Must Baptism Precede Membership? Of course!
By Must someone be baptized before he or she can join a church? I've been told by people who know history better than I do that Christians of almost all traditions have said yes for 2000 years. It's really only today that people have thought otherwise.
The historical precedent is pretty compelling in and of itself. It is also helpful to think about what a local church is and what church membership is, which I have tried to do in two previous posts. But understanding the relationship between baptism and membership finally requires us to consider the purpose of baptism. To do that, let's start with a story. We will call this story...
Must Wearing the Team Jersey Precede Playing with the Team?
Player: "Hey coach, the team owner just hired me. I'm ready to play."
Coach: "Great, let's get your jersey on and put you out on the field."
Player: "Wait a second, I'm not comfortable wearing a jersey. I'd prefer to hold off. Maybe I'll play a few games, and then consider wearing the jersey."
Coach: "Well, no, actually, you have to wear a jersey before you can play for us. It's how everyone knows who you are playing for."
Player: "That's ridiculous. First, I admit the rule book talks about players wearing jerseys, but nowhere does it explicitly say that I HAVE to wear a jersey BEFORE the first game..."
Coach: "Ahhh, hmmm, you're right. The rule book doesn't actually say that baptism must come before membership. Maybe we should not require our team to wear their jerseys at all. Some will; some won't. Nobody will be confused by that."
Player: "You're being sacrastic."
Coach: "Yes, I am. But tenderly so. Look, the rule book says players must wear jerseys--period. It doesn't say before or after the first game. It just says they have to wear them. And the point is, you need them from the start because those jerseys are the very thing which tell people whose team you belong to. That's what this little rite is for.
Player: "Okay, fine. But I haven't got to my second point."
Coach: "Yes?"
Player: "Second, I still think you're being a little legalistic. I mean, I'm a team member! The team owner hired me. I don't need the jerseys to prove that I'm a member. It's a done deal. So now I want to go and play, and I think I will play best wearing my old gym shorts."
Coach: "True, the owner hired you, and that's what made you a team member. I'm glad he did. But the owner ALSO wrote rule book which said that all the players have to wear uniforms. And he delegated to me the authority to make sure you wear it. So jersey up!"
[Curtain close.]
Is my parable making sense? Let's start with baptism. Baptism is like a team jersey. To "put it on" is to publicly identify yourself with the Trinity. That's what Jesus means when he speaks of being baptized "into the name" of Father, Son, and Spirit. When you are baptized, you are saying, "I'm with them!" You are putting on the team jersey.
What is local church membership? At its heart, it is the same thing. It is a declaration that we belong to Christ's kingdom and to his universal church. (See discussion here.) How does a local church make that declaration? It does it through baptism (and the Lord's Supper).
So go find my own local church's directory of names. Inside you will find all the people who we have collectively taken responsibility for as members of the universal body of Christ. We have taken responsibility to declare this short list of names to be "Christ's church" whenever we administer baptism and receive the Lord's Supper.
Must baptism precede membership? Yes. I'd even say, of course! I suppose it is possible you could have an extraordinary situation where the order might get reversed by a few weeks. Getting the order right is not a matter of ontological or salvific necessity, per se. But yes, it generally must precede it, because of what these things are. Baptism (and the Lord's Supper) is the mechanism that Jesus has given us for declaring someone to be a member of his body, and this happens among real people in a real place called the gathering of a local church.
Jonathan Leeman's Posts
Comments | RSS Subscribe
Very nice parable. We were never meant to have "private" faith. We are witnesses for Christ. We identify with other believers and make our faith known through baptism.
Baptism isn't required for salvation, but it is a result of salvation.
This is blog is much appreciated- even in just calling out that the question of " does baptism precede membership?" and that it is only really a popular question from today and not throughout history.
*forgive me for perhaps not reading it correctly, but did you intend in the 3rd phrase from the coach to mention baptism & membership specifically?
