Should females be allowed to take up the offering in church during Sunday morning worship service?

[fjbarnes]

[Jim]

I know this thread has gone far and wide! Our church (4th Baptist in Plymouth MN) has elected Deaconesses.

• I think they are about 20 in number
• They are elected by the congregation (a nominating committee prepares ballot)
• I believe they serve for a 2 year term (maybe 3)
• They serve an important function. They
  • Visit shut ins
  • Have a funeral ministry where they provide a meal in the church after the funeral service.
• I personally don’t find strong Biblical support for the office of deaconess, but for me it is a non-essential of the faith.

My childhood church always considered the wives of deacons to be deaconesses. They would set the communion table. Would allowing women to serve communion rock the boat?

That’s a great question that is actually part of the bigger consideration, do deacons have to serve communion at all? Seems like the early church would have met in homes. and it seems equally likely that the woman of the house would have participated in preparing and sharing the communion table. I don’t see any reason, apart from tradition, why deacons must serve, or women could not serve, communion.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=633517723333763&set=pb.48842280…

Greg, regarding your picture, I am torn…

On the one hand, Jesus’ command to make disciples and baptize them would seem to be intended for all Christians, no? That’s certainly how we teach and preach it. In other words, we don’t believe only pastors should make disciples. So why should only pastors baptize people?

On the other hand, baptism is an ordinance of the church. Pastors, as overseers and shepherds, are responsible to oversee the proper and biblical administration of the ordinances. Most churches require prospective baptismal candidates to meet with (a) pastor(s), elder(s), or deacon(s) to approve them for baptism.

This also comes in to play when a father (non pastor/elder) wants to baptize his child.

Here is to me the best of both worlds: Allow any church member to baptize a convert, with a pastor/elder standing beside or behind them in the water. The pastor/elder can begin the baptismal service, explain the meaning of baptism, and introduce each candidate. Each candidate is baptized by the appropriate person, and then the pastor/elder concludes the service. He can also baptize those who have no one baptizing them. I believe this would communicate the role of the pastor/elder in overseeing the ordinance of baptism, especially if the congregation knows all baptismal candidates have been approved by Scripturally established church authority.

This would allow for women to baptize. Again, aren’t they commanded to make disciples and baptize them?

This would allow for women to baptize. Again, aren’t they commanded to make disciples and baptize them?

But most of “us” don’t even want them passing the offering plates! ;)

Allow any church member to baptize a convert, with a pastor/elder standing beside or behind them in the water. The pastor/elder can begin the baptismal service, explain the meaning of baptism, and introduce each candidate.

The answer to this is that baptism is the ordinance of the church, not the pastor. The significance is in the act, not the person baptizing. So the church can designate whomever they wish to perform baptisms. There is no necessary need for a pastor to be present at all. Else, consider how baptisms would be performed between pastors? Or communion? Would all have to cease until a new pastor arrives?

I imagine most churches, by default, have the pastor conduct ordinances, though not all do. Some have an assistant do it. Some have a number of people doing it. While it may be prudent to have one person do it, or at least lead it, in the end, the ordinance belongs to the church and the church may designate whomever they wish to do it, even with no one else standing in the water.

Context w regard to the above photo.

If you look at the context the church had a relatively large baptism with women / girls, children, and men.

It looks like they had women baptize women & girls

I don’t have a problem with it

[Larry]

Allow any church member to baptize a convert, with a pastor/elder standing beside or behind them in the water. The pastor/elder can begin the baptismal service, explain the meaning of baptism, and introduce each candidate.

The answer to this is that baptism is the ordinance of the church, not the pastor. The significance is in the act, not the person baptizing. So the church can designate whomever they wish to perform baptisms. There is no necessary need for a pastor to be present at all. Else, consider how baptisms would be performed between pastors? Or communion? Would all have to cease until a new pastor arrives?

I imagine most churches, by default, have the pastor conduct ordinances, though not all do. Some have an assistant do it. Some have a number of people doing it. While it may be prudent to have one person do it, or at least lead it, in the end, the ordinance belongs to the church and the church may designate whomever they wish to do it, even with no one else standing in the water.

