m no fan of Paige “I’d like to Supersize that” Patterson or the Landmar…I mean BI folks but I’m so thankful that the moderates didn’t regain control of the convention. If they had, we’d be a few short years away from looking like the PCUSA in all areas except eschatology and infant baptism.
Oh, and I obviously don’t know how to turn off hyperlinks in html. The only words that were supposed to be a hyperlink was “some churches”. Haa
Joe,
I agree with you on those issues as well. I believe that since the majority of messengers agreed on those matters, and even, perhaps, some of the committee members, and saw them as so important, they were willing to “benignly” look the other way regarding the other details, such as “close/closed” communion.
Brother David,
Yes, that seems to be the intent of the document….
“Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches.”
Of course, if someone sees the SBC itself as outside the realm of “secular or religious authority”, they will fight tooth and nail for a prescriptive as a means for cooperation.
I believe there needs to be more of the church involved from the local level with respect to qualifications, etc. This is a difficult situation for a convention the size of the SBC….where there is tremendous opportunity for cooperation with money, yet when power becomes centralized within the corporate workings of the convention and its entities the process and meaning of cooperating breaks down quickly.
Blessings,
Chris
Oh yeah, and I remember growing up that “peace and war” doctrine being talked about from time to time in choir practice as I sat beside my buddy in the alto section before my voice changed.
I’m going to have to be away from the computer for awhile, but will check back in as soon as I am able.
David,
I agree with you that the local church and the local associations are all autonomous. However, the point of saying it is “the standard of orthodoxy” means that no one can claim to be a part of the SBC and then say that the SBC (the large operating body which includes the president, LifeWay, NAMB, IMB, &tc) believes/approves of things that are not in the BF&M. You can still be an SBC church, but it is no longer legitimate to say that you are adhering to Southern Baptist doctrine.
Again, I think FBC-Decatur is the perfect example of this. They are fully within their right as a local body to call a female pastor, and, as long as they continue giving to cooperative works (and are not kicked out, but that’s another discussion), then they can still be a member of Southern Baptist Convention. But, it is not within their right to say something to the effect of “The SBC interprets Scripture to say that women may be called as elders” since this clearly contradicts the “standard of orthodoxy,” the BF&M 2000.
As to the question, “Does it make sense to exclude someone from denominational service or employment whose views are not different from those of the majority of the churches and members making up the convention?,” I still don’t think I understand what the hang up is? As a denomination, the SBC surely has a right to determine its own qualifications for service. And if a majority of churches are in opposition to the BF&M in some point (which, I’m not sure they are, even though people are offering anecdotal evidence about practical open communion), that only exemplifies the biggest flaw of having a BF&M and then allowing total church autonomy, and that is, the things said in the BF&M are completely unenforceable. At the denominational level they are, and I think that is what we see. But on the local church level, there is no way, and honestly no desire, to make sure that the standards of the BF&M are kept. Then the question simply becomes, Of what practical use is the BF&M? It should be used as a marker for our identity, but due to ambiguity and politics it largely is inadequate for doing this.
PS- I’m not so sure Stetzer doesn’t have research somewhere on communion. I thought I had seen that, but I could be mistaken.
It’s pretty funny looking at the “IMPACT visitors” on the left hand side.
Y’all get the Southeast and then there is that one guy over in the West.
It’s like where fried chicken is the most concentrated is where the hits come from. Massachusetts doesn’t light up too much. I think they eat salad up there.
David,
I went back and reviewed the BFM before submitting my comments. First, I believe that the BFM is descriptive in its relationship to the local church, it may be seen as prescriptive as it relates to those employed or appointed by Boards and Agencies. While I do not believe it is a perfect document, I do believe it to be very useful.
Concerning the Lord’s Supper, I do not know how the BFM could be re-worded to better fit practice. Under the article about the Church, the church is described as “local body” and also the “redeemed.” Under the Lord’s Supper, the participants are “members of the church.” I see this as broad enough for “close,” “closed,” and open. If the document was amended to clearly describe “open communion,” it would leave out a large number of folks. If the language was any more precise toward “closed communion” it would not reflect a large group of Southern Baptists. I believe that its lack of precision in this area is a strength.
Steve
BF&M: Christian baptism…is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership “and” to the Lord’s Supper.
Don’t see any room for o.c.
Sorry,
I must have misunderstood the meaning of “Open Communion.” I thought that Open Communion meant that any obedient Christian (a believer who has experienced “Christian baptism” would be accepted) should be invited to partake of communion. With that definition, the BFM can be read to encompass it.
Steve
Steve,
I’m not sure I’m understanding what you are saying.
If we substituted the meaning of one word in the BF&M 2000 for the word that is used, then it comes out this way:
BF&M: Christian [immersion]…is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership “and” to the Lord’s Supper.
The gospel loving sprinkled Presbyterian–who might be even more obedient to Christ as a whole than many Baptists–should not partake of communion according to the BF&M above.
God Bless,
Benji
I had to stop and think how I would present communion when I was a pastor. I think I would describe the church’s stance as close communion, but I stubbornly refused to be the communion police. Having described where our church stood I expected everyone present to be on the honor system in deciding whether or not to respect the congregation’s wishes.
And since I like to think of myself as completely normal and correct in both belief and practice, I have assumed this is what all SB churches do.
What do the rest of you do when observing communion?
Bowden,
This probably does not answer your question exactly, but I thought it might relate.
I think I have preached before on what I called the “natural” order of the Great Commission being the disciples made and then baptized and then taught Christ’s commands [which would include communion].
The problem that I see is this–trying to get closed communion from this order ends up proving too much I think. It is not just “communion” that is one of Christ’s commands. So, in order to be–all the way–consistent, I would have to tell the visiting Sprinkled Presbyterian to leave on Sunday morning if I was teaching the “love one another” command of Christ if he would not submit to baptism first.
You see where I am going?
I feel tension on the communion issue and it is the kind of tension I don’t like. I think it’s tension as the result of a mere tradition of men–covenant infant baptism for example–that has been infused into some peoples thinking. And the tension is not only felt between baptists and other denominations but between Baptists and Baptists.
I think there can be legitimate tension in theology, but I don’t think there should be tension because of a mere tradition of men.
I do see the order in the GC, but I think there are more things to see in the New Testament that should be taken into account as well.
God Bless,
Benji
1. Descriptive of the overall perspective of Southern Baptist churches (historical and contemporary) held by the convention voting to affirm it; prescriptive to all who are the servants of those churches.
2. Combination.
3. Having been wrong before, I’ll not make unsubstantiated predictions about majority SBC practice.
4. The Convention is the Convention, not the aggregate of the churches. It is not all Southern Baptists everywhere; it is the set of Southern Baptist who bothered to go to the Convention. The Convention is dysfunctional if it comes to be at odds with the churches that it serves, but the agencies are dysfunctional and in rebellion if they put themselves at odds with the Convention. May God have mercy upon us all if Convention policy comes to be made by Barna and Gallup.
5. I’m going to hold off on answering this one. If nobody has an authentic answer (and thus nobody is able to refute me), then I’m going to make up something that suits me and swear that I have an anonymous, first-hand source.
Now, having answered the questions, I’d like to add a further thought of my own. Although you have limited the question solely to the extent of the Lord’s Table, I think it worthwhile to mention that, with regard to biblical church discipline, I think we could again poll the SBC churches and very possibly discover that the majority practice—perhaps even the majority opinion—of Southern Baptists is decidedly in contrast with historic Baptist belief and the language of many of our confessions of faith. Sometimes the state of majority SBC practice should result in our falling to our knees and praying for God to call us forth out of our sin.
As I have argued elsewhere this week, and without substantive rebuttal, I believe that both church membership and the extent of communion should be determined by the question of biblical church discipline. We should only rebuff from church membership or from the Lord’s Table those unrepentant souls whom our local congregation has disciplined out of the membership of our congregation or whom we would immediately discipline were they members of our congregation.
I would argue that this correspondence among church discipline, church membership, and church ordinances is a natural, almost inevitable, one. And suspecting that the preponderance of our congregations are in direct and willful neglect of Christ’s own teachings about biblical church discipline, I would not be surprised to learn that our majority practice with regard to membership and ordinances might have changed radically over the past century.
But with all of my faults, I’m thankful that we serve a gracious, loving, and patient Lord who with great kindness waits for us to yield to conviction. And I am thankful that he has brought us into this world at the same time so that we might fruitfully discuss these topics.
