Baptists - Why Do You Do It?

Thanks for the thoughtful responses.

A few posts back I posted what I think it means to receive "apostolic practice as normative." Perhaps I should also state was it does not mean (to us). We who hold this position do not believe we must follow the Jewish and Roman lifestyles of the first century. Just because Paul might have worn a toga & sandals and walked to church (in three feet of snow, 10 miles uphill coming & going ) does not establish that practice for us. Evidently there are some groups that may follow some semblance of that kind of thinking - such as the Amish - but I confess that I am not sure on what principles they establish their lifestyle. But we consider that what the apostles taught & practiced and the churches received very well could be establishing a practice for us - whether anti-cultural, semi-cultural or cultural. In other words, the things they received into their way of ministry, gathering, governing, teaching, evangelizing, etc.. What I see is that we all come to this conclusion for some things, but diverge at some point and often end up at opposite ends of the spectrum on others. One could compare Old Regular, Primitive, and a few other Baptists with a modern metropolitan Southern Baptist church and probably find a fairly consistent following on the part of all concerning local autonomy and congregational government, yet find that these churches have almost no resemblance in practice. At what point do we diverge on our thinking and application of this principle?

rufus, thanks for entering the discussion. I am intrigued by your answer. It would appear, and I would agree, that you are saying that in addition to the practice (apostolic example) that there must also be some principle involved. I don't want to speak for you, so I'll let you explain; but that was my thought when I read that. And I'm thinking this may be the point of divergence; that is, one looks at a practice and thinks, "there is no principle involved" and so it is not necessary to recreate or follow that practice today; another may look at the same thing and think they see a principle. If so, it would suggest we are each following our principles as we understand them. Surely this is part of the answer.

 

Clint, I think that you have brought up another practice that would show a divergence on this issue - that of laying on of hands. I do expect that most Baptists follow it to some degree, but you will be interested to know that the "laying-on-of-hands" issue was among some of the first controversies for early Baptists in America, and they were distinguished as "five-principle" and "six-principle" Baptists (laying-on-of-hands being the 6th principle, Heb. 6:1,2). It was not that the other did not lay on hands, but that they differed on its importance and significance. For one thing, they laid hands on new converts, as you mentioned. The Philadelphia Confession adds a section on the subject.

As to the issue of whether the Ephesus elders were ordained "suddenly," I think there is substantial lapse of time from Paul's initial visit to Ephesus (Acts 18:19) until their mention in Acts 20 (although I would expect the most important thing was growth in grace, not growth in years or time). I need to refresh on this before saying more about how many years might be involved.

 

Jim, thanks for the clarification and also for raising the Sunday School example. This is an issue on which some Baptists separate in practice. By far, the majority have incorporated the system into their churches, but Primitive Baptists and other primitivists resist this "innovation." Your post, mine, and the one by rufus' may intersect on the idea of "principle and practice" (though we may not come to the same conclusions). I feel that you and rufus would hold that Sunday School is correct in principle, while I would question it. I think that it was a mistake for the churches to adopt the S. S. system. Combined with the lack of example of any kind of child training systems or child evangeliztion in the early church, I would take issue on certain principles: the nature of man, which would indicate that children are not just little believers in training; the nature of discerning God's word, which requires the indwelling Spirit; the great commission, which would indicate that the church is responsible to teach & train the evangelized; parental responsibility, which would indicate that the primary authorities in child education are the parents; the nature of the church's ministry, which is to mature the saints to do the work of ministry. I don't want to derail the discussion, but thought this would be an opportunity to shed light on how some of us would view adoption of a program such as Sunday School as more than just a social innovation or evolution. I'm sure most of you will not agree, but I hope this helps people understand why some of us are saying that we don't believe in Sunday Schools, and maybe in so doing speaks to the issue under consideration.

 

Clint, if you are waiting for me to set the hook, I need to inform you that there is really no hook to set. I'm just exploring these differences. Let me clarify something else - Though I said that we "do not believe we must follow the Jewish and Roman lifestyles of the first century," we also do not automatically exclude the possibility that something that is cultural could have been established as part of the extended church life as well (for example, feetwashing, head coverings, etc.). Now I will address a little about the elders in this post, and try to come back to the S. S. & laying-on-of-hands later. Maybe an historical topic on l-o-o-h would be interesting for the History forum? It is my belief that the N. T. uses the terms "elder," "bishop," and "pastor" to refer to different functions of the same office in the church. The following passages show what is evidently an interchangeable use of the terms:

I guess you could say that there is a sense in which I would not care whether the "elder system" was adapted from Judaism or was a brand new practice, since I believe that the apostles established this function/office in the church. IMO, to separate the elders/bishops/pastors into three different offices would be an interpretational error. Some related words to study are presbytery, overseers, them that rule, and shepherd.

I think that your interpretation concerning Jewish practice (elders not clerics) appears to be correct. I do not think it has to follow that the elders in the church were established on the same principle. Something I think our modern practice misses is that the early church elders served as a team and did not all have the same giftedness. I think that would explain why ALL the elders were worthy of double honor, but some were recognized as laboring in the word & doctrine.