This event is taking place outside and is in keeping with the prohibition against mixed bathing or swimming or being in the water together or whatever…

We attended a Baptist church in Tucson, Arizona where whoever had led the convert to the Lord baptized them. They believed the Great Commission was meant for individuals rather than for the church collectively, and so that’s the way they did it. It did seem very strange at first, but we eventually got used to it. That view does have a certain level of internal consistency.

We also attended another Baptist church that didn’t have a baptistery! Even that the desert that seemed strange.

I have attended and served at five different Baptist churches, and I have never, not even one time, seen anyone other than a pastor conduct baptism or communion. So, you believe that is simply “by default”? I’m no historian, but I would not be surprised if throughout Baptist history, the ordinances have primarily been conducted by pastors/elders.

Actually, it’s standard Baptist polity. Hiscox says, “Baptism is usually administered by ordained ministers. And this is proper, regular, and orderly. But should occasion require, and the Church so direct, it would be equally valid if administered by a deacon or any private member selected for that service. The validity depends on the character and profession of the candidate, and not on that of the administrator. As to the qualifications of ad-ministrators the New Testament is silent, except that they were disciples, Nor need the churches deprive themselves of the ordinances because an ordained minister is not obtain-able, as they, unwisely, often do.”

Strong says that the pastor is the administrator of the ordinances but, “in an emergency any other member appointed by the church may administer them with equal propriety, the church always determining who are fit subjects of the ordinances, and constituting him their organ in administering them. Any other view is based on sacramental notions, and on ideas of apostolic succession. All Christians are “priests unto.… God” (Rev. 1:6). “This universal priesthood is a priesthood, not of expiation, but of worship, and is bound to no ritual, or order of times and places” (P.S. Moxom)” (917).

Hammett more recently has a shorter statement.

That the ordinances have primarily been conducted by pastors/elders is likely true. I am the only one who does it here. But it doesn’t have to be that way since the ordinances belong the church, and as congregationalists, the congregation decides what is done.

As I mentioned above, I believe pastors are charged with oversight of the proper administration of the ordinances.

But where in the Bible is that? It’s not NT ecclesiology, at least as Baptists see it. That tends toward a sacramental view of the ordinance, that its validity depends on who administers it.The ordinances belong to the church, which is the body, and they (the body) can determine how they are carried again. Again, for practical and probably prudential reasons, it is typically the pastor. That’s what I would recommend. I would not recommend having others baptize as a regular matter of course. But it’s an issue left up to the church body. Most (like yourself) don’t know that, probably because we do a bad job of teaching ecclesiology in the local church.

Larry,

Even Baptist polity recognizes a duality of authority within the assembly between the undershepherd who represents the head and the congregation as a body. It is a tension that must remain balanced, but it certainly exists.

I think we should all consider adopting the “push down dunk” method seen here…

http://youtu.be/C4_o1W8e3iY?t=1m36s

[Larry]

I have attended and served at five different Baptist churches, and I have never, not even one time, seen anyone other than a pastor conduct baptism or communion. So, you believe that is simply “by default”? I’m no historian, but I would not be surprised if throughout Baptist history, the ordinances have primarily been conducted by pastors/elders.

Actually, it’s standard Baptist polity. Hiscox says, “Baptism is usually administered by ordained ministers. And this is proper, regular, and orderly. But should occasion require, and the Church so direct, it would be equally valid if administered by a deacon or any private member selected for that service. The validity depends on the character and profession of the candidate, and not on that of the administrator. As to the qualifications of ad-ministrators the New Testament is silent, except that they were disciples, Nor need the churches deprive themselves of the ordinances because an ordained minister is not obtain-able, as they, unwisely, often do.”

Strong says that the pastor is the administrator of the ordinances but, “in an emergency any other member appointed by the church may administer them with equal propriety, the church always determining who are fit subjects of the ordinances, and constituting him their organ in administering them. Any other view is based on sacramental notions, and on ideas of apostolic succession. All Christians are “priests unto.… God” (Rev. 1:6). “This universal priesthood is a priesthood, not of expiation, but of worship, and is bound to no ritual, or order of times and places” (P.S. Moxom)” (917).

Hammett more recently has a shorter statement.

That the ordinances have primarily been conducted by pastors/elders is likely true. I am the only one who does it here. But it doesn’t have to be that way since the ordinances belong the church, and as congregationalists, the congregation decides what is done.

As I mentioned above, I believe pastors are charged with oversight of the proper administration of the ordinances.