Ben, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
You have a couple typos in the middle of the dialogue: Coach: "Ahhh, hmmm, you're right. The rule book doesn't actually say that baptism must come before membership. Maybe we should not require our team to wear their jerseys at all. Some will; some won't. Nobody will be confused by that."
Player: "You're being sacrastic."
I think the first one should read "you must wear the jersey before playing." But otherwise, this was a very good analogy. Thank you!
I agree completely with the main point of this post. It fits the Scriptural pattern we seen in Acts 2 and elsewhere that baptism comes before being put on the rolls as a member of the church.
I would add as a Congregationalist pastor that this applies equally to infant members of the church! They need to be baptized and then recognized as (non-communicant) church members on the rolls, based on God's covenant promise to Christian families. (Genesis 17:7-14, Acts 2:38, 39, 1 Cor 7:14)
"I suppose it is possible you could have an extraordinary situation where the order might get reversed by a few weeks. Getting the order right is not a matter of ontological or salvific necessity, per se. "
Here you lost me. Not quite sure where it came from. The orderly procedure would be to baptize as the entrance to church membership. There is not a need for a 2nd ceremony. Baptism would include church membership.
Except that there are no church member rolls in the NT. Faith and repentence precede membership in the universal church, baptism follows.
Jonathan seems to confuse the universal church with a local institution. Once again, we apparently need a "church directory" to know whom we are responsible for. This is nonsense
Hi, How do you know there were no membership rolls in the NT? In 2 Cor. 2:6, Paul speaks of a "majority" of members, which suggests they knew exactly how many members they had.
We'd be responsible for all those in our "assembly" (the literal meaning of the term the Lord Jesus uses in Matthew 18:15ff). If someone doesn't assemble with you, you can't practice what Jesus told us to practice.
John,
You don't need a church directory to determine a majority vote. You only need to know that a majority of those who regularly gather together voted a certain way. Again, you're reading your local church membership position back into Scripture...
And I agree about the "assembly", but I don't agree that unless every person in that assembly is on some kind of formal membership list that we are not responsible for them.
To determine a "majority" you have to know how many members are in the church. I'm not reading anything into the text; I'm reading what is there. "Majority" demonstrates a clear understanding of how many members they had which is only possible if there is an understanding of who is in and who is not.
People who are unwilling to make formal commitments are that way because they aren't committed.
You said: To determine a "majority" you have to know how many members are in the church.
This is patently false. To determine a "majority" you have to know how many believers in the church voted one way or the other on any given Sunday when a vote taken. It's as simple as saying, "All in favor of church discipline with regard to X, raise your hand."
You keep posing a pseudo-problem for not having formal church membership. Now try a counter-argument that actually demonstrates how there is no possible way a church can determine a "majority" without formal church membership. That would help further the discussion. Repeating oft refuted points with no response shows the weakness of your position.
People unwilling to make formal commitments are that way because they don't see any warrant from Scripture binding their conscience on the matter.
HI R. Delaney,
I'm not sure how to reason with that since it is simply untrue. Paul wrote to the Corinthian church and said that the "majority" decided one way. To imagine that they just accepted whoever happened to be at a particular meeting, with no sense of who was in or out, is imposing contemporary ideas onto that church. There's no way to put someone out of the church (as in Mt. 18:15ff and 1 Cor. 5) if there is not a distinct sense of who was in. In Hebrews, we have a responsibility to the "one another" members of the church. That can't be done if we don't know who those members are. In 1 John, we called to put our claim to love into specific action; people who are unwilling to commit rarely do that.
I understand that like those today who live together without a formal marriage, who are addicted to individualism, consumerism, and are afraid of commitment, want to read their commitment-phobia into scripture. But that is distorting scripture, to imagine there is no call to commitment in it.
I'd recommend you consult the rich resources of 9 Marks on membership with an open mind and a teachable spirit. Until you've done that, please don't detract from these discussions by trying to fight for modern individualism and consumerism.
