Dever on the danger of ‘tolerated non-involvement’

This issue is where sacramentology can become important again.
Since I believe that Baptism, as a means of grace, can actually confirm and strengthen the faith of a believer, I see waiting to administer such until the candidate’s faith is already strengthened and confirmed as somewhat counterproductive.
Lack of baptism, in most Baptist churches, will also mean that one cannot partake of the Lord’s Supper, thus denying one the benefit of yet another means of grace.
I agree that children’s professions must be considered carefully, but I do feel the response by Dever and others is indeed somewhat reactionary.
It furthermore strikes me as somewhat problematic consider use of the category of “child” within New Testament record as an argument for anything, since the age boundaries and understanding of “childhood” can be very fluid from culture to culture.
Sometimes I feel that I understand less—not more—each year. :)

We are having these discussions with our pastoral staff. I don’t think there is any fool-proof method of absolutely insuring that the people we baptize are sincere, genuine believers. Apostasy was a major problem in the NT. When one carefully exegetes Hebrews, James, John’s epistles, First and Second Peter (and I have done so), one quickly realizes that the NT church was experiencing a great deal of apostates who at one time professed to believe the gospel, were publicly baptized and admitted into membership in a local NT church. I trusted Christ at eight years of age and was baptized about a year later with my brother. My brother eventually rejected the faith after graduating from TTU. I have seen plenty of young people who professed faith, submit to public baptism, join a church and even graduate from a Christian school or home-school who later departed from the faith. I know men who have Bible degrees and advanced seminary degrees from our best schools who departed from the faith. They were taught Bible every day for 18 years from teachers with very advanced Bible degrees. Apostasy is very real, but I don’t think we can strategize it away. Some of Dever’s ideas are good, but I think he is trying to fix something that is not fully capable of being fixed.

As Baptists we believe in a regenerate church membership. We individually interview all candidates for Baptism and membership. All must attend a six-week membership class and agree to our statement of faith and church covenant before being voted upon. We do a decent job guarding the front door. We must do a better job guarding the back door. That’s where our weaknesses are and we are working on them presently. Dever has some helpful suggestions on the back door which we plan on implementing.

I think Dever’s book The Deliberate Church is very good and very helpful. It got me thinking … a lot. He’s just a little more experienced than me (!) so I listen carefully to what he says. I just don’t see how a formal membership class can work with my particular situation.

• The last man we welcomed into membership is very ignorant of doctrine, and spending six weeks going over our statement of faith would have been counter-productive with him. He’s a blue-collar guy, in every sense of the word, who has had a hard life … and still has one. Going over the statement of faith (beyond the Gospel) with him would have been counterproductive. This is how it would have gone:
  • “We believe within the One Being that is God, there are three co-equal and co-eternal Persons - Father, Son and Spirit!”
    • “Uh … cool. I guess I agree.”
• Instead, I did a two week Bible study on salvation with him from Ephesians, made sure he understood what baptism was, and what church membership was. He is struggling with alcohol, badly, and knows God is not pleased with his sin. I stressed that church is not a country-club for perfect people, but a hospital for struggling sinners who are trying to walk worthy of God.
• My point is, with this particular Christian man, he just needs to join the church, get prayer, help and encouragement and discipleship. The doctrine will come with discipleship. I met with him last week and did just that. We’ll meet again this week.

On the other hand, if you have a mature Christian family who comes from the Nazarene church and wants to join, then a pre-membership trip through the doctrinal statement would be a good thing.

I just really think you need to take things on a case by case basis. I get what Dever’s point is, and I understand it. I’m just not sure for my situation, with no other staff or even trained lay people (not even Deacons yet - but that will change within the year), that a formal membership class will work. I will take Dever’s basic principles and apply them to guard the front door - just not in the same way

Failing to be serious about who comes through the front door is bound to cause problems with the back door down the road, not to mention filling our churches with unregenerate members. The truth is, we cannot tell which professions of faith are genuine, but we can exercise a measure of sanctified wisdom. In the NT, Christianity was brand new. Not many were latching on to cultural Christianity because there wasn’t any. In addition, there was a strong measure of persecution. Not many were eager to identify with a persecuted group unless truly regenerated. (I said “not many,” not “not any.”) We are dealing with a very different cultural climate in America today, although rapidly changing before our eyes. Still, many want the label “Christian” for cultural reasons. Their family has always been “Christian” as long back as they can remember. In such a climate, a measure of caution is not only warranted, but necessary. Jesus told us to baptize disciples, not professions. At what point can you identify a person, especially a child, as a disciple? There are no “one size fits all” answers, but surely we need to wrestle with the question.

I’m not going to delve too much into the case of Simon, but it’s worth noting that there are several instances where the true believers were indiscernable from the false until the end of the age. Jesus himself makes that point in Matthew 13:1-30. Paul notes to the Ephesian elders in Acts that wolves would arise from the elders themselves and would do much damage to the flock (Acts 20:26-30). John reminds us that there are some “who go out from us but who are not of us” and encourages us to “test the spirits”. Other passages talk about “making sure of our own salvation” and “searching diligently to make sure we are in the faith”.

