Category Archives: Theology

Thinking About Leaving Your Local Church? Think Again…

Posted on by

In our fast-food culture of leased cars and changing telephone companies, many local churches have not fared well. Church shopping, hopping, and dropping have become normal—so normal that many people reading this probably haven’t thought very much about it. Certainly, this cavalier attitude toward local church membership is common among evangelicals today. But have we paused to consider whether it’s biblical?

Some get bored and wander off to a more exciting church. Some get angry and stomp off, taking several members with them. Some change their minds about a particular doctrinal issue and realign themselves with a church that seems purer. Some people are just in a rut of discontent, staying for a few months or years then straying on to something, well, new. But when we contrast this modern epidemic of forsaking our membership in a local church with the two positive and two negative biblical examples of leaving church and the long history of church commitment, we probably ought to re-think this issue.

First, on the positive side, Christians in the Bible changed churches because of physical relocation. In Acts 18 Aquila and Priscilla changed from one local church to another when they moved to a new city. Second, people left churches for ministry opportunities. Ministers and missionaries departed local churches to serve elsewhere—always with the blessing of the sending churches (Acts 10:23; 15:40; 2 Cor. 8:16–18). On the negative side, the New Testament presents examples of people leaving the church because of discipline (Matt. 18:15–17; 1 Cor. 5:11–13), always with the hope that the disciplined believer would repent and return to fellowship. Also, false teachers and heretics left in apostasy, departing in willful rebellion and often taking followers with them (1 John 2:18–19). [Some have pointed to the surprising skirmish between Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15:37–40 as an example of separation due to differing ministry strategies. But this incident had nothing to do with leaving a local church—both departed from Antioch with the church’s blessing. And besides, this text described an unfortunate event; it did not prescribe how to handle conflict.]

Relocation . . . ministry . . . discipline . . . apostasy.

These four biblical examples—two positive, two negative—are legitimate departures from local congregations and serve not to weaken, but to strengthen, both the local church and the universal body of Christ. And these examples make one thing clear: the common reasons Christians give for forsaking their covenant with a local church just don’t measure up. If believers take the Bible as the guide and love as the rule, they should never simply stomp out of their churches in anger or slip quietly out the back door.

Of course, we can’t assume that the Bible covers every legitimate reason for leaving a church. Sometimes churches become so corrupt or doctrinally impure that the marks of a true or healthy church are lost. Other times God may want certain believers in certain places to accomplish certain things. However, we must always remember that local church commitment is necessary for spiritual growth (Heb. 10:24–25; Eph. 4:4–16). And we must recall that we entered into church membership as a covenant relationship—as serious as marriage. If we keep these facts in mind, we’ll have the right heart for considering a godly decision about whether or not to leave, and how to do it appropriately.

Some practical principles can point us in the right direction as we consider God’s mind about leaving church.

First, communicate and seek counsel. Discuss your options with the church leadership. Ask trusted Christian friends or mentors whether your reasons for leaving are legitimate. The issues leading you out of the church likely can be resolved—to the benefit of everyone. Perhaps your confidants will help you discover that the Lord is, in fact, leading you to another ministry elsewhere. However, simply stomping off in a huff is rude and immature. And keeping your real reasons for leaving a secret is usually a sign that your conscience isn’t clear.

Second, be prudent and discerning. Don’t make an emotional or quick decision. Just as in natural families, people hurt people in churches. You can count on it. But my reaction to a harsh word or other offense reveals as much about my own spiritual immaturity as it does about the immaturity of the offender. Don’t make a decision based on anger, fear, resentment, or pain, but on the principles of God’s Word. And don’t turn everything into a “doctrinal issue.” Everybody disagrees on some interpretations of Scripture, but not every doctrinal disagreement is worth rushing for the door. In fact, I can count the absolutely essential marks of orthodoxy on two hands; if your list of “fundamentals” is much longer, you may have slipped into exaggerated dogmatism. Keep your eye on the center—the gospel of Jesus Christ— and show grace in the dozens of disputable matters.

Finally, seek God’s will. Even though God wants us to be faithful to our local churches and to contribute positively to its ministry, we can’t limit God’s direction in our lives. Though my tone may sound absolute, the truth is that occasionally God may want people elsewhere for his own purposes. However, we must still make transitions cautiously—communicating with leadership, exercising prudence, and seeking counsel. To hop from church to church without earnestly (and honestly) seeking the Lord’s will in the matter shows contempt for the temple he loves and can even result in discipline from God (1 Cor. 3:16–17).

In light of God’s high view of local church commitment and the clear teaching of Scripture (Heb. 10:24–25; Eph. 4:4–16), we should prayerfully consider each decision we make regarding our local churches—from membership and attendance to our level of involvement and decisions regarding departure. If we seek to honor him and demonstrate genuine love for our brothers and sisters in Christ, the Lord will guide us in wise, prudent, and godly decisions regarding our involvement in the local church.

So, are you thinking about leaving church? Think again.