David (back to our discussion in #3 and #4),
I believe the language was changed and tightened in the entire document because of perceived “weaknesses” in Southern Baptist life and practice. The previous discussion with Joe Blackmon (#17) indicates some of these concerns. Because of arising concerns, this is why Baptists have always seen it fit to revise their statements from time to time. Interestingly, the only item that I recall that was “loosened” in the BFM 2000 was in the article on the Lord’s Day — somewhat less restrictive than the 1963.
Herschel Hobbs said of the BFM 1963, “The preamble clearly states ‘that the authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only a guide to interpretation, having no authority over the conscience . . . and are not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life.’ Further, ‘such statements have never been regarded as complete, infallible statements of faith, nor as official creeds carrying mandatory authority.’
“It should be noted that these statements are as much a part of the overall statement adopted in 1963 as are the various elements of faith found in the body of it. If this be denied or ignored, the statement becomes a creed” (Herschel Hobbs, The Baptist Faith and Message, Convention Press, 1971, p. 12).
I do remember the discussions in 2000 about the wording “instruments of doctrinal accountability” and “essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice.” Some of the fear promoted about this wording was that the entire statement now carries “mandatory authority.” Could the proposed cure of tightening the terminology have actually given us something that is somewhat foreign to “the Baptist tradition of faith and practice”? Could such prescriptive statements in the preamble of the BFM 2000 in fact have made the statement more of “a creed”? The more “mandatory” rhetoric I hear today certainly lends to that impression.
David,
You wrote: “Does the Baptist Faith & Message (2000) accurately reflect the present beliefs and practices of the majority of Southern Baptist congregations and their members regarding the issue of open/close/closed communion? Is anyone aware of any empirical study documenting the views of Southern Baptists on this particular issue?”
Yes. For the record there are a whole lot more Southern Baptist churches out there that are practicing close or closed communion than you all realize. Take Bro. Geoff Baggett for example. He will tell you that his is one of the few churches in western Kentucky that practices open communion. The majority here believe in and pratice a restricted Lord’s Supper.
Furthermore, it seems our seminaries are once again teaching strict communion. Southwestern and Southern Seminary may disagree over Calvinism, but they would both agree that open communion is unbiblical. This is going to have an effect on the churches. Whereas 30 years ago very few seminary graduates believed in close / closed communion, now many graduates do. I foresee these graduates leading many Southern Baptist churches to return to their historic, biblical roots on the Lord’s Supper and restricted communion.
Kevin Peacock,
If one gets that impression (that the 2000 BF&M represents some new and alarming jump toward/into creedalism), one likely got that impression from an organized campaign of disinformation. Baptist statements against creeds have historically been defenses of the autonomy of Baptist congregations, not arguments against the accountability of Baptist institutions. There is a difference between religious liberty on the one hand and academic freedom on the other, although protestations from the Baptist left have often disguised the latter as the former for rhetorical reasonings.
The use of the BF&M as an “Instrument of Doctrinal Accountability” goes back to the BF&M 1925, which was adopted by such entities as SWBTS as an unflinching standard for employee teaching right after the SBC approved it. Furthermore, the use of SOME SORT of a document in this manner goes all the way back to 1859 and Southern Seminary. The Abstract of Principles from the founding of the institution has been a doctrinal statement that professors were required to teach in accordance with and not contrary to.
The fact that an Arminian like Dale Moody could teach at Southern in the mid-twentieth-century is not a manifestation of any historic Baptist concept of liberty from “creedalism,” but is merely an instance of the brief gambit that SBC institutions pursued of trying to deal with their confessional statements with a wink and a nod. It didn’t start early, didn’t last long, and didn’t go away soon enough.
Ben,
I think everything, once again, depends upon your definition of open and closed.
Our communion is open, in that it is open to ALL who profess Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Ours is closed in that it is offered ONLY to those who profess Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
And this is the only practice that I have ever known in all churhces of my Southern Baptist life. (One did claim “closed” communion, but actually practiced open.)
Bart,
Your statement that I “likely got that impression from an organized campaign of disinformation” is both untrue and a statement I find quite condescending. But I am willing to let that slide for the sake of civil discourse. I was simply pointing out that the screws tightened with the latest statement of faith. I also made the observation that mandatory-type language seems pretty prevalent in this hour.
Your statement that the phrase “instrument of doctrinal accountability” actually being a reclaiming of the BFM 1925 piqued my interest. Perhaps you can help me to locate that phrase. I re-read the preamble to that document and could not find it. I do, however, acknowledge that the institutions of the SBC adopted it as their “guide to interpretation” for teaching and practice. Denominational institutions do need to have guiding statements of faith.
As far as I know, the Abstract of Principles was never adopted as the statement of faith for the SBC. It was an institutional statement of faith. Though not in the document, James Boyce did introduce it as “the test of doctrine.”
From my perception, however, the “mandatory” rhetoric has extended beyond our institutions towards individuals and local churches. The rhetoric extends into some areas that are not cardinal to our faith as Christians or even as Baptists. There also seems to be a leveling of the doctrines in the BFM with few options for those who disagree in some matters. Questioning Southern Baptist loyalty, heritage, and orthodoxy of those who may have even progressed in their beliefs smacks of conformity at all costs and leaves little room for “growth.” After all, the statement does not claim to be either “complete” or “infallible.”
In other words, I consider it healthy and stimulating for dialogue and debate to take place without as much “mandatory” rhetoric. On today’s subject, I would believe that those who held to a more “open communion” stance would consider themselves quite “biblical” in their stance, even though such a stance may have moved past “traditional” Southern Baptist belief and practice. If a sizeable number have moved past the tradition, then maybe it is time to reconsider what is indeed “essential” to Baptist faith and practice.
Kevin Peacock,
I used the generic “one” in my comment intentionally. It would be presumptuous for me to tell you how you came to any of your points of view. My entire first paragraph merely seeks to establish that there has been an organized campaign to mislabel the 2000 revision of the BF&M as a creedalist document.
You well document that the phrase “instrument of doctrinal accountability” is an addition in 2000, but that does not counter my point. I merely indicated that the use of the document as an instrument of doctrinal accountability goes all the way back. And it does.
Nor did I allege that the SBC had adopted the Abstract of Principles. I merely demonstrated that the idea of a confession of faith as an unwavering doctrinal instrument for Baptist employees goes back at least that far. It is far from a new idea.
I’m thankful that, when you reached the point of suggesting that the BF&M is being employed creedally toward churches, you ceased to attempt documentation of your assertions. The mere fact that the SBC has not excluded any of the several CBF flagship churches is an immediate and invincible factual rebuttal of your feelings. The state of affairs in the SBC is quite clear—it is extremely rare to find the SBC employing any sort of “muscle” toward a church, but quite a frequent experience to find it operating in that way toward employed or volunteer servants of the churches.
With regard to the communion question, I have already given my views in this thread. I affirm that it is quite the right of individual churches or the convention at large to embrace the open-membership, open-communion position. For all I know, it will happen in our lifetimes. If it does, it will not be the first vote that I’ve lost in my lifetime, nor likely the last.
Kevin,
I would welcome your interaction with my thoughts about the relationship among church discipline, church membership, and church communion. Pointedly, I would inquire as to the biblical basis for denying church membership to anyone who would be welcome at the Lord’s Table.
Bart Barber:
There are practical reasons that differentiate “screening” of people for church membership vs. the Lord’s table.
For church membership people are individually interviewed relative to their salvation experience, any prior baptism (which may or may not be “acceptable” in terms of Baptist polity), etc.
For the Lord’s Table, we are serving the elements in a building with 1200 people in attendance. It is not feasible to interview each one.
Regardless of any Biblical differentiation between the qualifications for church membership / baptism vs. the Lord’s Table there is certainly a pragmatic difference in our churches in terms of being able to screen candidates.
Roger Simpson
I am finally back. I don’t think I’ll be able to respond to everyone now. But my main observation on the interesting conversation while I was gone is that, as I intimated before, I don’t see a real problem with the BF&M being used as a doctrinal guideline for denominational service. There has to be some guideline or another, and it is better that this guideline be one that has been approved through official channels than one that has not.
However, I think that, at present, we have an anomalous situation in the SBC, one in which the official doctrinal confession declares something to be a doctrine that is “most surely held among us” that in actuality is not.
The purpose of using the BF&M as a prescriptive guideline for denominational service, as I understand it, is as a measure for accountability to the desires of those who voluntarily and collectively contribute their financial support toward joint ministry projects. But, if by enforcing a certain point of the BF&M this purpose is not actually being carried out, then you have a case of a conflict between the letter and the spirit of the law.
