Given that baptism is not required for salvation, is a church requiring baptism for membership a red flag or not?
What about a church requiring a second baptism for membership?
Shouldn't baptism (especially if one was baptized before) be a choice of the believer, not a box to check for church membership.
The church in question is otherwise a sound, biblical, active church.
14 comments:
I used to wonder about that with regards to the church we used to attend before moving here to SC. Given fleeing the People's Republic of Hellinois was a certainty by the time we began attending...only the exact "when" being in question...it came to mind when the full immersion ritual occasionally took place during Sunday service. I had no strong feeling one way or the other, and certainly had I chosen to partake of the ritual a literal deep dive wouldn't have been met with any reluctance on my part. Having been dripped upon as an infant, I wasn't sure I needed to do it at all. There's someone I could ask who was somewhere around her teen years when her family left the leftist LGBTQ promoting Methodist church for this one, and I'll find out if she and her family went through it then and whether or not it was requirement for membership.
I don't think it ought to be, but I also think any congregation is within their rights to impose whatever membership requirements they deem suitable.
Thanks. I'll hold of until I see if I get any more responses.
Any sort of legalistic approaches like this should be a red flag in faith traditions who are Grace-centered. Legalism brings death, not life.
Dan
We can always count on Dan for a simplistic, unhelpful response. Thanks.
Requiring baptism for membership a red flag? Possibly—I’d have to have more information about that church and about the potential member.
Second baptism for membership? Depends on the circumstances. E.g. I was baptized a Mormon. After becoming a Christian I was baptized again.
Baptism as personal choice to become a member? If a believer with no baptism, wouldn’t a requirement for membership just be ensuring the person has accepted the Christian has followed through with baptism?
It's simplistic to think that legalism in churches (especially as regards to tiny doctrinal opinions which are unproven and unprovable) is a red flag? Well, is it not possible that this is a simple answer to an obvious problem?
If someone wants to believe in a young earth...
if someone wants to believe in a virgin birth...
if someone wants to believe we should have church services on Sunday evenings...
if someone believes baptism is done "right" when they're dunked (or when they're sprinkled)...
if someone doesn't believe baptism is essential to salvation...
if someone believes that there is a literal heaven lined with literal streets of gold in some other dimension (or in the sky, or... somewhere...)...
if someone believes that the KJV is the best translation...
So what? These are meaningless nothings when it comes to the Christian faith.
BUT, if a church has RULES in place that say "YOU MUST affirm any of these meaningless opinions in order to be a part of THIS church..." That is a legalism that is not found in the Bible and which is not rational, especially given that none of them could be objectively proven.
It is not the opinion that is problematic (although there are some reasonable problems with at least some of those opinions), it is the insisting that one MUST affirm these opinions legalistically that is a problem.
You find that a "simplistic and unhelpful response?"
How, specifically?
Marshal...
I don't think it ought to be, but I also think any congregation is within their rights to impose whatever membership requirements they deem suitable.
So, if a church would say, for instance, that one must affirm a belief in support for gay folk getting married, you're fine with that? (Our church doesn't, by the way - otherwise, I would not have been allowed in, as I didn't believe that when I started attending.)
If a church wants to create a rule that one MUST affirm and read only the KJV to be a member... that one MUST affirm and handle snakes and drink poisons to be a member... that one must affirm a YEC, speak in tongues, etc to be a member... you think that's okay?
Just curious.
You don't find all of that ridiculous legalism that is irrational at best and unhealthy and contrary to biblical Christianity at worst?
Glenn,
The church is a healthy, Biblical church with much to recommend it. Serious expository preaching, no lights/fog and the like.
Baptized as an infant, saved as a teen, has attended and volunteered in various churches since middle school.
First baptism was in a reformed protestant denomination.
In this case they are requiring as 2nd baptism to become a member, and hoping that the "threat" will be enough to "force" the second baptism.
If the believer has never been baptized, I wouldn't see this a a red flag at all.