 

[This essay is excerpted from chapter 7 of RetroChristianity: Reclaiming the Forgotten Faith (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012). © Michael J. Svigel, 2012. Originally posted March 18, 2012 at www.retrochristianity.com]

“This Should Be Me”: Christ, Our Passover

Posted on by

The sound of bleating lambs and shuffling footsteps filled the temple. With three trumpet blasts, the priests announced the start of the Passover sacrifices. Worshipers responded to the priests’ psalms with “Hallelujahs” as each man offered his household’s sacrifice to God. As the disciple John raised the knife to the throat of the lamb he’d brought, he thought, “This should be me.” With one quick motion of his hand, the lamb’s bleating stopped, and John watched its blood drain into the bowl held by the priest. The priest emptied the bowl at the base of the altar, adding to the smell of blood that hung in the air.

Christ’s Final Passover

Why did a lamb have to be sacrificed on Passover? The Jewish feast was meant to remember and retell the story of Israel’s Exodus from Egypt. The lamb sacrificed that afternoon became the main course of the Passover meal, representing the price paid for the protection of Israel and their redemption from Egypt. God had “passed over” the homes of those Hebrews who had applied the lamb’s blood to their doorways (Exod. 12:12-27). With the lamb, the Jews also ate unleavened bread and bitter herbs, recalling the agony of bondage in Egypt and the food God provided for the Israelites during the Exodus (12:39). By partaking of the sacrificed lamb, the Hebrews not only remembered, they also retold the Passover story to others.

Yet on the night John partook of the Passover lamb with Jesus and the other disciples, things changed. Although Jewish custom prohibited eating anything after the Passover meal, Jesus broke sharply with tradition. He took bread, gave thanks, and said to His disciples, “Take and eat. This is My body” (see Mark 14:22). John partook with the rest, then Jesus took up the third of four cups of wine traditionally drunk at the Passover, the “cup of redemption.” To John’s surprise, their Rabbi said, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” (14:24). The traditional fourth cup—the “cup of consummation”—remained untouched. Jesus explained, “I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (14:25).

In remembering and retelling the Hebrew Passover, Christ followed the requirements of the law, but He transformed and fulfilled the meaning of the lamb, the bread, and the wine. However, one thing remained the same: the need for a substitute as a sacrifice in place of the guilty sinner.

Christ Our Passover

The following day Jesus was brutalized and executed on a Roman cross. To those who watched, the murder seemed senseless, but from God’s perspective it completely paid the cost of redemption. Isaiah had prophesied that, like a lamb led to the slaughter, the Messiah would be pierced for our transgressions, and the punishment due us would fall upon Him (Isa. 53:5-7). Paul said that Christ Himself is the Passover lamb, sacrificed for our sins (1 Cor. 5:7). All who consider the sufferings of Jesus should be haunted by these four words: “This should be me.”

The Bible says that all have sinned and deserve one punishment: death. The blood, gore, stench, and wails of the animal sacrifices reminded Old Testament Israelites daily of the wages of sin and cost of redemption. But Paul told us the good news that comes through Christ, the sacrificial Passover Lamb who died to forgive all of our sins: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23).

Making Christ Your Passover

In the Old Testament remembering meant more than just thinking; it meant responding with specific actions. During this Easter season, how will you remember and retell Christ’s Passover story?

Perhaps your church has a special service of remembrance, partaking of the Lord’s Supper or retelling the story of Good Friday and Easter through music or drama. Maybe you have a special family tradition that centers on Christ and His final payment for sin as the spotless Lamb of God. There are many great opportunities for you to remember and retell the story through Scripture and discussion on specific days of Easter week.

Like the Hebrews during Passover, your own tangible expression of remembrance and retelling will focus your heart away from kitschy Easter eggs and pastel bunnies toward the cleansing blood of the Lamb, “for Christ our Passover . . . has been sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5:7). This year, center your thoughts and actions on the true meaning of the Hebrew Passover, applying the blood of Christ to the doorposts of your life with the proper attitude: “This should be me.”

 

[Originally posted April 5, 2012 at www.retrochristianity.com. This essay adapted from Michael J. Svigel and Suzanne Keffer, “This Should Be Me,” Insights (March 2005): 1-2. Copyright © 2005 by Insight for Living. All rights reserved worldwide. Used by permission.]

The (Kitschy) Cross and the (Creepy) Crypt

Posted on by

The heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ is His death and resurrection (1 Cor 15:3–4). This good news about Jesus wasn’t a mythological medley of spiritual metaphors. It wasn’t a story invented to puff the public appeal of a carpenter-turned-Rabbi. These were not “cleverly devised tales” (2 Pet 1:16) meant to deceive the masses into an unfounded faith. Early Christians made it clear that the gospel is based on historical events that occurred with real people in real places. Christ suffered “under Pontius Pilate,” a real historical figure. He was buried in a real tomb owned by a prominent Jerusalemite, Joseph of Arimathea (Matt 27:57–60). And He rose again on the third day—seen, heard, and even touched by numerous eye witnesses (1 Cor 15:5–8).

When people visit Israel today, they are bombarded by all sorts of claims regarding the location of certain biblical events—from the place where an angel visited Mary to the place where Christ was born . . . from the hillside where Jesus preached to the cliff where the herd of possessed pigs plunged into the Sea of Galilee. Sometimes pilgrims are left wondering which of these claims are based on historical fact or simply conjecture. But when it comes to the place of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, things get really messy. In fact, two competing locations for the death and resurrection present themselves as the true place of Golgotha and the tomb—the ancient Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the more recent Garden Tomb. And the difference between these two locations is quite literally darkness and light.