I believe it is for this reason that most agencies up to now have made leeway for caveats on points such as close/closed communion. They are able to see the inherent inconsistency with enforcing the BF&M too strictly here.
If those who advocate a more strict enforcement of the BF&M on this point have their way in convention life, though, I foresee some rather unfortunate consequences. Many churches and church members will wake up to find that the folks they would hope to send out as missionaries or denominational servants are deemed unqualified. If the truth were told, there is probably a large percent (I have no idea how large) of present missionaries and denominational servants who have some caveat or another with the BF&M, many on the close/closed communion issue. If all of these were suddenly asked to either recant or resign, we could see a drastic reduction of our ministry forces, and perhaps many churches eventually opting out of CP giving and active denominational participation.
I would love to see the BF&M amended to be more flexible on this point, recognizing the differences among Bible-believing Baptists, and allowing for open, close, and closed communion accordingly. In the meantime, however, I think that, although it is not ideal, it is best for agencies to allow for caveats on this point, since the alternative is even less ideal.
John Bunyan gave ten reasons in response to allowing those not immersed in Baptism or never baptized people to the Lord’s table. This quote I got from the Mark 9 blog.
“First, both the baptized and unbaptized are subject to Christ. Second, Eph. 4:1-6 points to one baptism that unifies all believers. Third, all believers share faith in the essentials—life, death, resurrection of Christ. Fourth, a church should not deny communion to someone with whom God has communion. Fifth, a lack of water baptism does not “unchristian” anyone. Seventh, love trumps division. Eighth, churches are wrong to separate over more serious matters than baptism (1 Cor. 3:1-4). Ninth, denying church communion is tantamount to denying the privileges and blessings of salvation. Tenth, it is contemptible to cast off a saint from church communion.”
Ben Stratton (and anyone else who favors enforcing close/closed communion in the SBC),
It seems to me the evidence you give here is more anecdotal than empirical. The only thing even close to empirical evidence I can think of is the vote at the 2007 Arkansas state convention that I reference in this post:
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2007/11/landmarkism-and-arkansas-baptist.html
Perhaps, as you say, close/closed communion is making something of a comeback in SBC life, due, as you say, to the influence of SWBTS and SBTS. If this “comeback” involves demanding stricter enforcement of the BF&M on the issue of close/closed communion, I fear ominous storm clouds building on the horizon, though.
I think those who support a stricter enforcement would do well to count the cost. Do you really see this issue as a hill worth dying on? Would the eventual loss of synergistic forces we have going for us through the CP and SBC agencies really be worth the greater restrictiveness on this particular point? What would you really be gaining? Why is this so important to you?
If necessary, open communionists and close/closed communionists in SBC life can end up going their separate ways, and funding separate projects, and working separately. Is that what you really want? Would that really be a victory for the advance of God’s kingdom?
Bart,
You posed the question to Kevin, but I think I would like to take a stab at answering the question you ask about the relationship between church discipline, church membership, and church communion, with another question (or series of related questions):
1. Do you believe it is legitimate to require local church members to maintain agreement with a church covenant?
2. Do you believe it is legitimate to include total abstinence from alcoholic beverages as a part of a local church covenant?
3. Do you believe church members should be disciplined for partaking in alcoholic beverages (without getting drunk)?
4. Do you believe a church should withhold participation in the Lord’s Supper from all those who, in accordance with their own convictions, take a drink every now and then?
5. Do you believe Romans 14 – 15:7 has anything to do with all this?
Roger Simpson:
There is a difference between a congregation holding and publishing (announcing) a theology of the extent of the Lord’s Supper on the one hand and having “Communion Police” looking to enforce that theology upon individuals on the other hand. If anyone is advocating the latter, they have not done so in this or any other recent forum that I’ve read in Southern Baptist life.
We’re not talking about rigid enforcement; we’re talking about guidance. There’s no practical impediment that would prevent any pastor, upon preparing to serve the Lord’s Supper, from simply saying, “Our church believes that ___________ should participate in the Lord’s Supper,” and then leaving it at that.
You know, I think it’s a good thing that we’re having debates about baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Do you know why? Because, thanks to the updated BFM2000 we’re not having to debate whether the bible contains the Word of God or whether Baptists hold to the truth that a wife should submit to her own husband (not all women should submit to all men). If, as Kevin Peacock assets, the BFM2000 “tightened the screws” it is only because they were too loose and needed tightening. There is nothing in that document that is unbiblical and any SBC employee who wouldn’t sign it should have been fired/removed from their position. After all, the CBF is always looking for new people, aren’t they? I mean, that’s why the CBF was formed wasn’t it? So “Baptists” with unbiblical beliefs could associate together?
Joe: I don’t think I like what you are implying, or not implying but saying. I believe you would find yourself in a corner that you can’t get out of if this line of thinking continues. I believe scripture, I just may not agree with your interpretation.
David,
Concerned that the topic will drift away from the gist of my question, but further impressed by the importance of being willing to answer other people’s questions, I find that I am in something of a quandary. I counter-propose that I will gladly answer all of your questions once we have established the importance of the answers. I think that we can do so if you will do me the honor of replying to these questions (I’ve already answered one round of yours, you know):
1. Do you concede that there are two separate questions: (a) How a church covenant ought to be employed, and (b) What a church covenant ought to contain? I am not suggesting that the two questions are entirely unrelated. They are not. But they are two different questions, aren’t they? This is important because it seems to me that my earlier question pertain to (a) and not to (b), while your question pertains to (b) and not to (a). That’s what causes my concern that your questions take us away from an answer to mine and not toward one. But if you’ll give your thoughts on this question, my concerns might be quelled.
2. With or without a church covenant, and by extension, with any sort of church covenant, do you think it biblical for churches to employ church discipline?
3. Ought churches to discipline members for mere preference or practicality, or ought this action to be reserved for matters of clear unrepentant sin?
Thank you. I look forward to your answers. As a show of good-faith, and confident that you will not refuse to answer my questions, I will go ahead and answer yours:
1. Do you believe it is legitimate to require local church members to maintain agreement with a church covenant?
Yes, I do. Not only do I believe that it is legitimate for a congregation to have a covenant, but I believe that it is healthy and important for a congregation to do so.
2. Do you believe it is legitimate to include total abstinence from alcoholic beverages as a part of a local church covenant?
Yes. I believe that it is legitimate to do so. I do not believe that it is necessary to do so. I would rather that a congregation faithfully employ a covenant without a prohibition of the use of alcoholic beverages than that they have, for example, the J. Newton Brown covenant in place but ignore it.
Our congregation is presently nearing completion of a church covenant. We will not place into leadership or employ people who recreationally partake of intoxicants, but we have not made this a requirement for church membership. We expect it of our deacons, our pastors/elders/overseers, and those whom we employ as denominational servants, but not of every Christian from the get-go.
3. Do you believe church members should be disciplined for partaking in alcoholic beverages (without getting drunk)?
The answer to #3 depends upon the answer to #2. A church should only incorporate into the covenant that for which it is willing to exercise church discipline. And it should be willing to exercise church discipline over any and every item that is in the church covenant.
4. Do you believe a church should withhold participation in the Lord’s Supper from all those who, in accordance with their own convictions, take a drink every now and then?
Again, this answer depends upon the answer to #2. I think that a congregation should extend both membership and communion to anyone whom the congregation would not discipline out of the congregation.
5. Do you believe Romans 14 – 15:7 has anything to do with all this?
Yes. I believe that Romans 14-15:7 pertains to my question (b) at the very beginning of this reply. A congregation should take these words in mind while drafting a church covenant. And then there are higher expectations of those who teach, preach, or otherwise take upon themselves positions of leadership in the community of believers. These are found elsewhere in scripture.
But I’m wondering, David. How is it that Romans 14-15:7 applies to the Lord’s Supper but not to church membership?
There are only two biblical matters to be considered here: (i.) Salvation and (ii.) Church discipline. We are commanded to unity with all of those who have partaken of (i.). We are commanded to separation from all who have partaken of (ii.) without restoration to date. That is all that the Bible knows of the matter, and those principles apply equally to eligibility both for church membership and for participation in the Lord’s Supper.
Bart Barber:
I agree that the pastor should make a statement as to what the qualifications are regarding the Lord’s Table.
In my experience, in most SBC churches in the last 25 years or so, these statements are both brief and vague so that for many listeners their understanding is tantamount to “open communion”.
When I was a teenager in the early 1960s I was a member of an SBC church in California that was decidely Landmark. The pastor used to talk about the “Trail of Blood” book. Also he would specifically say prior to communion that “. . the table is only open to church members”. I’d say that 99% of the people in attendance understood that the meaning of “church members” was “a member of this specific local congregation”.
