Whitsitt Diaries and Immersion

[Jonathan]

[KeithE]

[Jonathan]

Fair enough. So, membership rituals aside, you were "baptized" as an infant. And, as you state, your view is that the "external rite" of Baptism can be a very meaningful time in a believers' journey. So, as an infant, where were you in your journey as a believer? If one is not a believer, how does the "rite" qualify as baptism?

[KeithE]

[Jonathan]

[KeithE]

[Big Daddy Weaver]

[Haruo]

Trine immersion? Go for it!

[Jonathan]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Ed Pettibone]

Jonathan wrote in part "Surely, BDW, one can be concerned about getting Biblical baptism right without ascribing a salvific quality to baptism. I understand that in our egalitarian age (and on a board dominated by egalitarian folk) that anytime one seeks to clarify on an issue like this one, there is a the risk that even highly educated folk like you would rather resort to the strawman than to address the argument. I'm comfortable with that risk."

Ed: Well said Jonathan, except, I am not sure that either this board or the site itself are dominated by egalitarian folk. Aaron Weaver nor KeithE, for example, seem to consider all to be their equal.

[Dave Roberts]

To me personally, the thing that cheapens baptism most come in two flavors. The first is the constant rebaptism of large numbers of long-time Christians who have "deficient testimonies" in that they can't name the date, time, and place of their salvation. One church I served 20-plus years ago recenlty got a new pastor who insisted on rebaptizing everyone who could not name the day and hour of his or her salvation. He baptized deacons, Sunday School teachers, WMU leaders, youth leaders, and many in the congregation, all of whom had to pray the "sinners prayer" with him to guarantee their salvation.

The second cheapening of baptism, IMHO, is the spectacle type of baptistry with spraying fire hoses and rock-concert style light shows when each candidate emerges from the water. The focus is on the show, not on the inner transformation.

We have a number of people who have been attending our church (and most of the churches I know) for several years before considering joining. An overstress on immersion as though they are somehow deficient in their Christian experiences seems to make the church more and more inaccessible. Some of our "community church" brothers and sisters merely keep a participation list, not a formal membership list. I don't favor that, but it does seem a reaction to the extreme emphasis on re-baptism.

[KeithE]

[Haruo]

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Educated observers do know that words have meaning. Educated observers are also trained to cut through the crap, make reasonable interpretations, and understand that actions speak louder than words and people don't always mean precisely what they say.

My comment really has nothing to do with KeithE and Todd Wilson.

I'll be the first to admit that my exact argument is not original. Educated observers, you know, the ones who believe words have meaning and all that jazz, have already made the Alexander Campbell association.

In one of your original comments, you wrote about the folks with "high standards" for baptism. Those are the same folks who have affirmed the new IMB guidelines. Maybe when you speak of "folks with high standards" you had others in mind. But, it is those with "high standards" who have led the SBC to become make new rules regarding baptism about and beyond simple Believer's Baptism by immersion. For instance, my cousin could never be an IMB missioanry (though she was a journeyman in Botswana quite recently) because she was baptized an authentic Arminian.

Now, such a heavy emphasis on baptism does leave more than a few with the impression that perhaps baptism is not just a symbol but in fact has some type of salvific quality. Sigh all day. That doesn't mean my argument is not a serious one.

Ed wrote: "Well said Jonathan, except, I am not sure that either this board or the site itself are dominated by egalitarian folk. Aaron Weaver nor KeithE, for example, seem to consider all to be their equal. "

Now, talk about lazy argumentation.

[Neil Heath]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Stephen Fox]

Bill Leonard implies in his BToday piece, in the end you come to the same problem Charles Marsh suggested in God's Long Summer.
Civil Rights and Immersion have similar problem in the autonomy of the local church.
Whatever the family with the longest ancestry line and most current living members have in a local church, they decide these matters; or the deacon who gives the most money; the one the rest of the folks are afraid to offend cause of his money and power in the community.
One exception was the takeover of the SBC where Pressler had 30 million, but Mr. Baugh had 100 million or more; only Pressler had access to more demagogues through Texas Regulars connection and Criswell and in the case of Adrian Rogers, a Know Nothing who most likely never meant any harm.

One Caveat, I didn't mean that ugly about Adrian cause I have found his son David to be most gracious in our exchanges.

Two, my latest kick is Gus Nieburh and his just off the press, Beyond Tolerance.

Yes, Flick, I strayed, a little off the topic of Total Immersion but I liked it. It's the Beat in the Song, the dissent.

Speaking of Dissent:

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=11445

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Neil, when you say "Regarding local churches positions on baptism and membership, I think we may be moving toward a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, though I don't know how widely it is done. Namely, if a candidate for membership has already been baptized, asking if they received a believer's baptism or an infant baptism. And if the answer is believer's baptism, then simply receiving them upon their statement of baptism, without asking what mode of baptism they received.

I think you are right. that is probably where many churches are headed, unfortunately. Yet another mode of accommodation. (pun intended)

[William Thornton]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Haruo]

[KeithE]

IMHO, "don't ask" should be the policy of any Christian Minister when doing visitation. To do otherwise makes one think the external ritualistic act is more important than having the visitee join in the life of the church thereby enhancing (hopefully) both the church and those that join. Understand that many denominations (especially baptist ones) limit themslevs to believers who have been baptised and ask that their ministers enforce this. That is unfortunate, imo. I challenge anyone to find biblical basis for exclusion of non-immersed, or non-baptised people from membership in a church body (be it a house church of NT times or one of today's denominational or non-denominational churches). I think you'll find you have to do quite a bit of extrapolatory interpretation to reach a position that demands baptism in any form for membership.

As to a "don't tell" policy, I think prospective members should be free to tell their baptism status or not.

So the perfect Christian body (of my imagination) would have a "don't ask" policy letting God be the final judge and letting anyone who wants to join a fellowship, join it.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Neil Heath]