John,
The believers who gathered there are "in", everyone not gathering there and those not professing to be believers are "out".
Not complicated.
I will leave you to repeat yourself. Consumerism! Individualism! etc.
So everyone who wasn't there for the meeting (Mt. 18:15ff) when it was "told to the assembly", are to be treated as "pagans and tax collectors"? Again, you're demonstrations show that you're not seriously dealing with scripture or reality. To be "out" is to be treated like a "pagan and a tax collector", i.e. to be otracized as the Jews otracized those kinds of people. To be "in" is to be the "brother". How do you know who is your "brother" and who is to be treated like a "pagan and a tax collector", according to Jesus. This is what church membership does.
John you answered your own question unwittingly. How do we know there were no membership rolls the NT? Because they are never mentioned,. If they aren't mentioned at all, which even the most ardent "membership" proponent must admit, then by definition there are no membership rolls in the NT. Sometimes the obvious answer is the right one. If you need a membership roll to know who to serve that says a lot about your relationship with other Christians.
Hi Arthur,
That's not good reasoning. Oxygen isn't mentioned either. But I'm pretty sure they had it. I don't know if the NT mentions if the Christians wore clothes but I'm pretty sure they did. Etc. Absence of mention doesn't mean that it is absent.
As noted, the Corinthian church knew exactly how many members it took to make a "majority" which means they knew how many total members they had, which means they knew who in Corinth to regard as a member and who not to.
Your reasoning applied to marriage would be troubling: if you have to have a wedding to know who you're married to, "that says a lot about your relationship." You've just defending cohabitation.
Your comments don't address Arthur's point. Of course Scripture doesn't mention every material thing in existence, but that has nothing to do with the fact that formal church membership is not commanded in Scripture. You can only arrive at it by faulty implication, however you then want to impose your faulty conclusions with regard to it upon all of Christendom (apparently without even considering that you could possibly be wrong).
Then we get back to your oft refuted (again, with no counter-arguments to those refutations) analogy about wedding vows and cohabitation with regard to church and membership. Until you can produce Scripture that ties marital vows with formal church membership, you're theologizing into the air.
Hi R. Delaney,
Please understand that I don't come to the 9 Marks blog to argue with individualistic consumerists who want to fight for their commitment-less "church". I come for the Biblical resources 9 Marks provides. Please consult them and refrain from trying to detract from them until you have.
Scripture also doesn't tell us have weddings and make marriage vows. But we do because it is an appropriate formalization of the principles of marriage found in scripture. Likewise, while scripture doesn't provide a specific formal membership process, it gives similar principles for commitment to a Christian assembly. The formal church membership process is what we develop -- just as we have developed formal wedding process -- to honor those principles.
My analogy has not been refuted. It's just that you've been unteachable and close-minded. Please, if you don't believe in the principles of 9 Marks and are committed to the principles of shacking up and individualism and consumerism regarding the church, just stop coming here. Preferably, however, you'd learn and grow.
Your analogy is not made in Scripture, and you're building your doctrine based on it. That is a problem.
I came here because this post was linked to The Gospel Coalition. I'm searching for a biblical argument for the position espoused by Jonathan. I have read 9Marks materials and found that they mostly tow the company line. I'm still searching for a biblical argument for formal church membership in the manner you advocate as I haven't found one yet...
You're refusal to commit to a specific body of Christ is not found in scripture. You're commitment to the Lord is reflected in your commitment to the church which is reflected in your commitment to a specific assembly.
You haven't found it because you refuse to listen; you insist on reading scripture through your individualism and consumerism, treating the church like a restaurant instead of a family.
"If you need a membership roll to know who to serve that says a lot about your relationship with other Christians." Yea! It says that we have a desire to stay connected to our brothers and sisters in Christ and remembering every one of their first and last names, home and mailing addresses, phone numbers, and emails things get a bit confusing and complicated. You do not know that they didn't keep record of church members, all you know is that we don't have their records.