Roger Simpson
Joe,
Once again, I agree with what I understand to be your major premise: “thanks to the updated BFM2000 we’re not having to debate whether the bible contains the Word of God or whether Baptists hold to the truth that a wife should submit to her own husband (not all women should submit to all men).” I also think that a majority of Southern Baptists would be in agreement on this point.
However, if, as it seems, you are arguing that anyone who cannot sign on to 100% agreement, no caveats, with the BF&M should be “fired/removed from their position,” I cannot go along with you on that one.
I myself, as an IMB missionary, signed with a caveat on the sentence referring to baptism that states: “Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.”
Yet, I feel myself, both doctrinally and philosophically, to be much more closely aligned with the SBC than to the CBF. It seem to me the de facto consequence of what you are arguing for here is the founding of a couple of new conventions (or eventually more?), so that everyone, with every nuance of disagreement on these matters, is obligated to work together only with those who walk in lock-step agreement with them.
Bart,
I have no problems answering your questions. Thanks for answering mine. Here are my answers:
1. Yes, I concede that there are two separate questions: (a) How a church covenant ought to be employed, and (b) What a church covenant ought to contain? I also agree that the two questions are not entirely unrelated.
2. Yes, with or without a church covenant, and by extension, with any sort of church covenant, I think it is biblical for churches to employ church discipline.
3. I believe that church discipline ought to be reserved for matters of clear unrepentant sin.
I also believe that we ought to receive members of the “church at large” or “the universal church,” (as some choose to call it) into communion, but not necessarily into local church membership. Or, perhaps put better, I believe that new local church members should be expected to submit to the guidelines and rules of order established for the fruitful operation of the congregation and its ministries, some of which may not necessarily be clear biblical requirements.
The illustration I keep giving lately is, it is practically impossible within one congregation to have female elders and not have female elders at the same time. Thus, as a result, as a pragmatic necessity, there must be congregations that admit female elders and those that do not; or, someone must compromise on their convictions, and agree to go along with something they really don’t agree with.
None of this necessarily means, however, that I ought to “anathematize” or “disfellowship” all of those who disagree with me on this point. Nor do I believe I should place those who disagree with me under “church discipline.” I just believe it would be helpful for us, in order to effectively serve God in the context of a local fellowship, and move forward without butting heads over and over and over again on this same issue, to serve Him in two separate congregations.
I think this same line of reasoning applies to perhaps hundreds of other issues.
What do you think?
David,
It matters not what I think. Romans 14-15:7 compels me to extend church membership and church communion (to “accept” [proslambano] another brother in Christ). The only commandment in the entire New Testament that works otherwise is the matter of church exclusion discussed in such places as 1 Corinthians 5, Titus 3, and 1 John 2.
Is the recognition of female elders a matter that rises to the level of demanding church discipline? If a member of my congregation or yours declared herself to be an elder, what would our congregation do? I submit that, if this matter is not important enough to provoke church discipline, then we who are opposed to such a thing should grow up, get over it, paste Romans 14-15:7 to our bathroom mirror, and accept female elders in our own churches. We might not elect them as our elders, but if the majority of the church did such a thing, we would be compelled by virtue of Christian unity to bite our tongues, stay the course, and keep the peace.
On the other hand, if it is a matter of sufficient significance to provoke church discipline, then we ought to exclude from our congregations any who persist unrepentantly in it. That action, by extension, would affect the extent of our church’s membership and the extent of our fellowship around the Lord’s Table.
I believe that is biblical. Some may very well regard it as impractical, and I’m more than willing to subject myself to that charge. Others may regard it as difficult, and I readily admit that it is. Yet others may say that our implementation of it is quite prone to imperfection and inconsistency. Granted. But I believe this to be the biblical ideal nonetheless, and the remedy to imperfection and inconsistency is to strive all the more to be consistent and right, for that is essentially the striving to be obedient. It is not our church.
Now, David, back to my question to Kevin Peacock: “I would inquire as to the biblical basis for denying church membership to anyone who would be welcome at the Lord’s Table.”
I have a question – I know that several employees have signed the BF&M with caveats.
If I were applying for mission service and were appointed to an SBC board, would I have to sign the BF&M without reservations, or would I be able to give a couple of minor areas of diagreement.
For instance, the BF&M says about the Holy Spirit, “At the moment of regeneration He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ.”
I agree with the general principle, but I do not think it is stated accurately. I think scripture indicates that we are baptized by JESUS in the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ.
So, would a minor disagreement like that prevent me from being appointed as a missionary or serving on a board?
Its a procedural question, not meant to be an argumentative one.
Dave Miller,
The problem with your question is that the BF&M does not come with an appendix indicating which areas are “minor” and which are “major.” Nor has the convention authorized anyone to make that differentiation. According to the resident-theologian of the BGCT and a great many other people, inerrancy is a minor thing.
Now, I know that you are a scholar and a gentleman. I would invite your thoughts as well about my question: What biblical basis is there for denying church membership to a person who would be welcome in church communion?
Bart,
Not trying to be cantankerous here. More than anything, teasing this out to help me in my own thinking. But, let me propose another scenario:
Let’s suppose that a brother in your congregation with a sterling Christian character and testimony is an avowed 5-point Calvinist. You, as elder, and responsible to some degree for the doctrinal health of your congregation, do not agree with this brother’s interpretation of Scripture on these points. Yet, since he is a brother in Christ, and has not fallen into any “clear, unrepentant sin,” you allow him to remain as a member in good standing of your congregation.
Do you, however, allow him to teach his beliefs as a Sunday School teacher? Let’s say, in your church, there is a regular time of open sharing and exhortation from the Word. And, just about every time, this brother gets in some word or another advocating his views on 5-point Calvinism. Does there come a time when the elders of the church need to call him down on it? What if he keeps insisting? Do you eventually discipline him for “clear, unrepentant sin”? Or, do you perhaps take him aside, and say, “You know what, brother? There is a church down the street with doctrinal views more closely aligned to yours. Perhaps you might be better used of the Lord, and be a blessing, submitting yourself to their pastoral oversight and rules of order”?
If he chooses to go to the other congregation, and then returns to visit your congregation from time to time, do you allow him to partake of the Lord’s Supper?
Bart, I am not a scholar and I’m only a gentleman when the mood hits.
Here’s the problem I have with your question (and I’m going to say this and duck). I don’t see much in the Bible that spells out church membership.
The church has certain mandates from God – like fellowship, discipline and mission. Church membership, as we define it, is not a biblical mandate, but a reasonable way of implementing and fulfilling those mandates.
But I’m not sure how to answer your question because I don’t see where the Bible even mentions membership as we know it today, much less defines it.
If you have some scripture on that I haven’t considered, I would love to hear it. I’ve had people challenge me on the whole church membership issue and it is not clearly spelled out in scripture, as best I can see.
David,
I believe that my answers are at least strongly implied in what I’ve already stated, but I’m more than happy to flesh them out further for you.
As I stated above, I believe that there are different standards given in the Bible for teaching or serving in a biblical office—higher ones. So, although I would not prohibit a five-point Calvinist from teaching here, that’s not really the question. The question in our present context must be how that would relate to service in church membership.
And you seem to get more to that question in your second scenario. To leave hypotheticals behind, I do have some more-Calvinistic folks in the congregation, and I greatly enjoy times when they articulate their viewpoint and I articulate mine and we have a chance to extol the majesty of God in salvation, albeit from different perspectives. This particular situation would not pose a problem in our congregation.
Nevertheless, I will not deprive you of the answer that you seek simply because the topic you happened to select didn’t work out in real life. Are there doctrinal views that our congregation would consider worthy of church discipline? Absolutely. And in such a case we would act as I have indicated above and exclude such a person from both church membership and participation in the Lord’s Supper, I hope.
And, are there doctrinal positions that do not rise to that level of importance, but the advocacy of which could lead to church discipline? The answer is that there is behavior that could lead to church discipline. If a person were to become so insistent and divisive over any matter of doctrine that the congregation deems a lesser thing, then we are confronting the classic example of Titus 3′s “factious man” are we not? Such a person could be in danger of church discipline, absolutely! And if disciplined, that person should not be received at the Lord’s Supper. But the basis for that action is not his belief, but his behavior regarding his belief.
If you have a cantankerous bone in your body, I’ve not seen it yet. My tendencies in that regard are, sadly, much more pronounced. Should I presume that you have no answer for my question? Or at least, no answer yet? I think if I were to do so and just move along, my cantankerousness would be so much less likely to show up. Good idea?
