On September 14, the elders of Bethlehem Baptist Church of Minneapolis issued a recommendation to amend the church’s constitution. While churches amend their constitutions all the time with little to no fanfare, one might ask why we should take notice that a church in Minneapolis has done the same.

The issue revolves around the particular clause (and doctrine) under consideration. The council of elders voted 23 to 1 in favor of the amendment which paves the way for considerably divergence from traditional “baptist identity.” We are faced with the question of whether baptism by immersion is necessary for membership in the local church body.

The elders are walking in the clear influence here of John Bunyan, who wrote in Confession of My Faith and Practice that “Baptism [in water] makes thee no member of the church, neither particular nor universal: neither doth it make thee a visible saint: It therefore gives thee neither right to nor being of membership at all.” Bunyan was adamant in his position that baptism is not a deciding factor one way or the other when it comes to the question of church membership.

The elders of Bethlehem are forcing us to consider just what the term “our baptist identity” really means. They have voted to “make it possible for some persons to be admitted into membership who are not baptized as believers by immersion.” In other words, theologcially-convicted paedobaptists and sprinklers will be accepted as members without being made to undergo baptism by immersion.

What’s interesting here is that the elders of Bethlehem adamantly maintain “no weakening of our conviction that the New Testament teaches us to be baptized by immersion as believers.” They will not baptize infants, and “the official position of Bethlehem Baptist Church remains that only baptism by immersion of believers will be taught and practiced by the church.” So, they will not practice paedobaptism, but they do not see it as grounds for exclusion from the local body as has traditionally been the case in baptist circles.

In reality, they are challenging a much deeper issue. In question is not simply the idea of baptism but also the concepts church membership and discipline. Historically, exclusion from the local body has meant that the individual in question is to be considered as an non-believer. In Matthew 18:15-20, Jesus informs us that the one excluded is to “be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector,” and Paul in 1 Corinthians 5 equates church discipline to cleansing out the old leaven.” The very idea of exclusion from the local body carries with the implication of exclusion from the universal Body.

Understood in this context, the question becomes, not whether or not baptism by immersion is necessary for local church membership, but rather, whether or not we are willing to declare our paedobaptist brothers as unregenerate. Piper himself argues that The central issue at stake is:

“How should we define the membership of the church? That is, what degree of biblical understanding and agreement should a person have in order to belong to a local church? Or to put it another way: Should the door to membership in the local church be roughly the same size as the door to the universal church? If so, what is the basic set of beliefs that a person should be willing to affirmÂ?or at least not denyÂ?in order to give good evidence that he is born again into the family of God and a follower of Christ?”

Admittedly, framed in light of the church discipline/universal Church discussion, Piper’s arguments seem appealing. But, I’m not so sure the conversation ought to be framed the way it is. As a theologically convinced Baptist, I must point out that Scripture leaves no room for an unbaptized believer, which I must argue is exactly what a paedobaptist claims to be. They have not been Scripturally baptized (the word itself means “to immerse”). What’s more, Scripture clearly links baptism with repentance (Mark 1:4, Acts 2:38; 19:4, etc.), which is certainly a prerequisite for membership in the Body, local or universal.

While I recognize the difficulty in excluding my paedobaptist brother or sister from fellowship, in doing so am I truly condemning them as an unregenerate? We must ask whether we have allowed the conversation to become framed in a way it never should have been in the first place. Would the early church have recognized paedobaptism as valid? I’m fairly certain they would not. Simply because someone may be theologically convinced, am I bound to uphold them in theological error by claiming that it doesn’t matter?

At this point, I must admit that I am open to Piper’s line of argumentation but remain unconvinced that Scripture allows for an unbaptized believer, regardless of their theological convictions. However, I also admit the necessity to continue to think through the implications of excluding an individual from fellowship. If anything, we can always thank the elders of Bethlehem Baptist(?) Church for forcing again to the Word as our only sure foundation.

Read Baptism and Church Membership from the Bethlehem Baptist elders.
Read What the Elders are Proposing…
Download the entire 85-page document (PDF).
Read The Baptism of Disciples Alone by Fred Malone.
Read A String of Pearls Unstrung by Fred Malone.