If you're suggesting that a second baptism is required for anyone baptized as an infant, I'm not sure I see any biblical precedent for that, but that is another topic entirely, IMO.
"It's simplistic to think that legalism in churches (especially as regards to tiny doctrinal opinions which are unproven and unprovable) is a red flag?"
No, it's simplistic to label the common and reasonable practice of churches having membership requirements as "legalism". But that's what I expect from you.
"Well, is it not possible that this is a simple answer to an obvious problem?"
No, because you haven't identified an obvious problem that is relevant to my question. you've simply applied one of your go to labels to something which automatically makes it wrong.
"You find that a "simplistic and unhelpful response?"
Yes, much like I find this comment to also be simplistic and less than helpful.
"How, specifically?"
Because simply slapping a label on something and declaring it wrong based on your unproven, prejudiced, biased, subjective hunches is simplistic and unhelpful. Obviously you'd find it a red flag because you find ANY requirements of membership to be red flags.
Note saying the second baptism for infant baptism required, just one of the reasons may be sought. I think baptizing infants is unbiblical but I don't fight it.
Dan,
"So, if a church would say, for instance, that one must affirm a belief in support for gay folk getting married, you're fine with that?"
Why wouldn't I be? I'm seeking membership with them, and likely they're informing me in advance how they operate. Of course I wouldn't seek membership with any church which preached heresies, be it a church such as your hypothetical, nor the Jeff St. clown show you now attend. I prefer a Christian congregation.
"If a church wants to create a rule that one MUST affirm and read only the KJV to be a member... that one MUST affirm and handle snakes and drink poisons to be a member... that one must affirm a YEC, speak in tongues, etc to be a member... you think that's okay?"
Sure. Why not? Again, such upfront requirements make it easier for me to decide where to worship.
All churches have their notions of what it means to be Christian. Some have a stricter set of requirements because they believe those requirements best reflect what it means to be Christian. In the meantime, I have my own beliefs.
"You don't find all of that ridiculous legalism that is irrational at best and unhealthy and contrary to biblical Christianity at worst?"
That would depend upon the "laws" on the table. Requiring baptism is not problematic on its face. Far, far worse than that is a congregation which refuses to preach on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, and instead pretends those among them who indulge have not traded their salvation for perverse sexual gratification. Clearly, even self-flagellation is less problematic than that.
Art,
I think that the root of the problem is that Dan objects to any church having any expectations/requirements of membership. Way back when I investigated this topic for other reasons, but what I remember finding is that churches that had membership requirements were stronger and healthier than those that didn't. I also think he's confusing membership with attendance. Again, if memory serves, the notion of a church with a relatively small core of members and a larger group of regular attenders was not out of the ordinary.
I fully support churches having requirements for membership. I may not agree with some or all of those requirements, but I wouldn't join that church.
This post was, about one specific requirement at one specific church. Not about the notion of having requirements in general.
Since I doubt we'll get much more I'll throw in my two cents.
For me personally, with the caveat that the church is question is one I would regularly attend if it was local, the requirement that I be baptized again would be a deal breaker.
If I was called to justify it, I would point to the thief on the cross as one of the examples that baptism isn't required for salvation. Given that, I'd argue that if it's not necessary for salvation, then a second (specific type, by a specific church) baptism shouldn't be necessary for church membership. But that's me, and I would fully support anyone who wanted to join that church and get re baptized. I do have a problem with the notion that re baptism should be anything other than an individual decision, made without coercion or pressure.
I would assume that if Jesus commanded it (Matt 28:19-20), it shouldn't be a red flag for a church (of Christ-followers) to expect someone to submit to that simple command as a show of ... you know ... Christ-following.
Stan,
I'm not arguing against baptism, even though it seems clear that it is not necessary for salvation. I'm wondering about requiring a second baptism by this particular church solely as a requirement for membership. I would argue that requiring a second baptism goes beyond any command of Jesus.
Post a Comment