Ahh, Dave. Now you’ve done it. We had the equivalent of a five-hundred-page thesis on this subject right here at this blog some time back. My poor fingers will thank me for directing you to it rather than typing it all again. But I’ll do two things to help you get there:
I. I’ll tell you that Rob Ayers linked to that very dialogue in a post not too long ago.
II. I’ll give you the over-summarized summary:
Church membership in the Bible is: (a) the fact that a pastor/elder/overseer knows precisely who are in the flock that he serves; (b) the fact that a congregation excludes certain people by church discipline, and consequently knows whom it can or cannot exclude…who is accountable to this congregation; and (c) the fact that members of New Testament churches knew who their leaders were whom they were to respect and remunerate.
These biblical facts are not the precursors of church membership; they are church membership. Much more about this at the other post. An imminent funeral prevents me from doing the research for you, my brother.
If my migraines continue, will you come and do mine?
I’ll try to track down that discussion, sounds like one I’d be interested in.
What I find interesting is that in blogs, ecclesiology seems to start the most passionate debates.
Brother Bart,
I am greatly enjoying the conversation between you and Brother David. It gives me much to consider and search out in the Holy Scriptures.
It seems in comment #58 you answered the question concerning a “five pointer” with something like, “If he holds that belief, fine. So long as he is not contentious and factious. If he were to become divisive about it, then we would begin the church discipline process.” Is that accurate? If so, would the same also apply to a male or female who considered female eldership to be biblical or is this in a different category? I know this is similar to the scenario posed above that you answered in comment #52, but it is slightly different in that no one is electing herself to eldership.
Apologies for the imposition.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Brother Dave M,
Please post the link when you find it. I do not recall that conversation and it interests me as well!
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Alas, my schedule prevents me from remaining.
I do believe that it has been a good conversation. The prodding for application to specific examples has been of benefit to me, and I hope to others.
May Christ bring about the unity of His body. May we be faithful to work to bring it.
Bart,
In order to answer your question, I will first quote my comment the other day on Alan Cross’s blog, when he was asking similar questions:
“Alan,
You say: ‘I do not have a problem with a local body of believers organizing together around certain perspectives on Scripture to both clearly proclaim the truth and to protect their body from error.’
Though I have been challenged by the view that ‘open communion’ necessarily leads to ‘open membership,’ (I believe Bunyan adopted this view, if I am not mistaken; and Piper, and Henderson Hills church in Edmond, OK, have wrestled with it), I think I agree with you. There is a place for organizing congregationally on the basis of certain doctrinal distinctives. In some ways, this is a pragmatic necessity. You cannot, for example, maintain the practice in a local congregation of having female elders and not having female elders at the same time. And yet, just because I do not believe the Bible allows for female elders, and thus choose to join a church that maintains that practice, that does not mean I must also consider those believers who see this matter diffently from me to be anathema, or unworthy of Christian fellowship. Something similar holds true with baptism. Though there are certain groups, such as some Evang. Free churches (from what I understand) that practice both believers baptism and infant baptism at the same time, it is a position that pretty much obliges people from both sides to compromise some on their convictions. I can see how it is preferable to allow those from both positions to consistently practice their convictions, yet not anathemamtize the others, nor ‘disfellowship’ them, at the same time.
Of course, then, there are other matters that kick some groups and congregations over into the realm of reprobate gospel-deniers. In that case, we have no business maintaining a facade of ‘ecumenical unity.’ Our unity is on the basis of the gospel, and a true heart-changing relationship with Christ, not just the name ‘Christian.’ Our cooperation on certain projects, even with true believers, for pragmatic reasons, must, at times, be more limited, though.”
END OF QUOTE
I guess what I am saying is that I see more biblical basis for not denying fellowship and a seat at the Lord’s Table to someone who gives every evidence of being a true born again believer not living in open, unrepentant sin than I do for the necessity of local church membership. I believe local church membership is, in general, a good thing that helps in keeping up with people, designating who is accountable to who on certain issues, and maintaining congregational supervision of day-to-day church administration. It prevents people from being “Lone Ranger” Christians, and falling through the cracks. But, in another sense, I believe that we are all members one of another in the Body of Christ, and are responsible for carrying out the “one another” commands of Scripture with all.
David
Touche’. I actually had not thought about someone disagreeing on that point. I probably should have been more specific. Therefore, allow me to clarify. If someone had a problem with what the BFM2000 said related to homosexuality, the submission of a wife to her own husband, and biblical inerrancy then I can’t understand why they would want to work for the SBC. Is that any clearer?
Further, let me add that I’m not saying someone has to be a complime….or I can’t spell it so I’ll say a comp to be a Christian. There are going to be comps in hell and egals in heaven. What I am saying is that if the BFM2000 holds to a comp position (and it does) then if you’re going to be on the SBC payroll you should be a comp. I’m not saying that someone who is an egal isn’t a Christian. Just FYI.
I have a momentary break between events:
Dave Miller: see this post, where the very first comment opened the door to a robust discussion of the biblical basis for church membership.
FTME: Our pending church covenant would not discipline out of the congregation anyone for merely holding the opinion that females could be elders.
David Rogers: If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that you find only a sketchy basis for church membership in the New Testament; therefore, you cannot provide a biblical basis for excluding from membership those whom you would welcome to the Lord’s Table. So, you think it permissible for us to have our own extra-biblical pragmatic rules to govern church membership.
If that is your argument, I believe it to be a weak one. An uncertain footing in the New Testament for any concept of membership at all would be all the LESS justification for excluding from membership those whom I would welcome at the Lord’s Table, would it not?
When I tell someone that they cannot join our congregation unless they do X or affirm Y, I believe that I am doing so because the Bible requires me to do so (or at the very least, I affirm that biblical requirements are the only justification I SHOULD have for doing something so offensive). If that is not the case—if there really isn’t even much solid biblical rationale for having members and non-members to begin with—then what kind of personal hubris does it require for me to set my own rules for admission into Christ’s church and hold aloof as non-members those who do not comply?
I’m going to say something that might be provocative here, and I hope that you’ll realize that I only say it in this manner because I do not know how to say it differently:
It seems to me that you’ve made the “universal church” to be Christ’s church and the local congregations to belong to us. The “universal church” comes out to be the “real church” and the local congregations amount to some sort of neo-Platonic “shadow” of the universal “ideal.” I don’t mean to imply that you do so deliberately; only that such seems to me to be the effect of your arguments.
Thus, membership in the church universal is conferred by Christ. The Lord’s Supper, because it belongs to Christ, is to be carried out in accordance with the membership of that universal church. We must be very open and inclusive in our administration of that “universal church ordinance.”
But, as it pertains to our local churches, we can just establish arbitrary rules of who’s in and who’s out based upon what practically works best for us?
In contrast, I believe that the New Testament depicts a very tight correlation between the way God sees the church and the way that faithful local believers are to see it. In a passage dealing with church discipline (which I assert to be the real subject matter here) here is what Jesus said in Matthew 18:
So, although I embrace a certain concept of a universal church, I cannot accept this idea that we can just bar the door of the local congregation against people based upon our personal whims. That’s the anti-Romans-14. We should treat membership in the local church just like we treat it in the church universal, and only those subject to church discipline should be refused. And I believe that I can cite and have cited biblical support for that point of view, and I’ve yet to see any for the opposite point of view.
Now, off to something else. May God bless you with a time of wonderful corporate worship on His day tomorrow with a biblical body of believers.
Brother Bart,
Thanks. That is very helpful in understanding where you are coming from.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
I just wish that someone who believes in open communion would answer Bart’s question. I really haven’t seen a good answer, yet. If you believe in open communion, then your membership should be open to anyone that wants to join, even if they are oneness Pentecostal, or a paedo-baptism Presbyterian, or a sprinkling Methodist, or an arminian Assembly of God, or even a legalistic, fundamental, independent Baptist…on second thought, they wouldnt want to join you. But anyway, you get the drift. Or, as Bart said it…”I would inquire as to the biblical basis for denying church membership to anyone who would be welcome at the Lord’s Table.”
David
david: I am not sure of the answer. It is something that I am searching long and hard into as I think it’s a very good question. Admittedly it is not one I have thought of. I am leaning toward the qualifications for church membership and the qualifications for the Lord’s supper are two different things, but I am still looking to scripture for those answers, so I’ll not commit.
David W.,
I have responded to Bart’s question. Perhaps you don’t think my answer is a “good answer.” But, for the record, I have responded.
Bart, VOLFAN, et al:
I think the question hinges on the word BELIEVE.