But where in the Bible is that? It’s not NT ecclesiology, at least as Baptists see it. Let me rephrase…Pastors are charged with the spiritual oversight of the church. Why, in your view, would this exclude oversight of the proper administration of the ordinances?

Even Baptist polity recognizes a duality of authority within the assembly between the undershepherd who represents the head and the congregation as a body. It is a tension that must remain balanced, but it certainly exists.

Yes, but that’s really not the question here. The pastor serves at the pleasure of the congregation, and their calling him is the commitment to follow his leadership and authority as given in the Scripture. But this is a specific question about the administration of the ordinances which belong to the church, not the pastor.

Larry, at your church, who gets to decide who is a worthy candidate for baptism?

Two relevant parts of our constitution:

It shall be the duty of the Pastor to carry out the roles of elder, overseer, and shepherd as revealed in Scripture. He shall preach at the regularly scheduled services of the Church, shall administer the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and perform the various duties incumbent upon his office. He shall be responsible to secure adequate help for the ministries of the church

And,

All applicants for membership shall first be interviewed by the Pastor and Deacons, who shall make a recommendation to the congregation.

In a nutshell, our congregation has given the pastor the responsibility to administer the ordinances. Since baptism is one of the four ways someone can join the church, it is ultimately the church’s decision based on the recommendation of the pastor and deacons who have interviewed the candidate.

Essentially what happens is I meet with the candidate for the purpose of hearing their gospel testimony and discipling them in the nature and meaning of baptism. That is usually part of a relationship that has developed over time. Then the candidate meets with the deacons and myself where they again give their testimony and understanding of baptism. The deacons then vote to make a recommendation to the congregation that the person be baptized and admitted to the membership.

This authority to the pastor and deacons is granted to them by the congregation in the constitution. I imagine your constitution has something similar. I would be curious to know.

We actually usually vote on the person prior to baptism.

For us it works like this: I publicly ask them if they are trusting in Christ alone for salvation, and if they are intending to follow him with their life, as a part of our church. (I have considered taking the step of having the person write out their testimony and read it to the congregation. I haven’t yet because many have such a fear of speaking publicly.)

I then say something to the effect of “The deacons and myself have interviewed [name] , and have unanimously agreed to recommend him (or her) to the congregation for membership. If you are in favor of receiving them into membership based on their confession of Christ through baptism, signify so by saying ‘Aye.’ [Wait for the ‘ayes.’] Are there any opposed? [I actually wait a few seconds, though we have never had so much as a peep.] “

Then I baptize them.

[Greg Long]

[Larry]

I have attended and served at five different Baptist churches, and I have never, not even one time, seen anyone other than a pastor conduct baptism or communion. So, you believe that is simply “by default”? I’m no historian, but I would not be surprised if throughout Baptist history, the ordinances have primarily been conducted by pastors/elders.

Actually, it’s standard Baptist polity. Hiscox says, “Baptism is usually administered by ordained ministers. And this is proper, regular, and orderly. But should occasion require, and the Church so direct, it would be equally valid if administered by a deacon or any private member selected for that service. The validity depends on the character and profession of the candidate, and not on that of the administrator. As to the qualifications of ad-ministrators the New Testament is silent, except that they were disciples, Nor need the churches deprive themselves of the ordinances because an ordained minister is not obtain-able, as they, unwisely, often do.”

Strong says that the pastor is the administrator of the ordinances but, “in an emergency any other member appointed by the church may administer them with equal propriety, the church always determining who are fit subjects of the ordinances, and constituting him their organ in administering them. Any other view is based on sacramental notions, and on ideas of apostolic succession. All Christians are “priests unto.… God” (Rev. 1:6). “This universal priesthood is a priesthood, not of expiation, but of worship, and is bound to no ritual, or order of times and places” (P.S. Moxom)” (917).

Hammett more recently has a shorter statement.

That the ordinances have primarily been conducted by pastors/elders is likely true. I am the only one who does it here. But it doesn’t have to be that way since the ordinances belong the church, and as congregationalists, the congregation decides what is done.

As I mentioned above, I believe pastors are charged with oversight of the proper administration of the ordinances.

But where in the Bible is that? It’s not NT ecclesiology, at least as Baptists see it. Let me rephrase…Pastors are charged with the spiritual oversight of the church. Why, in your view, would this exclude oversight of the proper administration of the ordinances?