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is cramped among the buildings of Old Jerusalem, covered by layer after layer of stone structures. Numerous Catholic traditions compete for control of the site, sending droves of worshipers through a maze-like route of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Up narrow stone steps . . . past the supposed crucifixion site smothered in Catholic kitsch . . . down another flight of stairs . . . through a hallway painted with a mural depicting the death, wrapping, and burial of Jesus . . . and finally into an open hall crowded with Christian-like people first rudely shoving their way past others to see the burial site, only to reemerge weeping and wailing for their sins. I was actually told once by a burly Italian priest that I couldn’t go into the chapel because I wasn’t Catholic! To my evangelical eyes, the place is awful when it should be awesome. I always walk out of that cold, cramped, crowded Church with a feeling of despair, not hope.

But when I walk into the place of Gordon’s Calvary and the Garden Tomb, it’s like walking into a Thomas Kinkade painting. Birds chirp, butterflies flutter, trees wave in the cool breeze, visitors walk leisurely along garden paths, praying and singing hymns. A guide points out the craggy cliff which, with some imagination, looks like the features of a skull. He points to the area that used to be a site of public execution—a perfect fit for the crucifixion of Christ. Then he leads us to a tomb . . . a real tomb. Not a church, but an ancient burial site once covered by a rolling stone. There it is, in the garden, not far from the place of crucifixion, standing open . . .and empty. Pilgrims slowly file in and out. No pushing, no shoving, no burning incense, no purchasing candles, no kissing rocks—just meditating on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.

Like I said, the contrast is darkness and light. The only thing the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Garden Tomb have it common is that they both claim to be the place of the gospel events. Of course, evangelicals who visit the Holy Land almost instantly reject the Catholic location, and almost unquestioningly accept the Garden Tomb. It’s easy to see why. But in all likelihood, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre holds the best claim as the authentic site of Christ’s death and resurrection. On my last trip to Israel, I had the hardest time answering visitors’ questions about this. I really wanted to say, “No, that Catholic Church isn’t the real thing. This beautiful garden is the place.” But I couldn’t. Instead, I had to quietly tell those who asked the simple archaeological and historical facts.

The Bible says Joseph of Arimathea placed Christ’s body “in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock” (Matt 27:60). However, the grave at the Garden Tomb has all the characteristics of an Old Testament period tomb, not a new tomb. Besides this archaeological fact, the location of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre has very strong historical claim. It is mentioned very early on in Christian history has having been memorialized by the Christians in Jerusalem as the location of the death and resurrection of Jesus. In contrast, Gordon’s Calvary and its nearby tomb have no such pedigree. As difficult as it is for me to admit, the Garden Tomb is just a pretty place.

But as I reflect on the troubling condition of the true location of Christ’s death and resurrection, I’m not surprised. From day one Satan and the opponents of Christianity have been trying to cover up, confuse, and destroy the heart of Christianity. What better way for Satan to obscure the truth than to adorn the place of Christ’s atoning death and saving resurrection with a kitschy cross and a creepy crypt! And as I reflect on the many weeping worshipers at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre who push and shove their way through the gaudy grotto, I feel sadness at what the simple, beautiful, inspiring gospel of Jesus Christ has become for so many. Instead of a source of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control, it has often become a center of impurity, idolatry, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, disputes, dissensions, and factions. Evangelicals like you and me are not immune to this, either.

Although historically we must accept the likelihood that the place of Christ’s death and resurrection is concealed by a massive Church . . . spiritually we should strive for the purity and beauty symbolized by the Garden Tomb.

[Originally posted June 3, 2008 at www.retrochristianity.com.]

Why Seminary? (Why Not?)

Posted on by

SeminaryAs a seminary professor, I’m often asked why anybody would want or need graduate-level studies devoted to biblical, theological, historical, and practical training in preparation for Christian ministry (a.k.a. “seminary”). Most of the time, this question springs from a genuine curiosity or interest in seminary studies. But other times the inquiry betrays the underlying assumption that seminary is both unnecessary and unhelpful (or sometimes even dangerous).

Sometimes I hear people say things like, “Well, the disciples never went to seminary. They were just simple blue-collar tradesmen without any doctrinal or practical training. Therefore, seminary isn’t necessary.” This objection is pretty easy to dismiss. The disciples weren’t uneducated, self-trained, amateurs. Actually, they had three years of twenty-four/seven first-hand teaching and side-by-side experience in the presence of the God-Man, Jesus Christ. If you had that kind of training, I’d excuse you from seminary. In fact, I’d trade in my own Bible college degree, Master of Theology diploma, and Ph.D. for those three unaccredited years at the feet of the Savior.

Other times people say, “Mega-church Pastor So-and-So doesn’t have any seminary training, and he has a successful and fruitful ministry; therefore, seminary isn’t helpful.” I have two answers for this objection.  First, larger numbers and bigger budgets don’t mean the untrained celebrity pastor is “successful” in God’s eyes. All too often I see teachings and practices in the ministries of such untrained pastors that reveal an ignorance of central gospel truths, theological imbalance, or pragmatically-driven ministry models. Be careful how you define and identify “successful and fruitful ministry.” Second, just imagine how much more successful and fruitful a sufficiently-trained pastor might be with the same gifts!