Hi Riley,
I think I can offer an example of an extra-ordinary situation. We're a new church. We had two new members apply, both needing baptism. But we didn't have the facilities to baptize them. They were both willing to be baptized; there was no issue of disobedience. So we admitted them as members on the grounds that they would be baptized as soon as we had the means to do so, which happened a few months later.
Sorry about the duplicates. My mistake. Please delete two of the three.
Scripture uses the word member to refer to members of the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12, Eph 2,3,4,5). By maintaining that water baptism must precede membership, are you not implying that membership in the Body of Christ requires water baptism? Or perhaps you are using the word "member" in a way not found in Scripture?
Excellent points Jim. However, Jonathan doesn't make any apparent distinction between the Body of Christ and the local church. Unless you're in the church directory, you're not a part of the Body of Christ. You probably aren't even in the Book of Life....
Membership in the Body of Christ does require baptism. Someone who is not willing to obey the Lord Jesus' command to be baptized is likely not truly saved at all. It's not that one has to be baptized first to be part of the Body of Christ. It's that to be truly saved one has to believe that Jesus is "Lord" (i.e. Master) which will show in a willingness to obey Him. Baptism is required for salvation in the same way that bearing apples is required to be an apple tree.
John,
Baptism is not the issue. Baptism is biblical. However, it is not required for one to be in the Body of Christ, unless you want to assert that professing believers who die before they get baptized go to hell. All believers should be baptized, but they are already in the Body of Christ. Baptism is the public profession of that. And it doesn't require local church membership...
As above, baptism is required to be in the Body of Christ. Bearing apples is required for being an apple tree. If a professed believer refuses to be baptized then church discipline would be necessary (which can only be done by the specific assembly) and that would show, if the person still remained unrepentant, than he was never really part of the Body of Christ at all.
John,
Re-read my comments, you didn't respond to any of them
Yes, I did. Baptism is required to be part of the Body of Christ. See above. Please consult the good resources of 9 Marks teachably.
Baptism is certainly biblical and every Christian should be baptized. However, baptism is not required to be a part of the Body of Christ, otherwise Christians who haven't been baptized yet would not be a part of that Body and if they died, would go to hell.
And you admitted two people into your own church membership who weren't baptized.
Try to think through your position before you declare it to be "the truth" of the Bible.
Again, you're just not paying attention. Baptism is required to be part of the Body of Christ. See above. I didn't say that it's the entrance. Again, try reading (which is exactly your problem as to why you can't see what scripture says about membership.) People who refuse to be baptized are not Christians and so not part of the Body of Christ. Ditto with people who refuse to commit to His body, the church
How can church discipline be inflicted upon someone who is not a member since he or she has not been baptized?
John, I think we as Christians need to be more careful in these discussions. You have said that baptism is not required for salvation and yet it is required for admittance into the Body of Christ. Therefore, practically you are saying that one must be baptized in order to "truly" be saved. However, I don't understand why we hold the command for baptism higher than any other command in the Bible. It seems as if one were to break this command (refuse baptism- for whatever reason) then the church would rule their salvation to have never happened; but if one breaks some other command (or yet fails to fulfill it, I'll let you pick the command) then the church responds that the individual is still in need of discipleship and growth- yet salvation is deemed to still be maintained.
I'll be the first to admit that this debate seems a bit silly. Which is precisely my point. It exemplifies that Christians (in continuing with our 2000+ year history) will continue to disagree. I think we should all move on and leave the doctrine of baptism to the local church. Websites like these are great resources for church leaders and laypeople alike, however, I'm not convinced we will ever find a one-size-fits-all approach to Christianity: the thought of which, many people on this site might find disturbing. I, on the other hand, find it quite beautiful.
Hi Kyle,
Some good comments from you, especially your opening question. Thanks for them. However, I didn't say that baptism is required for "admittance." I said, "baptism is required to be in the Body of Christ". If someone is not willing to obey the Lord in baptism they likely don't really believe that the Lord is the "Lord". The same would really be the same with any unrepentant sin, hence the end of the process of Matthew 18:15ff is to treat the unrepentant person a "pagan and a tax collector", that is, as if he or she is not truly converted.