Oops…something happened here when I tried to reply earlier to your post via my phone.

Here is my response to your question about pastors being charged with the oversight of the proper administation of the ordinances:

Let me rephrase…Pastors are charged with the spiritual oversight of the church. Why, in your view, would this exclude oversight of the proper administration of the ordinances?

I really don’t think my view is that novel, as your quotes proved. You might think I need some additional schooling in Baptist polity, but hopefully the folks at 9 Marks would pass your test of having thought a bit about Baptist polity. Mike Gilbart Smith wrote an article against baptizing children. I disagree with his position on that matter, but it’s interesting he makes the following statement:

Church membership of children confuses the responsibilities of discipleship between the family and the church. The instruction is given to fathers to bring up their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord, not to the church. (Eph 6:4) This confusion can go two ways. Either baptism becomes a ‘family ordinance’ when it is up to parents to discern when a child is ready for baptism, effectively removing the ordinances from the pastoral oversight of the church. The instruction to baptise was not given to parent but to the church (Matthew 28:18-20) Or, the church ends up taking over the role of the family, where the Sunday School teacher becomes the primary discipler of a child rather than the parents.

Here is my view: Because 1) the Bible indicates pastors/elders have spiritual oversight of the church, and the proper administration of the ordinances seems to fall under that purview, and 2) Because the vast majority of Baptists throughout Baptist history have restricted the administration of the ordinances to pastors/elders, therefore we should be very careful about casting this tradition aside.

Your position seems to me to be: Although the vast majority of Baptists throughout Baptist history have restricted the administration of the ordinances to pastors/elders, there doesn’t seem to be any biblical warrant for this, so it doesn’t really matter.

Please help me to understand if I have mischaracterized your position.

Why, in your view, would this exclude oversight of the proper administration of the ordinances?

It doesn’t. I think pastors should oversee the proper administration of the ordinances.

Mike Gilbart Smith wrote an article against baptizing children. I disagree with his position on that matter, but it’s interesting he makes the following statement:

Quote:
Church membership of children confuses the responsibilities of discipleship between the family and the church. The instruction is given to fathers to bring up their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord, not to the church. (Eph 6:4) This confusion can go two ways. Either baptism becomes a ‘family ordinance’ when it is up to parents to discern when a child is ready for baptism, effectively removing the ordinances from the pastoral oversight of the church. The instruction to baptise was not given to parent but to the church (Matthew 28:18-20) Or, the church ends up taking over the role of the family, where the Sunday School teacher becomes the primary discipler of a child rather than the parents.

I completely agree with that (though we should note carefully his point of writing; it was not about baptism is general, but about whether or not children should be baptized). The point is that it is an ordinance of the church, not the family. A dad doesn’t have the authority to baptize his children in the backyard, or to demand his children be baptized by the church. It is the church’s decision, as he explicitly says. I would say it is significant that he didn’t say it was the pastor’s decision, though I am not sure if he meant that or not.

Capitol Hill’s constitution explicitly gives the responsibility of administering the ordinances to the church, to the elders, and specifically to the Senior Pastor. In this it is similar to ours, though I didn’t know that until now. It isn’t assumed.

Here is my view: Because 1) the Bible indicates pastors/elders have spiritual oversight of the church, and the proper administration of the ordinances seems to fall under that purview, and 2) Because the vast majority of Baptists throughout Baptist history have restricted the administration of the ordinances to pastors/elders, therefore we should be very careful about casting this tradition aside.

I agree with care about casting it aside. I don’t think we should. I think the pastor should administer the ordinances, and our constitution and practice reflect that.

I am not sure that you are correct about the “vast majority of Baptists throughout Baptist history.” I see no reference to support that, and I am no expert in Baptist history. so I simply can’t comment on that.

Your position seems to me to be: AlthoBugh the vast majority of Baptists throughout Baptist history have restricted the administration of the ordinances to pastors/elders, there doesn’t seem to be any biblical warrant for this, so it doesn’t really matter.

Please help me to understand if I have mischaracterized your position.