Occasionally I have people who scoff at seminary, claiming to be self-taught Bible students who want or need no formal instruction. They have an underlying distrust and even animosity toward formal training—“Seminary is dangerous!” They believe biblical scholars and theologians have no advantage in reading, interpreting, and teaching God’s Word. Sometimes they think seminary training just complicates a person’s simple faith. Or occasionally they appeal to the Holy Spirit as their only teacher, usually appealing to 1 John 2:27. To this train of thought, I respond with the following six points. First, it’s usually only those who don’t have quality seminary training who are convinced they don’t need it. But how would they know whether they could benefit from something they’ve never had? Second, if “a pupil is not above his teacher” (Luke 6:40), then those who are self-taught will never rise above their own idiosyncrasies. Simply put, people who are self-taught haven’t had qualified teachers. Third, Paul encouraged the Corinthian believers, “Do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature” (1 Cor. 14:20).  And the author of Hebrews castigated his readers for being “dull of hearing,” remaining children in their knowledge, requiring somebody to re-teach them the basic principles of the faith when they should actually be teachers (Heb. 5:11–14). Clearly, he expected them to continue to learn and grow in their knowledge beyond infancy and simplicity. Fifth, Peter warned that those who are “untaught” (the Greek term literally means those who have not received formal teaching) were more likely to twist the Scriptures to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16). The corollary to this is that those who have received formal training are less likely to be unstable in their doctrine and less likely to twist Scripture into a doctrinal hang-man’s noose. Finally, nobody should deny that the ultimate teacher of truth is the Holy Spirit. However, the Holy Spirit carries out His teaching ministry by gifting teachers in the church, whose responsibility it is to teach believers (Rom. 12:7; 1 Cor. 12:28–29; Gal. 6:6; Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 3:2; 4:13, 16; 5:17; 2 Tim. 2:2, 24; 4:2; Heb. 5:12; Jas. 3:1).

So, if there aren’t compelling arguments against seminary training, what positive benefits are gained through seminary? Why should those called to Christian ministry go through a graduate program of biblical, theological, historical, and practical training? Why would we spend all that time, money, and energy on a two-to-four (or more) year course of study? If we aren’t going to get a degree to make more money or to be inspired to live a better Christian life . . . why would we endure seminary studies? To answer the “Why Seminary?” question, let me use the analogy of home improvement.  A complete seminary program equips believers for faithful and fruitful ministry by: 1) cleaning out doctrinal junk, 2) rearranging doctrinal furniture, 3) remodeling doctrinal structures, and 4) firming up doctrinal foundations.

First, a quality seminary education will successfully clean out doctrinal junk. If you’ve ever watched Hoarders, you know that those with a hoarding disorder always need outside help. They have completely lost the ability to discern between what to keep versus what to throw . . . what’s healthy and beneficial versus what’s unhealthy and damaging. Only a person with an objective perspective who lives outside the home can see what the hoarder can’t—that they have accrued unnecessary, useless, worthless, and sometimes even unhealthy and dangerous junk. Similarly, seminary should challenge students’ “folk theology”—cliché, debunked, or exaggerated doctrines and practices that have little or no foundation in Scripture, history, or sometimes even orthodoxy. Good seminary training will open the doors and windows of a person’s beliefs and practices, providing opportunity to haul out the useless and damaging doctrinal junk, airing out errors and shedding light on oddities. Of course, like hoarders, it’s always up to the student to “clean house” when necessary.

Second, a seminary education will skillfully rearrange doctrinal furniture. Every home I’ve been in has a number of chairs, a table or two, a sofa or so, permanent and moveable fixtures, and other furnishings that make a house a home. But some homes are better coordinated and decorated than others. Picture the difference between a bachelor’s haunt and the White House . . . or the furniture section of a local thrift store and the mock-ups at Ikea . . . or the typical college dorm room and a suite at a Hilton. Yes, the haphazard furniture functions just fine, but the set-up lacks symmetry, proportion, and beauty. And amateur “homemakers” have a tendency to constantly rearrange things, striving to achieve an elusive balance . . . or at least keeping guests from constantly bumping into and tripping over everything. In the same way, most lay people who lack seminary training have all (or most) of the essential elements of a functional Christian theology, but they almost always lack a centering theological principle, a biblical narrative arc, or a sense of how the smaller and larger pieces of the doctrinal puzzle fit together as a whole. Quality seminary training provides a balanced, full-bodied arrangement of Bible, theology, history, practical ministry, and other essential elements. No vital element will be missing. No portion will be inappropriately exaggerated. No central elements will be shoved off to the side. By submitting to a complete degree program in a seminary context, graduates can rest assured that they have been exposed to a tried-and-true arrangement of the furnishings and fixtures of Christian theology.