Hi Jim,
I believe the 1 Corinthians 12 passage you cite refers to a local assembly, not to the universal church. Paul is addressing specific issues in a specific assembly and teaching the members that they have to relate as members of that particular, local Body, not as detached, separate individuals who excuse their lack of attachment to a local assembly by claiming that they are part of the universal Body of Christ. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the immature Christians of Corinth who had such problems used exactly some of the spiritualized evasions of commitment to a local assembly that are so common today.
Except John, that is clearly not true. Paul is addressing a problem specific to Corinth which also affects all the churches, then he says in verses 27-28 of chapter 12, "Now you are the Body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And God has placed in the church first of all apostles (did all local churches have apostles?), second prophets (did all local churches have prophets?), third teachers, then miracles (did all local churches have miracles?), etc.
Clearly, he's addressing the universal church and Jim is right based on the full text.
You said: "I wouldn't be surprised if some of the immature Christians of Corinth who had such problems used exactly some of the spiritualized evasions of commitment to a local assembly that are so common today."
Right, the Corinthians disagree with you too. They must have been immature. Also, it would help if you stopped erecting a straw man with regard to those who don't believe formal church membership is required.
Paul is addressing a specific assembly in 1 Corinthians 12, about specific problems there. He's not making a theological treatise that is abstract. It would appear that he didn't have the universal-local dichotomy that you are imposing on this text so as to take every scripture about the "Body" as only applicable to the "universal", and thus we don't really have to be accountable to a specific congregation. That is, he would likely have thought of himself as a member of that church, and so it had an apostle, Etc. So, yes, all churches have apostles, etc. Particularly in that day where every Christian was part of the same church, they didn't have the phenomena of Christians in the same area assembling in different places, which is fine but is something that individualists, consumerists who've absorbed the "cohabitation theory" of the world use as an excuse to float around without any real commitment. We are "members of the Body" (1 Cor. 12:12) and connected to it. If that principle doesn't express itself in a particular body, it is meaningless.
Again, this is a blog for those interested in serious Christian commitment and life. If that's not you, then there are probably other blogs that are more in line with your spirit. However, if you'd like to take advantage of the many good things 9 Marks has to offer, that would be best.
John,
The apostle is addressing the Corinthian church as both universal and local. You are the one making the false dichotomy between local and universal.
The apostles were not "members" of any one local church, however my point was that it is obvious based on verses 27-28 he is not speaking about a local church, but THE church.
He is speaking to a local church about local church issues, one of which, as reflected in the discussion of the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor. 11, was their individualism, where they came and went at their pleasure, treating the assembly as something to be consumed. You are wrong and you continue to read scripture through your modern commitment-phobic lenses, totally missing the "idea of the church." I'd suggest you listen to Dr. Dever's sermon on 1 Corinthians (surveying the whole book) on the Capitol Hill Baptist Church web-site. The introduction is especially relevant.
In the meantime, please stop trying to impose your worldly view on the "church" onto scripture.
Very good. I'm wondering what you all would do with the other extreme: churches baptizing people for whom they then don't take membership responsibilities for? For example, some hold large evangelistic events, immediately baptize everyone who responds to the invitation, but then those baptized "converts" (we hope) aren't members of the church. That is, they want the jersey but don't want to play for the team.
This methodology wouldn't be prudent in my view, but if they did respond savingly to the Gospel then they already are members of the universal church. They should seek a local church for teaching, fellowship, and the sacraments. You seem to not acknowledge the existence of the universal church, everything for you is local institution.
I'm interested in Mr. Leeman's (and 9Marks) thoughts on this.
The problem is that the local church baptized some people based on an immediate response. If some want to divorce membership from baptism by asking for the first without the latter, others want to have the baptism without the membership.