Volfan’s wording of the question [essentially the same as Bart] is:
“If you BELIEVE IN open communion then what Biblical basis is there for excluding from membership anyone you would welcome at the Lord’s table”?
My revisised question is:
“If you PRACTICE open communion then what Biblical basis is there for excluding from membership anyone you would welcome at the Lord’s table”?
There are separable questions but in my observation they run together because churches don’t necessarily practice what they believe in terms of open/close/closed communion. Or to put it another way they don’t have a codified belief in regard to open/close/closed communion so no wonder they don’t practice that belief.
I’m not a Bible scholar but I don’t see any Biblical reason that there should be different qualifications for church membership as opposed to partaking the Lord’s supper. Also, I don’t see any Biblical reason that the qualifications should be the same. I don’t think the Bible is that explicit.
With regard to the Lord’s supper, one of the key passages on qualifications is in I Corinthians 11:12-34. Here the statement is made “. . . let a man examine himself. . .”. I am not aware of anywhere in the Bible where self-examination is mentioned in regard to church membership.
As it relates to Biblical triage, I believe that Al Mohler is correct regarding “levels” of doctrines. Of course people can argue as to what constitutes first vs. second vs. third tear doctrines. In the interest of complete disclosure, I’d credit this “theological triage” concept to Dr. Sawyer of Western Seminary. He wrote a paper in the mid 1990s called “Heirarchy of Doctrines” which predates Al Mohler’s paper.
I agree with Bart that the BF&M does not enumerate which doctrines are “major” and which ones are “minor”. We have to determine this for ourselves.
I take the opposite position than Dr. Yarnell takes. He says, [paraphrased]
“there is no such thing as a minor doctrine”. I’d say that there are clearly some doctrines that are more important than others. Among major doctrines to me is “inerrancy”. Examples of more “minor” doctrines is the day of the week that the church meeting is held on and the degree that a particular open/closed/close view on the Lord’s table is implemented in practice.
I don’t think one can hold too steadfastly to every nuance of the BF&M since, if the past is any prediction of the future, it changes every 37 years. I won’t be around in 2037 when the BF&M is revised again so I don’t have to worry about “adopting” it.
Another reason I won’t worry about “adopting” it is that I never adopted either the 1925 or 1963 or 2000 BF&M. To me, within the level of precision that is warrented, these documents are the “same”.
Roger Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
David
You wrote “I myself, as an IMB missionary, signed with a caveat on the sentence referring to baptism that states: “Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.”” Having just read the comparison on the Mainstream Baptist Website of the difference between the 1964 BFM and 2000 BFM (pretty well the only useful thing on that website) I notice the Baptism/Lord Supper thing was not changed between the two. So I need to clarify what I said–Anyone who could not sign on to the BFM 2000 because of the changes related to the husband being the head of the household and the wife submitting to her husband, homosexuality, and women pastors had no business being and employee of the SBC.
Roger,
You make some good observations here. I especially think what you write here is very astute:
“With regard to the Lord’s supper, one of the key passages on qualifications is in I Corinthians 11:12-34. Here the statement is made ‘. . . let a man examine himself. . .’. I am not aware of anywhere in the Bible where self-examination is mentioned in regard to church membership.”
So there does appear to be a different criterion between the two. The Bible does mention “letters of recommendation” (1 Cor. 16:3, 2 Cor. 3:1, and “giving the right-hand of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9). It does seem from this that local congregations took some initiative regarding who they were going to receive or not receive. However, as Paul intimates in 2 Cor. 3:2-3, personal intimate relationships among believers seems to override the need for formal membership rolls.
Bart, David W., et al,
I have been reflecting a bit more on the relationship between open communion and open membership.
In addition to the astute observation of Roger Simpson, and my comment to him above, I offer the following thoughts:
It seems to me there may be some parallel between modern-day “cell churches” and the NT “city church – house church” set-up, with regard to membership. For example, in a “cell church,” sometimes there are members of a particular cell who, for one reason or another, don’t “gel” well with that cell. Maybe there is some personality difference with someone, or some natural affinity with someone else, or some circumstance or another that precludes them meeting with that cell on a regular basis. In such a case, sometimes it is arranged for them to transfer to another cell. This doesn’t mean they are “disfellowshipped” from their original cell, nor that they cease to be a member of the overall “cell church.”
Though there is not an exact parallel, I see that modern-day congregations fulfill the role, with relation to the “city church,” that individual cells do with relation to a larger “cell church” structure. Following out this analogy, all true believers in a given locality are members of the local “city church” and should not be denied membership privileges, unless they have been placed under discipline. However, suggesting that someone may “fit in” better at another congregation or cell is not tantamount to refusing to accept them as a brother in Christ, a fellow member of the universal church, and/or of the “city church.”
Ideally (following the same analogy), every cell or congregation would agree on such doctrines and practices as believers baptism. But, since in reality, all do not agree, and cannot work together productively on some ministry projects with this disagreement getting in the way, it is better to continue as members of separate cells/congregations, while remaining as members of the same “city church.” This way you are not denying fellowship to those who are your brothers and sisters, but you avoid the logjam of trying to work together, when you are in disagreement on an important issue.
I am not suggesting a “live and let live, sweep the differences under the carpet” approach, though. Where there are differences of opinion, there should be freedom to discuss them openly, and attempt to convince each other, under the authority of the Bible, of one’s point of view, without at the same time disenfranchising those who see things differently. Hopefully, with time, as we learn to listen to and respect one another, and submit to the authority of God’s Word, our doctrinal differences will be ironed out.
I am not suggesting that personal differences should be allowed to divide the Body of Christ. However, in the same way as Paul and Barnabas agreed to go their separate ways for a period until they were able to work out their differences, instead of everything coming to a standstill, it is best to meet in separate meetings, or cooperate in separate ministry projects, and relate on a more immediate basis to a different set of elders, while these differences are in the process of being worked out.
Brother Bart,
I leave for a day and wow, you guys can churn it out. It does seem that your arguments are biased toward your final analysis of what makes for a pleasing Lord’s Supper. In other words, most of your argumentation is based upon “who should be allowed”, where the Pastor/Elder is the person to govern the exercise whether by personal opinion or via congregational policy thinking you can abridge the outcome. The body and blood of Christ is not in need of abridgement. Christ’s body and blood functions just fine and should be received as the Apostle has delivered from the Lord.
Scripture describes the Lord’s Supper more precisely in the “receiving”, not in the “governing”. The guidance to the Lord’s Supper is personal “self examination” and is never monitored by enforced oversight anywhere in scripture. The Lord’s Supper is received by those that are called as Disciples of Christ. There are no exceptions to this calling. In fact, it is the Lord himself that teaches his Disciples to “do this in remembrance” as a command and remembrance to be received, it is never turned into an act to be “governed”. Although some cringe at our Lord serving Judas, it did happen and our Lord’s message did not change, nor does it change the “remembrance” in Christ’s churches.
Luke 22:17-22 “And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; (18) for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” (19) And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” (20) And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. (21) “But behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with Mine on the table. (22) “For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”
His body remains sufficient and His blood remains adequate for the remission of sin, even with the hand of sin perched for betrayal.
As Paul said,…he delivered a tradition, he did not deliver a policy to govern the tradition. He said he received it from the Lord,…who gave us the proper way to distribute the Lord’s supper as referenced above….I believe the Apostle.
1 Corinthians 11:23-26 “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; (24) and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” (25) In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” (26) For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”
Membership and The Lord’s Supper are two different things altogether. Members are “placed” into the body by Christ, just as He desires. The Lord’s Supper is a command “received” by His Disciples.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Bart,
A friend of mine, Brent MacDonald, wrote a well investigated article on the Lord’s Supper that can be accessed at
http://www.bibleistrue.com/qna/qna81.htm
His article helps debunk some of man’s attempts to restrict the Supper.
Blessings,
Chris
Wow, this certainly has become a robust discussion during this past weekend after I was away from the computer!
In responding to Bart Barber (#38), it seems that many have already brought their views to the conversation. So much discussion has already taken place, so my response may seem way too late. However, here goes.
Herschel Hobbs (and others) have referred to a willingness of Southern Baptists to work with each other despite certain differences in interpretation. Hobbs stated, “Holding to the priesthood of all believers differences in interpretations of some doctrines will arise. But there are more basic doctrines which unite us than divide us. Throughout our history, especially in the twentieth century, Southern Baptists have followed . . . the ‘Grand Compromise’ in settling doctrinal problems. This was not a compromise of truth. But holding tenaciously to the basic doctrines, allowances were made for differences of interpretation of certain other ones. This system is an outgrowth of the basic doctrine of soul competency in religion.” (The Baptist Faith and Message, rev. ed., Convention Press, 1996, p. 17).