Third, a quality seminary education will help students remodel doctrinal structures. This goes beyond merely superficial rearrangement and proportion. Sometimes seminarians need major deconstruction and reconstruction of their doctrinal convictions. Oftentimes students come from a theological ghetto that has minimized or exaggerated certain beliefs and practices. They have been baptized into one confession that never challenged them to think critically about their own tradition. Or they have been raised in one way of doing ministry and have never considered whether such a model is the most culturally appropriate or even biblically faithful way of doing things. In my own experience, Christians from a free church or low church background have no room in their doctrinal home for a biblically, theologically, and historically faithful doctrine and practice of the sacraments. Remodeling will make room. Christians from a liturgical or high church background often can’t imagine a time in history when the church didn’t have this or that particular form of worship . . . nor can they appreciate the liturgical diversity in the Christian tradition. Remodeling will make space for models of worship that were previously unfamiliar. Many pragmatically-driven Christians don’t have a completely accurate and healthy understanding of such fundamental doctrines as the Trinity, the person and work of Christ, the inspiration and authority of Scripture, or even the Gospel. Remodeling will repair the walls that protect and promote these vital truths. Some Christians with very narrow church backgrounds—especially those who have been to a Bible College—will have an opportunity to revisit some of the structures they received without question . . . or at least without a full awareness of the diverse perspectives within orthodox protestant evangelicalism. Quality seminary training provides a safe, cautious, constructive, and expertly-guided opportunity for substantial remodeling of one’s doctrinal structures prior to engaging in full time Christian ministry. This is vital, because once a person is in the thick of ministry, a faulty and flimsy structure can collapse under pressure and a radical or reactionary “gutting” of one’s theology can destroy a church. Seminary, not ministry, is the place to get your theological house in order.

Finally, a seminary education will firm up doctrinal and practical foundations. Seminary doesn’t answer all biblical and theological questions, but a balanced seminary curriculum will equip future leaders with the language skills, interpretational methods, theological framework, and historical backgrounds necessary for tackling these questions on their own. It moves the learner from the level of parroting canned, cliché responses to predictable questions to the level of thinking through new questions and providing compelling answers. It moves a Christian from the passive and unconscious acceptance of the core doctrines of the faith to a place where he or she can actively and consciously understand, articulate, and defend these doctrines. By firming up the foundations of the Christian faith, seminary will instill confidence in future pastors and ministers. Seminary training will shorten the preparation time needed to put together biblically faithful, theologically sound, and practically compelling sermons and lessons because most of the foundation work will have already been done. Just as a firm foundation will keep a building from teetering when the earth shakes and the storms blow in, a well-balanced seminary training will stabilize a person’s life of ministry, preventing him or her from swaying with every wind of doctrine or crumbling like those whose ministries are built on a foundation of shifting sands.

When it comes to the need for seminary-trained church leaders, I admit that my perspective is biased, prejudiced, and one-sided. After all, I’ve devoted my life to teaching future pastors, teachers, evangelists, missionaries, and lay leaders. But my perspective on the value of seminary training isn’t an effect of my position as a seminary professor; my dedication to teaching as a seminary professor is motivated by my conviction that seminary training is needed today more than ever. No meandering internet reading sprees can replace seminary’s planned, balanced, curricular approach. No narrow, in-church training program can compete with seminary’s full-bodied education by diverse pastor-scholars who are experts in their fields. And no amount of practical ministry experience can fill in the inevitable gaps in biblical, theological, and historical knowledge needed to face the questions and challenges bombarding believers in our post-modern, post-Christian world. Yes, I’m sold-out for seminary training. But I have good reasons to be.

So, then, why seminary?

Why not?

Riding the Elephant—Toward a Fuller Doctrine and Practice of Water Baptism (Part 4 of 3)

Posted on by

riding elephantI’ve never ridden an elephant. At least not that I remember. But I’ve seen people ride elephants. And I’ve even considered riding an elephant. To be honest, I’d be a little scared. In case you didn’t notice, elephants are huge. If an elephant fell on me, sat on me, or stepped on me, I’d be irreversibly squished. And I swear I’ve seen an elephant rip a tree right out of the ground with its nose. Just think what it might do to my scrawny neck. And those tusks are like two sabers just waiting to impale me. Riding an elephant may be just a little too exotic for me.

However, my knowledge of elephants is purely theoretical and objective. Unlike the six blind men of Indostan (see Part 1 of this series), I’m actually able to draw a complete picture of an elephant—you know, the essential parts that make an elephant what it is: big, grey, floppy ears, sharp tusks, massive torso, tree-like legs and flat feet, a long, powerful trunk. When it comes to abstract “elephantness,” I’ve had that covered since I was a kid. But I’m not sure I actually touched one. Or fed one. I know I haven’t climbed one or ridden one.

In the first three parts of this series exploring a fuller doctrine and practice of water baptism, I argued that many of our churches have reduced the sacred rite to one or two things, when baptism was actually intended to be and accomplish many things at once. To return again to the series’ “mascot,” each teacher or tradition has focused variously on the elephant’s tail, ear, side, leg, trunk, or tusk while simultaneously neglecting (or sometimes even rejecting) other parts of the whole. In this series of essays I explored six facets of the doctrine and practice of baptism as reflected in the New Testament and read in light of the early church’s actual beliefs and practices. Through this study I tried to describe the rite of water baptism in its fullness. To remind us, the six facets of Christian baptism I explored were:

Part 1 (The Confessional Nature of Baptism)

1) Baptism as public confession of the Trinitarian faith

2) Baptism as personal association with Christ’s death and resurrection

Part 2 (The Practical Nature of Baptism)

3) Baptism as repentance from a life of sin

4) Baptism as a pledge to live a sanctified life

Part 3 (The Community Nature of Baptism)

5) Baptism as a rite of initiation into the covenant community

6) Baptism as a mark of official community forgiveness

In this fourth part of a three-part series (!), I’d like to move from the theoretical to the practical, from the objective to the subjective, from the descriptive to the prescriptive . . . okay, from studying the elephant to riding the elephant.