My point is that if even Jesus says that there will be people who look like and act like real believers up to the end of the age, then we shouldn’t worry as much about making sure that only 100% positively sure with no doubt saved people get baptized. That doesn’t give us cause to be careless, but some cases of false professions that I’ve run into took years and years to manifest themselves as such. My wife is working with a 12 yo girl now who doesn’t know if she’s a legitimately saved person or not, and it’s a lengthy process because we want her to know and be sure, not just slap a ‘saved’ adjective on her life and call it “done”. We had a woman in our church who was an integral part of the women’s ministry fall away just a few months ago, and that took everyone by surprise. Well, what was perhaps even more surprising was her flat out refusal to respond to loving approach and rebuke that the church took. She wanted no part of obedience to the Bible and ignored the steps laid out in Matthew 18 for what she really wanted, which indicates (to me anyway) an unbelieving heart. But she knew the Scriptural principles that applied very well, knew the whole discipline process well, and rejected every step to restore. So now we treat her as an unbeliever. It is very sad and deeply painful to those who knew her well, which I did not.

In a case where a 12 or 10 yo can give a credible profession of faith and who is serious about following Jesus (as someone that age can be), I’d say to them that the first and most important step is being baptized. I can’t paralyze myself or them by spending time trying to discern with 1000% certainty that their faith is real. God will take care of that. Baptism can be concurrent or consecutive to joining as a member, but I think it is wise to delay membership until they understand that there are real responsibilities to membership as a few people have noted. We average 100 people, I think, on Sunday, and about 40 of them are members. Do I wish everyone was a member? Sure. But I don’t think that any church would have a 90% membership rate or better.
The only thing that the elders and deacons and teachers can do is present the Scripture and then our policies. They have to do the rest of it themselves, but we’ll be glad to encourage them on the way.

Jay,

Nothing in Dever’s policy states that he won’t baptize children, just that it should be carefully thought through, which we would all agree. It should be driven by the parents, which we would all agree, there is an age of accountability, which we would all agree, and that the idea of baptizing small children is a recent act, which we would all agree. I just don’t see where the disconcerted concern is about the policy, except that he won’t quickly just baptize children. His foremost responsibility is to care and shepherd the flock, this is one element of their policies that provide a clear intentional process around church membership, something that most of us can clearly state is absent in most churches. He is not acting unbiblically, nor preventing any activity, nor condeming baptism of children.

Just for clarity’s sake, I’m not sure anyone is advocating “100% certainty” in baptism/membership, at least I’m not. Remember that there are two extremes to avoid:

1. Being so stringent about the requirements for baptism that you prevent legitimately saved individuals from baptized.
2. Being so lax about the requirements for baptism that you allow unregenerate people to be baptized, basically just baptizing people who express interest in being baptized.

Let me ask folks to consider: which of the two extremes above do you think most churches today err on?

But I think we can all agree that this is not an EITHER/OR. The two extremes I listed above are not binary, but rather polar ends of a spectrum. You may think Dever’s approach is too far towards #1, but he might think yours is too far towards #2. I think most of us are somewhere in the middle, leaning one way or the other.

[jhowell]

James K wrote:

I am amazed at the lack of interaction with the fact that the apostles were present at the baptism of the sorcerer (Simon), who after the baptism still wanted to be a sorcerer. Also, you have the 3,000 who professed faith and were baptized at Pentecost.

There you have examples in Acts that discard much of what is presented. What some of you are calling wisdom is just more manmade wisdom, which is not true wisdom. It is folly to think we can better guard the church than what Christ has said. He is Lord of the church. It isn’t the duty of elders to create policy, but to lead through obedience to the policies already laid down.

James, I think that when one uses Scripture to make a point it should be used accurately. Scriptures record of the 3000 does show immediacy, and the people responded in obedience to Peter’s exhortation, and it was done. However, the Scriptures claim that all 3000 received the word gladly, and they were added to the 120. Scripture makes no mention of any false professions. None. So, we dare not make any presumption that there were any on that day. We are to assume based on the text itself that all 3000 were genuinely converted.

Furthermore, the story of Simon clearly teaches that his ‘profession and baptism’ were not attended or overseen by any of the apostles, but by the evangelist/deacon Philip - Acts 8:1-13. The apostle Peter shows up in the narrative after these events of Simon, in which we learn of his true character. Was his profession spurious or motivated by wrong intentions? Yes. Were the apostles the ones who were fooled? No.

The point? This is just a simple reminder to us all to be precise and accurate in the use of the text of Scripture with regards to assumptions, biases, positions, conclusions and convictions. The scriptural record gives us both indicatives as well as imperatives.

The examples I used in both cases were to make the point that they were not given a time of observation to prove fruit worthy of baptism. They believed and were in a position to be baptized right away.