I can tell from the tenor of this discussion that even within the doctrines listed in the BFM 2000, those participating in the discussion here are willing to allow for some differences in interpretation on some issues (e.g. participants in the Lord’s Supper). In other words, some “theological triage” is indeed taking place by ranking some doctrines more important than others. We can still cooperate with each other if we hold the “main” ones in common.
The problem is that the preamble of the BFM 2000 lists them all as “essential.” It does not list primary and secondary – all are “essential.” This lends to the “anomalous situation” that David Rogers points out in #41. If all Southern Baptists are willing to compromise and cooperate with each other with some of these minor differences, then the fellowship of churches in the SBC has no great problem. But if some want to insist that all the doctrines listed are indeed “essential” and push the issue, then the situation is far different.
My earlier point was that the prescriptive wording now in the preamble does change the tenor of the document — as it is written. If Southern Baptists want to enforce it seriously and to the letter, then it does become a mandatory statement. Bart has rightly pointed out that the SBC rarely “muscles” a local church. I would like to think that is because the SBC as a whole is far more willing to work under a gentleman’s agreement and let some things slide for the sake of fellowship and cooperation. Some things are more important than others. The old KJV biblical term for that is “forbearance” — putting up with some things for the sake of the relationship.
Just read through this thread tonight (have been out-of-town for a few days).
Bart’s argument seems to claim that the principle of Christian unity compels us to:
1) Accept unbaptized Christians (those not baptized by immersion as believers) into our churches
if we
2) let unbaptized Christians take the Lord’s supper.
The fallacy is that these two practices cannot be cast equally as ones of Christian unity.
By allowing any Christian to take the Lord’s supper you recognize him/her as a fellow member of Christ’s Kingdom. You are not making him/her a member of your local church.
Church membership has additional implications for the health of the local congregation. Thus the appropriateness of:
1) requiring believer’s baptism as the clear symbol of entrance into the Kingdom by the new birth in order to maintain a believer’s church.
2) maintaining believer’s baptism as the meaningful symbol it was originally intended to be.
For whomever may still be reading this thread, I still haven’t gotten any response to what I consider to be the main point, which is summed up in my comment to Ben Stratton in comment #43:
“Perhaps, as you say, close/closed communion is making something of a comeback in SBC life, due, as you say, to the influence of SWBTS and SBTS. If this ‘comeback’ involves demanding stricter enforcement of the BF&M on the issue of close/closed communion, I fear ominous storm clouds building on the horizon, though.
I think those who support a stricter enforcement would do well to count the cost. Do you really see this issue as a hill worth dying on? Would the eventual loss of synergistic forces we have going for us through the CP and SBC agencies really be worth the greater restrictiveness on this particular point? What would you really be gaining? Why is this so important to you?
If necessary, open communionists and close/closed communionists in SBC life can end up going their separate ways, and funding separate projects, and working separately. Is that what you really want? Would that really be a victory for the advance of God’s kingdom?”
I sincerely would like to get an answer to these questions. I think the ongoing health of the convention depends on them.
David,
I’m sorry. I thought that I had, in my very first comment, addressed every question that you posed in the original post. I was not trying to steal the thread away from the original post.
One can certainly assert that separation at the Lord’s Table is contrary to Christian unity and that separation at the point of church membership is not. It is a bald assertion without scriptural foundation, and that is my point.
As Roger and Chris have noted, 1 Cor 11 directs us to self-examination. Missing here is a willingness to include 1 Cor 5 and its pointed reference to the Supper in connection with church discipline.
Is there anyone in this forum who would think it appropriate for the guy that you excluded by church discipline last month (and is unreconciled) to participate in the Lord’s Supper this Sunday in such a state? If you answer, “Yes, he’s more than welcome to participate and it is appropriate for him to do so,” then you are being consistent, but you are in contradiction with the pointed commands of 1 Cor 5.
On the other hand, if you would say, “No, the person whom we have disciplined from the church should not participate in the Lord’s Supper,” then you cannot logically, in the next breath, say, “This is entirely a matter of self-examination, and it is not the job of the church to have an opinion as to which believers should participate and which should not.”
This is entirely about church discipline.
So, why is this important? Because church discipline is important and has been lost. And our churches are in jeopardy on that account.
So, let me be as clear as I can be. If the SBC does not recover a biblical practice of church discipline, then it matters not what form of “communion” we adopt—we’re doomed. If, on the other hand, we do recover a biblical practice of church discipline, we will inexorably recover a practice of the Lord’s Supper reflecting that we once more take seriously the disciplined state of the church body.
For us to change our statement of faith would be a milestone in the opposite direction. So that matters to me. But I recognize what David Rogers says to be true—a vast population of Southern Baptists are not at all acquainted with the practice of biblical church discipline. In such a situation, it would be insane to expect that they could articulate any sort of a 1 Cor 5 understanding of the Lord’s Supper.
Brother Bart,
I know you keep going back to church discipline as the governing factor for the Lord’s Supper. Paul on the other hand has given us a crystal clear context to removing immorality from among the church. Cleaning out the old leaven is in reference and context to removing immorality of such a kind that does not even exist among those that are not accustomed to the Law of the Jews. In other words, we (the church) should not associate with immoral people; and Paul is clear what they look like “ I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler–not even to eat with such a one.” The eating he is speaking of is not the Supper, it is simply hanging around these folks and eating any meal.
Disciples of the Lord look and respond differently and are allowed to receive the Lord’s Supper. Paul is encouraging the consumption, not the limitation. It would not be exegetically correct to lump everyone who sins into the category that Paul has outlined in chapter 5. If that were the case, no one, including you or I would ever partake of the Lord’s Table.
I think you may be attaching something to the Supper that is beyond what Paul is teaching.
I do agree with you that most Baptist’s have little experience with loving their body through discipline, and there is no doubt with discipline you will have the body understanding the Lord’s body with more clarity. But, exegetically, chapter 5 of the Corinthian letter is not the context whereby Paul is governing the Supper commanded by our Lord. He is simply telling the folks to remove the rascals, and don’t been seen eating sandwiches with them either, because it will confuse the church.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Bart,
a few other comments on chapter 5…..
Another reason that “self-examination” is paramount in the Apostolic teaching concerning the Supper, is the clear delineation we see as the 1 Corinthians 5 “bad actor” is expelled in the life of the church. In other words, because 1 Corinthians 5 is addressing blatant, remarkable sin of immorality, it is clear and simple to remove such individuals from a “feast” that is marked by devotion to the Lord, even though the Lord’s Supper proper is not the intent of this section. Since chapter 5 is not speaking about the Lord’s Supper proper, it is speaking about the devotion to the ways of the Lord and about the bread of sincerity and truth. Again, this bread is not specifically the Lord’s Supper, it is a bread of sincerity and truth of those devoted to the Lord being inclined to receive the Lord’s Supper as delivered by Paul from the Lord Himself.
To try and demand that chapter 5 is forming a discipline beyond immorality or the things that the Apostle clearly teaches in this context concerning these “bad actors” would be to go well beyond the text and put in the mouth of the Apostle more than he has offered.
Blessings,
Chris
Bart,
I suppose I am not so quick as Chris here to eliminate the Lord’s Supper as the inferred backdrop of 1 Cor. 5. I agree that who we admit and who we do not admit to the Lord’s Supper is related to church discipline.
However, in the list of 1 Cor. 5:11, I have a hard time imagining Paul, if he were alive today, writing, “I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a paedo-baptist; with such an one, no, not to eat.”
I guess we are back to the whole “unrepentant sin” question. Is sincere, convinced, based on biblical study, paedobaptism really “unrepentant sin”? I make a distinction, at this point, between sin and error.
Back to my original point in my comment to Ben, is this really a hill worth dying on, though? If for you, and those who think like you, it really is, then we have a tough road ahead of us. Because, if so, I can only think of several options:
1. You and yours eventually change your mind (which I don’t see happening);
2. I and mine eventually change our mind (which I don’t see happening, either);
3. Your view gaining ascendancy, and everyone with my view getting squeezed out of active denominational involvement, the convention fracturing, and the advance of the work of the Kingdom suffering as a result;
4. My view gaining ascendancy, and you and yours being free to stay on, but perhaps having a crisis of conscience regarding remaining in a convention that “compromises” on a key conviction;
5. We keep going back and forth on this, and the work of the Kingdom moves on, the BF&M remains the same, and caveats are quietly allowed.