1. Responding to baptism as public confession of the Trinitarian faith

In light of the fact that baptism was meant to be a confession of personal faith in the Trinitarian creation and redemption narrative, we ought never to baptize anybody who has not received basic training in our Trinitarian confession. This means we must actually introduce the new believer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’s works of creation, revelation, and redemption, telling the Christian story of Who God is, what He has done . . . and what He has accomplished for us. This can be done in several venues: a pre-baptismal class . . . a church’s catechesis . . . during the normal educational program of the church . . . or in one-on-one discipleship. However, the essential elements of the Triune faith should be fully intact prior to baptism or we will be treating the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” as a mere formula devoid of meaning for the one being baptized.

This also means that at the baptism itself, we need to rethink what we say and do. The fact is, the earliest accounts we have that describe how baptism was actually conducted in the early church suggest that the most common practice (if not the universal practice) was a threefold immersion. That is, believers were “thrice dipped.” Each immersion was conducted in response to the believer’s Trinitarian confession. We might even have a suggestion of this threefold immersion and its association with the three Persons of the Godhead in Hebrews 6:2, where the author urges his readers to grow up and move on from the basic “instruction about washings.” The obscure Greek text simply says, “instruction (didache) of baptisms.” If, in fact, the early church was engaged in rudimentary Trinitarian instruction prior to baptism, and the climax of this instruction was the threefold Trinitarian confession and threefold immersion, then the phrase “instruction of baptisms” would fit perfectly well as a reference to the teaching (didache) that accompanied the meaning of the threefold immersion. In any case, the fact that Christ instructed us to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit demands that we take seriously the Trinitarian confession associated with baptism. Never let a new believer hear about the Triune God for the first time as he or she is being plunged into the waters. That’s not responsible Trinitarian baptism.

When I baptize a believer, I always ask three questions related to the Trinitarian creation and redemption narrative: “Do you believe in God the Father, Maker of all things, who loves you and chose you to be His child? . . . Do you believe in God the Son, both God and Man, born of a Virgin, who suffered and died for your sin, and who rose again to save you? . . . Do you believe in God the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver, who lives in you and gives you new life? . . . Because of your confession of faith in the one true God, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

What do you do in either preparation for—or during the act of—baptism to maintain water baptism as a public confession of the Trinitarian faith?

2) Responding to baptism as personal association with Christ’s death and resurrection

Because baptism is a visible and tangible personal association with Christ’s death and resurrection, this aspect should also be emphasized. Some traditions, in fact, utter words something like this at the moment of immersion: “Buried with him in the likeness of His death, risen with Him to walk in newness of life.” Such a statement emphasizes for all that what a person is doing in baptism is fully associating with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Not just abstractly . . . but personally.

This baptismal re-enactment of the saving work of Christ is an excellent opportunity to reiterate the core redemptive events of the gospel as summed up in 1 Corinthians 15, the things which are “of first importance” (1 Cor. 15:3): “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4). The person conducting baptism should probably point out the visible confessional nature of the act, reminding both the one being baptized as well as any observers (whether believers or unbelievers) that baptism confesses that God the Son became truly human, bore our sins on the cross, died in our place, and rose again from the dead to secure our own future resurrection.

No baptism should forego this opportunity to proclaim the gospel through both word and rite. If time permits, it would be a great addition to a baptismal ceremony for the baptismal candidate to relay his or her conversion story—how the believer came to understand and embrace the person and work of Christ for him or her. What a powerful way to preach the gospel in a manner others will comprehend!

What do you do in the practice of baptism to point to its confessional nature as a believer’s personal association with the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ?

3) Responding to baptism as repentance from a life of sin

Many of the very first recipients of baptism had been raised in the synagogue or had committed to living as a righteous Gentile according to the beliefs and morals of the Old Testament revelation (Acts 1–9). For such people, only a few major points of doctrine regarding Jesus Christ needed to be preached and believed: His fulfillment as the promised Messiah, His atoning death and resurrection, and His status as Lord, Savior, and coming Judge and King. No real instruction concerning the righteous lifestyle of God’s covenant people needed to be taught to Jews and God-fearing Gentiles because they were already living according to those standards.

However, as the church broke new ground and the mission to the Gentiles took root, the men and women who were converting to Christ didn’t have this fertile background in the basic biblical theology and ethics. They needed instruction concerning monotheism, a biblical worldview, a divinely-revealed morality, and what it meant to live in God’s covenant community. This is why we see a period of pre-baptismal instruction develop by the middle of the first century to bring the large number of Gentile converts up to speed. Though unbelieving sinners could believe the gospel and be saved from the guilt and penalty of their sins, it was expected of such genuine believers that they commit to a life of repentance and holiness—the life of a disciple of Jesus. This required some instruction in what was acceptable and unacceptable, right and wrong, moral and immoral, righteous and wicked. To repent of a lifestyle of sin through baptism, the sinner needed to know what it was they were leaving behind.

Today different candidates for baptism have different backgrounds. Like the Jews and God-fearing Gentiles, many raised in the church or in a highly church-influenced culture already have a basic understanding of a biblical worldview and biblical morality. They may not necessarily believe it or live by it, but they often have some familiarity with it. For such people, perhaps a shorter period of pre-baptismal instruction is necessary. However, in our increasingly post-Christian world, we can no longer assume that our believers in Jesus have a well-developed Christian view of God, the world, of truth, of righteousness, and of sin. The time has come for us to reconsider an intentional program of pre-baptismal instruction that covers not only basic Christian orthodoxy but also Christian orthopraxy—not only essential doctrines, but basic morality. Baptismal candidates should know that in baptism they are forsaking a lifestyle of sinfulness. To forsake this sin, they must know what actual practices are being abandoned.