OK I’ve created a dropbox folder with some relevant files that some may find helpful. They include:

• Two mp3 files that are recordings of the explanation Dever gave on behalf of the elders to the CHBC congregation about their view on baptizing children, as well as my summary notes if you don’t want to listen to the audio files
• A list of questions I used when a child expressed interest in being baptized, both for the parents and the child
• The mentor’s guide (for fathers) and student booklet (for children/teens) that I developed in a previous ministry, based on an idea I got from Piper’s church. The idea was for the fathers to lead the study with the child. As you will quickly see, it is much more appropriate for teens than for young children (although some upper elementary children would be OK), and intentionally so. Somewhere I have several files explaining the philosophy and process behind this but I can’t find them right now. I’m out of town but next week when I’m back in the office I will look for them. (I should note that I have modified this study for use with adults, and also that when I have some time I want to go back and make a few changes to the children’s baptism study, so take that for what it’s worth. I would definitely split lesson 3 into two parts.)

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/kf7ucnhdl1zp8r7/AAAjefkKkRQeTF5p2Qg8C_j8a?dl=0

[James K]

The examples I used in both cases were to make the point that they were not given a time of observation to prove fruit worthy of baptism. They believed and were in a position to be baptized right away.

I would question whether it was right away, from a logistics perspective. 3,000 people would require a line along the shore of a body of water to be more than 1 mile. If you were to baptize each individual ever 5 minutes, and accounting for sleep and eating, it would take more than 31 straight days of baptizing. Even coordinating this with 10 people baptizing other individuals it would still take 3 days. I doubt it was get saved, run down to the water and get baptized the same day. With that said, I agree that there probably wasn’t a whole class that they took. What would the class be about, there wasn’t a New Testament yet :)

Your summary comment is accurate and captures the issue. Many thanks!

I am surprised nobody has commented on the matter of Lordship, which seems (from the linked article) to be Dever’s reason for delaying baptism in some cases.

On membership classes (to Tyler specifically), we are a small church and have a membership class. It is four sessions (who we are, what we believe, what we do, and what we expect). I have done it both individually with a person or couple that wants to join the church (sitting down at my house, their house, or my office), and I have done it as a formal class. It could be done in about 2-3 hours on a Saturday morning. Right now, I am doing it after our morning service for about a 30 to 45 minutes with about ten people. I do this two or three times a year generally, and we present it as “the next step” for guests and even regular attenders who are interested in finding out more about Grace and whether or not they want to be a formal part of it. It was written in our constitution years ago that members must be instructed in doctrine and interviewed prior to membership. Following the class, I interview them individually, and then have them meet with the deacons who make a recommendation to the congregation.

You might not have enough interest to have a formal class, but when you sit down at coffee or a meal or whatever, you should have some outline of what you want to teach them about membership in your church. That is the material for a class. If you offered it formally, you might be surprised at how many people would be interested in it.

Regarding doctrinal statement, I don’t teach the whole thing. In that session, I identify about 7 or 8 key issues, and point to our confession as the full expression of what people will be taught at Grace. We don’t require them to agree in full with it. I don’t see the possibility of that since many of them have never heard of the stuff in a doctrinal statement, much less can have an informed opinion on it. That’s why I explain it as being what they will be taught at Grace, and something that they cannot teach against. I entertain any questions that people have for as long as they have them.

Regarding baptism, of course it is obvious that it it impossible to say that Dever et al have not prayerfully considered the matter. There is no way anyone could possibly know they haven’t. It is possible and even quite likely that one will pray a lot about something and carefully consider the Scripture sincerely looking for God’s will, and miss it for various reasons. We see that regularly in doctrinal matters including church polity, baptism, soteriology, etc. Careful praying is no trump card, to be sure. But it is impossible to say that they haven’t prayed about it.

It should also be fairly easy to note that Acts is a descriptive book of what happened, not a prescriptive book of what necessarily should happen in all cases. That often gets confused, but it shouldn’t. The truth is that the Scripture, so far as I know, gives us no instruction on how soon after salvation one should be baptized. It tells us that people were baptized, and sometimes it tells us when they were baptized. It is interesting though, that in most cases of quick (e.g., Philip, jailer), they were baptized outside the local assembly, apparently.

As to the wisdom of baptizing children, each church must judge whether or not the profession is credible. Perhaps part of the problem is our culture in America that makes it fairly easy to be a “Christian.” I have people who ask me to be baptized who can say all the right things but I can look at their life and see that they are not serious about following Christ. I engage them in teaching. I think Dever’s point is whether or not children can grasp the commitment being made in baptism. It’s a reasonable question, it seems to me.

That is encouraging to hear. I have been meaning to put some material together to go over with (1) people who want to join the church, (2) new believers who have joined [discipleship] and (3) unsaved kids who want to know more.

I’m not against a new membership class per se. I’m just casting about and wondering how I can apply it to my context. I just need to get something together and get better organized along those lines, along with everything else there is to do. I really appreciate your explanation of how you structure your class. It is very helpful. I can do something with that.