Only the local church can obey the command from the Lord Jesus to hold each other to account. Therefore, one cannot be an obedient follower of Jesus without being a member of a specific assembly.
John,
Explain to me again how a baptized believer who attends your church regulary and who is not a formal member cannot be an obedient follower of Jesus? Thanks
There is one command the Lord Jesus gave explicitly to the local church: Matthew 18:15ff. Someone who is not "in", cannot be put out. There has to be a boundary between those in and out in order to obey the one command Jesus gave the church (by name) to do. Formal church membership is the way we try to honor that command.
Being a Christian is not just a matter of attending meetings together. It's a matter of being a Body together, loving one another, being accountable to each other. If you do that to everyone who simply walks through the door, you'll be disappointed a lot because they'll often walk away not to be seen again. So, who do you commit to? Which believers are we to love in the specific ways that Hebrews and 1 John says? If there's not formal commitment either one of two things happen: (1) no one (because the argument against commitment is really often just a cover for selfishness) or (2) just the few friends who are like you. That's not the church; that's not the life of the church scripture talks about. The NT vision of the church is only possible when you're willing to commit to people who are not like you except for their faith in Christ.
Further, a professed Christian who refuses to commit is showing a problem.. Just like the man who refuses to commit to his girl-friend. Your logic applies equally well -- and is used commonly -- to support cohabitation. The commitment-phobic man says, "Explain to me again why I can't love you without a wedding?" Of course, we all know the real reason he won't go through the formalization of a marriage (i.e. a wedding) is because he doesn't want to specifically commit. It's a lack of love.
Finally, if you're just going to make another sniping comment, designed to undermine the Christian life, please don't.
John,
Having your name in a church directory is hardly the "commitment" you are talking about. There are many Christians who are on church rolls who go through the motions because of their church rules. You can't put commitment on paper. I am not against church membership per se, but I am against the form of it you espouse. The person committed to you is the one by your side. However, people do come and go in life, and you can't keep them in your church (at least not without sinning) by a false appeal to commands that cannot be found in Scripture.
I think the underlying problem you have is summed up in this comment you made:
"If you do that to everyone who simply walks through the door, you'll be disappointed a lot because they'll often walk away not to be seen again"
You fear disappointment. You don't want to commit to loving "everyone who simply walks through the door". Sorry, but Jesus loves everyone who walks through the door, and whom the Lord accepts I will not reject.
First, I've asked you to respectfully consult the 9 Marks material on church membership and to stop detracting from their Biblically teaching until you do. Please honor that request.
It is you who have reduced church membership to having a name on a church directory. That's false and is clearly a "straw man" and demonstrates either that you haven't understood what 9 Marks is teaching or that you're interested in setting up straw men to knock down.
What you describe is not "love" but superficial niceness. You can't really "love" someone who is here one day and gone the next, never to be seen again. You're just spouting empty nothings in order to avoid having to really love anyone.
Hi Riley,
I think I can offer an example of an extra-ordinary situation. We're a new church. We had two new members apply, both needing baptism. But we didn't have the facilities to baptize them. They were both willing to be baptized; there was no issue of disobedience. So we admitted them as members on the grounds that they would be baptized as soon as we had the means to do so, which happened a few months later.
A clear violation of the word of God due to circumstances [note: sarcasm]. Where do you have Scriptural warrant to do that? You admitted people to the "team" who weren't wearing jerseys, even though they were willing to wear them you didn't hand them out. Guess you can run fast and loose when necessary...
I don't think that is helpful at all. We take membership and baptism seriously. I believe both are intimately connected. However, in our case, we were at a point in our church's development when we had a membership but no facilities to apply baptism. We accepted the two members into membership on the basis of their promise of baptism.
I'm just holding you to your position, for which you make handy exceptions
Then obviously you don't understand the position. And your sarcasm is unnecessary. I'd recommend you consult the 9 Marks material on church membership with a teachable spirit and an open mind.
Post new comment