If professed believers aren’t willing to forsake their sexual immorality, adultery, criminal behavior, thievery, sinful occupations, or other lifestyles that are unacceptable by biblical norms, we shouldn’t administer the rite of baptism. A baptism of repentance cannot be received by those who aren’t repentant. If a believer is not ready to wash away his or her sinful lifestyle or to turn his or her back on the pleasures of this world, that believer is not ready to begin a life of discipleship and repentance that follows baptism.

What do you do in the practice of baptism to emphasize its function as a mark of repentance from sins and a sinful lifestyle that was once embraced by the new believer?

4) Responding to baptism as a pledge to live a sanctified life

A believer submitting to baptism is not simply turning from a life of sin. He or she is also committing to live a life devoted to discipleship. First Peter 3:21 describes baptism as “a pledge to God from a good conscience” (see discussion in Part 2 of this series). A pledge to what? Living the life of a disciple, obeying whatsoever Christ has commanded, walking by the Spirit . . . the kind of lifestyle expected of a child of God empowered by His Spirit and motivated by His love for God and others.

It isn’t necessary to “front-end-load” baptism with a detailed, point-by-point list of everything mature believers are expected to do. Growing as a disciple means we continue, throughout our lives, to learn at the feet of Jesus, to come to terms with what His teachings demand in various situations, and to overcome our sinful reluctance to embrace His teachings and live by them consistently. However, some basic instructions concerning Christ’s most elementary teachings should be included in a time of pre-baptismal instruction.

Does the baptismal candidate know that Christians are not to engage in pre-marital sex, pornography, and drunkenness? Does he know that cheating on taxes, cheating on his wife, and cheating on an exam are not the fruits of a Spirit-filled life? Does she understand that life in the Spirit means loving our brothers and sisters in Christ as we love ourselves, looking out for the interests of others, and submitting to the leaders God has placed in our lives? Do the new believers know that the Christian worldview is incompatible with certain cultural, political, moral, spiritual, and philosophical norms that most people in this world think are perfectly healthy? Do they realize that they have responsibilities for supporting their local church through prayer, ministry involvement, financial giving, and healthy relationships?

In short, new believers should know something about what it is they are committing to before they commit to it. Nobody would sign a contract, agreement, or covenant without first becoming familiar with its contents. Neither should we rush people to baptism who have had no instruction regarding what kind of life they are pledging to live through this rite of repentance and commitment.

What do you do in the practice of baptism to introduce believers to the God-ordained (Eph. 2:10), Spirit-empowered (Gal. 5:16), Christ-like (1 Pet. 2:21), sanctified life to which they are pledging?

5) Responding to baptism as a rite of initiation into the covenant community

In many Protestant churches, baptism is clearly viewed as a mark of initiation into the new covenant community, the church. This is especially the case in the Covenant Reformed tradition, in which the water of baptism is extended not only to new converts of Christianity but also to the infants of church members. That tradition strongly emphasizes the rite of baptism as the mark of the individual’s initiation into a covenant community. Yes, the function of baptism as a personal confession of faith in the Triune God and personal association with Christ’s saving death and resurrection are often pushed to the background. And yes, an infant can’t repent from sin and pledge to live a holy life. However, the practice of infant baptism does stress an entirely legitimate aspect of baptism that is often neglected in churches that practice only believer’s baptism: the rite of initiation into the covenanted church community.

I’m sure it has become quite obvious that I’m an advocate of believer’s baptism. Not only do I see this as the clearest and most defensible apostolic practice in the New Testament, but I also see it as the earliest practice of the church from the first to the second centuries. Furthermore, in the practice of believer’s baptism, it is much easier to maintain a fuller doctrine and practice of the sacred rite in all of its facets: personal Trinitarian and christological confession, repentance from sin and commitment to holiness, and covenant initiation and reception of community “forgiveness.” However, when infant baptism is coupled with and completed by catechesis and confirmation, it does accomplish all of these things over a longer period of time. In some ways, the end result of this process more fully covers all elements of baptism than some practices of believer’s baptism that emphasize personal faith in Jesus to the exclusion of repentance, a call to discipleship, Trinitarian instruction, and community initiation and forgiveness. Yes, my description of a multi-faceted ideal baptismal practice is different from those who cover the same territory through a longer process of baptism, catechesis, and confirmation. However, it would be quite inconsistent for me to let the practitioners of believer’s baptism get away with emphasizing only the personal association with Christ without ever officially addressing the other aspects. In short, until we who prefer believer’s baptism remove the log in our own eye, we’d better refrain from pointing out the mote in our brothers’.

Probably the worst infraction among we who practice believer’s baptism is a failure to embrace baptism as the mark of initiation into the covenant community, the church. We have already pointed out in Part 3 of this series that a person is not to be baptized into “Christianity” in general, nor into some merely spiritual and invisible reality. Christ didn’t start a philosophy or worldview. He founded a church and a community. So a new believer is to be baptized by and into a visible, physical manifestation of the “church universal,” that is, into the local church. As such, baptism should be closely associated with initial church membership. There should be no members of a local church who have not been baptized. Nor should there be baptized believers who are not united as members to a local church. The only exception to this is in the case of converts in a church-planting situation where no local church yet exists. But even in that case the believers ought to be baptized with a view toward eventually establishing them as a new local church.