My position says nothing with respect to tradition (I don’t know) or biblical warrant (see below) or the importance of it (I think it matters). However, since you mention biblical warrant, have you looked in the NT to see how many times the administrator of baptism is mentioned? Not many. The disciples in John 3 and Philip in Acts 8 are exceptions. Most of the time, we aren’t told who did it. Consider Pentecost and 3000 baptisms. Are we to imagine that only the apostles did that? That’s 250 a piece. At one a minute, that is four hours of solid baptisms. At one every fifteen seconds, it’s over an hour. I am not saying it couldn’t happen, but it isn’t hard to imagine that they had others involved as well. In fact, almost all the occurrences of baptism in the NT seem to be passive, as if the emphasis is on the act of being baptized rather than on the one doing it. It seems significant by its omission.

My position is that the ordinances belong to the church as a body, and the body determines ultimately who and how they are carried out. It is wise and practical for the elder or elders to oversee this, and it is wise to make that clear in the Constitution, but the Bible does not explicitly teach that.

Then Larry, it seems we agree on this more than we disagree, especially given the language of your church’s constitution and that of CHBC. I’m still not quite sure why you seemed to dismiss my suggestion of having a pastor “MC” the baptismal ceremony as a visual representation of his oversight, especially when I thought it was a step of compromise in allowing anyone other than the pastor to baptize.

Am I suggesting that a church is in sin if anyone other than the pastor baptizes? No, because there is no Scriptural command as such. But I am suggesting because of the nature of the ordinances and because of the nature of the pastoral office, it would seem best to conduct baptism and communion in a way that communicates the pastor’s oversight of the ordinances’ proper administration. The scenario I suggested is something I believe would do just that.

Thanks for the sharpening on this.

Greg,

I am wondering what the difference is between ‘needing” the pastor to “officiate” the baptism and not needing the pastor to officiate the disciple making. They are both commands of the Great Commission -go, make disciples and baptize them. Is there a difference between the communion table and the baptismal? Do you disregard Philip baptizing the eunuch as being abnormal during the transition period of Acts since there was no church present?

I’m still not quite sure why you seemed to dismiss my suggestion of having a pastor “MC” the baptismal ceremony as a visual representation of his oversight, especially when I thought it was a step of compromise in allowing anyone other than the pastor to baptize.

Actually my first draft of a response had a little fun with this, asking how close he had to be before it was true baptism. It was going to be an attempt at a joke, which doesn’t carry well in forums like this, so I deleted it.

I suppose my answer is that “baptism by proximity” doesn’t seem to have any biblical purpose. Baptism is based on the symbolism of the act combined with the intent of the one being baptized in the presence of the assembly. Who is standing there seems to have no relevance. So I would say, perhaps as a symbolic act, go for it. But I think it may unwittingly increase the clergification of ministry. No one would say that the gospel isn’t preached unless the pastor is standing nearby. So why would say that the gospel isn’t visualized unless the pastor is standing nearby?

In the end, I just don’t see the purpose of it. At the risk of repeating myself too much, baptism is an ordinance of the church, not the pastor. His presence is not what makes it valid. It is the intent, the symbol, and the gathered church that makes it valid.

I guess if you feel so strongly about this Larry, are you going to start allowing others to perform baptisms at your church from now on?

I don’t feel strongly about it. As I said, I think it both wise and practical to for the pastor to administer the ordinances, as is in our constitution. Were I starting a church, I would do it the same, or at least one of the elders/staff members.

What I feel strongly about is church polity (the congregation decides), and that this is not sacramental (there is not some belief that the pastor grants legitimacy to the baptism).

Although ive never personally seen this happen, I’ve seen videos of pastors standing by in a river when someone else baptizes a convert, so I guess it doesn’t seem all that strange to me. And as people continue to get larger and larger, it doesn’t hurt to have an extra pair of hands in the tank!

Speaking of large people, many moons ago I baptized a person that I never did quite get all the way under. I kept trying, but I couldn’t lean over any further without it being really awkward, and I thought they would panic if I didn’t get them back up soon. I figured it was the intent and the effort that counted. Of course, I haven’t seen this person in years, so perhaps the baptism didn’t take.

[Greg Long] Disciplemaking should happen in the context of the local church (or with the purpose of forming a local church), which would also fall under the spiritual oversight of the elders. Of course this doesn’t mean they have to be present during every instance of discipleship. This is entirely different than baptism, which is an ordinance if the church and is conducted at a public meeting of the assembly.