In my understanding, rather than a redundancy, the elders have the main function of preparing the church to minister.

 

Glen, I think you are correct that the difference is that some stay with the way things were, while some add and subtract. I understand that each do a certain way because it is their conviction. But I am also curious to know why it is done, and why it is a conviction.

Clint, concerning Sunday Schools, let me say that my objection to Sunday Schools is directed toward the whole thing as a system as it is generally conceived in most Baptist churches - training from cradle to the grave, age-graded classes, etc. - and not to the idea of corporate Bible study within the church body. In fact, I believe there should be more dialogue and less monologue than is the common practice in most churches. Check out Acts 20:9 on this also. Many think that Paul preached an all-nighter, but the word is "dialegomai," which most likely means that they were discussing - dialoguing. Also I Cor. 12 doesn't seem to indicate that one man is the focus of the meeting either. But I am adamant on my belief of the nature of the church, which does not include the unsaved children of church members. For them to receive the overflow in quite natural, but to gear church services toward them reaches outside the intent and purpose of the church, which is a gathering of believers. I freely confess that I don't have all the answers of what to do with the children during the meeting, that is, if it is a corporate Bible study meeting. But to pull out church members to teach the children removes those members from the ministry of edification they are supposed to receive from the gathering. I would also add that I was raised among churches that had Sunday Schools, so my objection is a "learned" one, rather than and "inbred" one. That doesn't mean I'm right, but it gives you all some idea of my perspective. Well, that was a lot more than I intended to say, and probably is getting off the subject - will leave the laying-on-of-hands for another time.

 

Dear Clint, thanks for the thought-provoking observations. Here are some of my thoughts.

Don't concede on account of the theologians. Most of them are like sheep - they follow one another and they all go astray! (But we are right on this one )

I think this could be included in the type of service that I perceive in the New Testament, but a narrative/lecture type of teaching would not be excluded. One of the main problems with the current majority style of Baptist service is that it focuses on one man, magnifies his authority, and deflects his immediate accountability before the congregation. By that last part, I mean that the preacher gets up, preaches a sermon, and generally closes the service with no opportunity for the church to dialogue, to ask questions, to ask for clarifications, and/or require further confirmation that the doctrine/theology that has been preached is sound.

I, as you would expect, am opposed to "children's church" as well. If the children are not believers, then they can't have "church;" and if they are part of the church, they should be in the church meeting. A good article on this is Children's Church or Believer's Church? by Rodney Gray. It was originally published circa 1997/98 in Kindred Minds. They have a web site - www.kindredminds.org - but I couldn't find the article there. I searched for it on the internet without success. You could probably e-mail Kindred Minds for a copy. In the article, Gray states the problem, makes some observations, and suggests some alternatives.

As I stated above, I do not think New Testament or apostolic practice excludes the sermon/lecture. What I do think is that it does not appear to be the main style of teaching used in the gathering of believers. A large portion of what we would identify as sermons in the book of Acts (2:14ff; 3:12ff; 4:5ff; 5:17ff; 7:2ff; 10:34ff; 14:6ff; 17:22ff; etc., etc.) are found in the ministry of the apostles and evangelists fulfilling the evangelization part of the Great Commission, rather than in the church meeting. To consider "feeding the flock" of Acts 20:28 to mean sermonizing is, in my opinion, reading our practice back into the New Testament. An interesting thought is found in Paul directing those who are not forsaking the assembling together to exhort one another (same word used concerning preaching in II Tim. 4:2; cf. Heb. 10:25).

On those two terms I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I do think it is against the scriptural principles I noted in another post. By using that term, though, I do not mean that I think Sunday School is the worst evil ever imposed on the church. I don't claim it has never done any good. I would look at S. S. much the same as this - just because Charles Spurgeon heard the word preached at a Primitive Methodist Church and believed, doesn't mean I would endorse the Methodist Church. I would say it is unscriptural. But I can still rejoice that he believed.

I would tend to compare the Baptist Board more to the original Sunday School of Raikes in England - a believer taking a ministry to the community. I would object to the BB being installed as an organization within my local church, but rejoice in it as a ministry that one believer has taken out into the community (albeit an internet community).

 

Some final thoughts:

To me it appears that all Baptists assume that apostolic practice is normal some times. Where we differ on is when and to what extent. I believe that normative apostolic practice transcends culture (the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious or social group.)

Christian culture is created in Christ, and prescribed in the New Testament. Times change and cultures differ, but Christian culture emanates from Christ and exists independently from social times and cultures. Because of change, the ways that Christians and churches relate to cultures in different places and at different times may change according to those times and places. But the culture of gathered believers - the church - exists outside of and independently from world governments, cultures, & standards, is universal and permanent, and has neither command to change nor necessity to conform.

Romans 12:2 - And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

1 Corinthians 10:32 - Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

1 Corinthians 7:17 ...And so ordain I in all churches.
1 Corinthians 14:33 ...as in all churches of the saints.

1 Corinthians 9: 19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

[ February 07, 2003, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]