However, if people like me just stay quiet and say nothing, I am afraid the chances of either 4 or 5 being the outcome become less and less.
Of course, if none of this is really all that big of a deal, and it is just an argument for the sake of an argument, then I am fine with forgetting about it, and moving on to more worthwhile discussions.
What is Christian unity? Roman Catholics believe Christian unity means for all Christians to be one organizationally (and for them that means everyone under the Pope). Is organizational unity (the goal of the Ecumenical Movement) the essence of Christ’s command for Christians to be one?
Congregational Christians don’t think so.
Congregational Christians see each congregation as a local body with Christ as its head. Organizational unity with other bodies is not the focus. Therefore, if a local body makes rules for membership which they believe honors Christ, then I don’t see how that is necessarily an action of disunity. Different congregations are necessarily going to see some things differently.
Sharing the Lord’s supper would probably be a statement of unity. However, I don’t think it’s the essence of Christian unity.
Perhaps we need a better understanding of exactly what Christian unity means.
Brother David,
I may have not made the point very well, …..I was not eliminating the “inference” or “overtones” of the Lord’s Supper via “Christ our Passover” at this point in chapter 5 (that is obvious to the text), ….but only stating that the context is immorality and the expulsion of such which is specific to how the Apostle had taught at this point in his letter. To add to the context would miss the point of what Paul is teaching the church at this point.
The Apostle is clearly making a determination of how to handle a problem that existed in this fellowship….
1 Corinthians 5:1 “It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife.”
As you have well stated,…this is a far cry from error, omission or misunderstanding. The Apostle has clearly and singularly approached a problem area for the congregation at this juncture….and uses the lesson of the Passover feast to make his point that immorality is never to be tolerated and must be expulsed. The passage at chapter 5 does not outline any formality for partaking in the Lord’s Supper.
Blessings,
Chris
David & Chris,
And now, we are back to the main argument. Does pedobaptism rise to the level of things that ought to be treated in a 1 Corinthians 5 sort of way? That’s a great question. It really is. And right there in 1 Cor 5 we see the answer to that question affecting both one’s membership in the church and one’s participation in the Lord’s Supper (sorry, Chris, but the “feast” the Lamb and the leaven there are clearly Paschal references…you’re really reaching to make it otherwise).
I have no doubt, zero, zip, zilch, nada, that church discipline is the key to understanding both those refused church membership and those refused the Lord’s Table. 1 Cor 5 is the core of my understanding there, but it also draws from everything that the New Testament says about Christian unity. Denying someone membership is far more a violation of Christian unity than denying them a seat for bread and juice. I believe that neither should be denied except for matters grave enough, and then both should be denied.
Does pedobaptism rise to either count? That’s a conversation that we can have.
Pedobaptism is obviously not among the specific items listed in 1 Cor 5. I don’t think that any of us would take that as an exhaustive accounting of things belonging there, otherwise murderers and wife-beaters would be OK while the guy who claims too many deductions on his taxes would be out. No, this is a partial list intended only to be exemplary, I think. But feel free to differ.
So, whether pedobaptism belongs or does not belong in some extension of this list is a debatable matter. I can imagine a world in which I was persuaded that it does not. Here’s what that world looks like: I start to admit pedobaptists both to the Lord’s Supper and to membership in my church. Anything else is mere hypocrisy.
David,
If I were not a believer in option #2, I would not be spending this time over here.
Brother Bart,
I am with you on the “reference” suggestion, just not the context. I propose this section (1 Corinthians 5) is dealing with immorality, and how the church should recognize such. The context and message is crystal clear. Paul has no problem marking out about 21 other problems throughout this correctional letter.
I do agree with you on what some refer to as Paedobaptism, which I believe is no baptism at all.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I agree that the chapter is about church discipline. I’m simply pointing out that, where church discipline applies, so does exclusion from participation in the Lord’s Supper. The entirety of what I’m doing is tying the two together and demonstrating that it is indeed biblical for the church to expect those disciplined not to participate in the Lord’s Supper.
Brother Bart,
I understand that you are trying to link the two instances, but the challenge is to apply what the Apostle is teaching in 1 Corinthians 11 to that of 1 Corinthians 5. 5 is quick and sure to expulse an individual and defines who that individual is in great detail. 11 is quick and sure to teach five things concerning the command and privilege (positive affirmations) to remember and proclaim the Lord’s death with everyone gathered. It is obvious that the chapter 5 guy (or gal) is not included (or as your arguing should not be included).
1 Corinthians 11:23-27 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; (24) and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” (25) In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” (26) For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. (27) Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
1. The Apostle delivered what he had received. (vs 23)
2. A positive affirmation concluding the results of partaking (proclamation vs 26)
3. A positive affirmation that all that eat and drink will be judged (vs 27)
4. A positive affirmation to examine yourself (vs 28)
1 Corinthians 11:32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.
5. A positive affirmation that “discipline is by the Lord” (vs 32)
Unfortunately, I have heard these passages preached to the extent where God fearing, God proclaiming, Christ followers are convinced they need to sit communion out for a multitude of reasons, as if Christ’s work on the cross was not enough. What a tragic way to present what Christ commands his followers to proclaim. It is a privilege to celebrate the Lord in His Supper. Christ did not form His Supper as a test of compliance. He formed it as a remembrance and proclamation.
I’d love to discuss this more with you over coffee sometime, and learn more about how you meld these two things together.
Blessings,
Chris
Bart,
I appreciate you continuing to dialogue about this. That shows a certain degree of intellectual honesty and integrity, from my point of view. I also am honored, and consider it a compliment to my “doctrinal humility,” that you would still consider option #2 as a viable possibility. I am convicted, at the same time, for being so pessimistic as to the possibility of option #1.
It does seem like we are zeroing in on some foundational issues. One of them I think is the difference between sin and error, and what counts as a basis of legitimate church discipline. Another one has to do with the issue of “local church membership.” Taking it as a lens from which to consider the question, what light, for example, does Dave Miller’s post of today have to shine? Are we also “members” of the universal church and the city church?
I have argued before that church discipline should be based on personal relationships and first-hand knowledge of the situation at hand. In many “local congregations” the level of personal relationships and first-hand knowledge is not sufficient to back up a healthy system of church discipline. That is why I believe these matters are best handled at a “house church” or “cell group” level, e.g. some group small enough for everyone to know everyone else and maintain a real sense of on-going personal accountability. I also believe that leaders from these various small groups (however they may be organized, and divied up) have a responsibility for maintaining a collegiate relationship and mutual accountability to the other small group leaders in the locality. When there are many, many of these small groups and leaders, it becomes more complicated to keep contact and adequate fellowship with everyone. I believe the Bible allows us flexibility as to the structures we use to facilitate this type of dynamic.
I guess my next question for you is, do you see anything in the Bible that specifically goes against the model of accountability and church discipline I am describing here?
Another profitable series of questions may be: Does doctrinal error always necessitate church discipline? If not, upon what criteria do we decide which doctrinal errors necessitate church discipline, and which do not?
A bit of history:
The question has arisen in these posts whether closed communion should be “enforced.” Most have said the pastor should simply state the church policy and let those present use the honor system. But that is not the way some of the Landmark Baptists did it.
Years ago I traveled a thousand miles for a date with a girl who was a member of Antioch Baptist church in Little Rock. Antioch church is the flagship Landmark Baptist church of which Ben Bogard was once the pastor. It may very well be the practice I observed at Antioch church (while dating the girl) was a continuation of the practice of Ben Bogard himself, the great leader idolized by most Landmark Baptists.
Antioch church had communion the day I attended. The pastor first had all members of the church stand up (the Landmark idea of closed communion was that only local church members may take it). All church members stood up, and only those standing were served the elements of unleaven wafers and grape juice. Those taking communion stood the entire time. This guaranteed closed communion was strictly observed.
Tying church discipline together with qualification for the Lord’s Table, as Bart is suggesting, must necessarily limit the potential pool of Lord’s Table candidates to members of any given local church congregation — i. e. “closed” communion.
If this is not the case then there has to be some sort of data sharing between congregations so people “under discipline in congregation A can be identified by congregation B”. As a software engineer I see a business opportunity here: Developing a distributed database service that churches could use to share disciplinary records with each other.
One benefit of the “let a man examine himself” criterion, besides being Biblical, is that it is more practical to implement.
The Bible does not provide for a person to be able to “outsource” his duty to examine himself to any one else in the congregation. If a person partakes of the table in an unworthy manner then he is judging himself.
Roger Simpson Oklahoma City OK