Those traditions, like mine, that practice believer’s baptism, need to take seriously the connection between the rite of baptism and initiation into the covenanted community of church members. If the new member was not already baptized in a previous church, he or she must be held to this biblical mark of discipleship. If a new believer wants to take steps toward church membership, he or she must be baptized as an initiation into the local church and thereby also into the church universal. And if a new believer wants to be baptized, this should be done only in connection with admission into local church membership or—in the case of mission situations—at least as a “member” of a proto-church community in an embryonic state that is working toward the establishment of a local church.

What can you do in your own ministry context and capacity to strengthen baptism as a mark of a new believer’s initiation into the new covenant community?

6) Responding to baptism as a mark of official community forgiveness

The local church must reassert her God-given disciplinary authority to “bind and loose,” “forgive and unforgive” in relation to its responsibility to maintain the holiness of the community. Only then will baptism be restored to its proper place as the point at which the church officially reckons a new disciple as “a member in good standing.” A believer is fully accountable to the leadership and membership of the local church only when he or she has confessed his or her faith in the Triune God and the death and resurrection of Christ, has repented from a lifestyle of sin and committed to a lifestyle of sanctification, and has been initiated as a member of the new covenant community—that is, when he or she has been baptized.

A weak concept of baptism as the rite of initiation and official community “forgiveness” will result in a church’s inability to properly avail its biblical authority and responsibility to exercise discipline in a congregation. The opposite is also true. When a church places a low priority on its responsibility to exercise proper biblical accountability and discipline, baptism will never be appropriately regarded as the moment when a believer is admitted as a member in good standing, free from the guilt of temporal sin against his or her brothers and sisters in the covenant community, and therefore invited to participate in the full life of the church, including the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

Church leaders must think hard and long about the concept of church discipline. They must return to an understanding that believers within a covenanted community are to first and foremost hold one another accountable (Luke 17:3; 1 Thess. 5:11; Heb. 10:24), confessing their sins to one another (Jas. 5:16), confronting one another (Matt. 18:15; Gal. 6:1), and forgiving one another (Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13). Yes, church member, you are your brother’s and sister’s keeper! However, if this mutual accountability fails to turn a wayward brother or sister from his or her destructive sin, disciplinary intervention by leadership and eventually the whole church will be necessary (Matt. 18:15–20; 1 Thess. 5:11). Yet the church only has disciplinary authority over those who have been officially admitted as covenanted members—those who have agreed by a pledge to live a godly life. The church has no authority to exercise this discipline over those who are still outside the community (1 Cor. 5:9–13). Baptism, the rite of initiation, act of repentance, pledge of godliness, and sign of community forgiveness, is therefore the biblical “watershed” that marks a believer as either “in” or “out” of the church family.

In order to maintain the sanctifying function of church discipline in the community, members should be aware of the biblical standards to which they will be held and the biblical process by which discipline will be administered. It won’t make the disciplinary process any easier or less controversial when it must happen. However, we must make it clear to all members of our congregation that with baptism comes repentance from sin and a commitment to sanctification. Baptism is therefore also the community’s official extension of temporal “forgiveness”—not before God unto eternal life, but in the sense of the church officially recognizing the baptized believer as a member in good standing. When baptism functions this way, the church will come to understand her biblical right and responsibility to “bind and loose” in the name and authority of Jesus Christ for the sake of the purity of His body. A statement in every local church’s constitution or by-laws will help make this clear. But actually teaching this to new and existing members and leaders will make it work.

What can you do to reestablish the local church’s official God-given authority to maintain discipline in the church, correcting and rebuking those members who had pledged to live one way and instead live another?

Conclusion: Your Turn to Ride

A public confession of the Trinitarian faith . . . personal association with Christ’s death and resurrection . . . repentance from a life of sin . . . a pledge to live a sanctified life . . . a rite of initiation into the covenant community . . . and a mark of official community forgiveness. A biblically, historically, and theologically faithful practice of water baptism doesn’t emphasize only one of these things. It strives to embrace all of them.

I know that some denominations and traditions, governed by strict and unalterable confessions or constitutions, have institutionalized a doctrine and practice of baptism that emphasizes only one or two of these aspects. However, many churches and less stringent denominations or traditions have freedom to revisit and reform their practices of the sacraments. I challenge leaders and teachers in such churches to use your freedom not as an opportunity to do what’s right in your own eyes . . . or to do what’s typical or convenient . . . or to simply retain a less-than-robust doctrine and practice because that’s the way you’ve always done it. Instead, why not commit to exploring ways of implementing a fuller doctrine and practice of water baptism?

Let’s make a deal. If you will commit to patiently nudge your church in the direction of a more biblically, historically, and theologically informed practice of baptism, I promise to ride an elephant the next chance I get.

I might even post pictures.

 

[NOTE: This essay is intentionally numbered “Part 4 of 3.” Here’s why: By the time I decided to add a fourth part to the series, the first two parts had already been posted. Going back and changing the titles to anticipate four parts instead of three would have broken links to the pages.]