The Mode of Baptism and Church Membership
September 2022
The Issue
In the fall of 2014, Concord had a person interested in membership who received believers’ baptism as an adult in an evangelical church, but whose baptism was administered with the mode of sprinkling rather than immersion. The elders recommended that we receive that person’s baptism as “irregular but valid.” The church was divided in its discussion of the topic, and the elders withdrew the recommendation.
Eight years have now passed with similar situations periodically presenting themselves to the elders during membership interviews. Several people have visited our church, begun developing relationships, and moved toward membership only to discover that we cannot receive them due to the mode in which they received believers’ baptism. That in itself is no argument for change, but hopefully it humanizes the troubling situation in which we find ourselves from time to time.
We are Baptists. We believe that baptism is for believers only. We believe that immersion best represents what baptism signifies. We have no intention of practicing any other type of baptism than believers’ baptism by immersion. But the question remains: Do we really believe that a person who has been baptized as a believer, in the triune name of God, by a true church, has in fact not been baptized due to the amount of water used? Is that person’s baptism invalid—i.e., false, unrecognized by God?
If we believe such a baptism is invalid, then we are right to insist that the mode of baptism (immersion) as well as the timing of baptism (believers only) is essential to being truly baptized. On the other hand, if we believe that the mode of baptism is important but not essential to being truly baptized, then we need to make room for believers to join our church who have received an irregular but valid baptism.
The Position of the Elders
The consensus of the elders is that there is such a thing as irregular but valid baptism, and that it is no threat to our Baptist belief and practice to recognize such a baptism. Our reasoning is as follows:
1. In the New Testament (NT), the mode of baptism isn’t as clear as the timing of baptism, and therefore a variant mode of believers’ baptism should not be grounds for refusing someone membership in the church.
For example, in Acts 2:17 we see the giving of the Spirit depicted as a baptism through pouring. In a link to Pentecost, Acts 11:15-16 associates baptism with the Spirit falling on a person, like water falling over one’s head as it is being poured out. And in Hebrews 9:9-14, the idea of baptism (“various washings”) is associated with the sprinkling of the blood of the covenant.
In drawing attention to these examples, we are not disputing that the common meaning of the word baptism is “to immerse.” Immersion is the primary lexical meaning of the word and its variants, which is why we maintain that immersion should be the regular mode of baptism. However, the meaning of a word is not determined solely by a lexicon but by its usage in context. Based on the varied usages of the word baptism in the contexts listed above, we can safely acknowledge that modes other than immersion have some biblical validity.
2. Various symbols of baptism are given throughout the NT, not all of which are clearly pictured by immersion.
Chief among biblical examples in support of immersion are Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12. In each of these passages, baptism signifies our union with Jesus in his death, burial, and resurrection. However, the NT supplies other images of baptism that do not as readily correspond to immersion. For example, in Acts 22:16, baptism signifies the washing away of sin, which could be adequately symbolized by either immersion or pouring, and even possibly by sprinkling. In Galatians 3:27, baptism signifies being clothed with Christ—a waterless symbol that doesn’t clearly suggest any particular mode. Another waterless association is made in Matthew 28:19-20, when Jesus instructs us to baptize in the triune name of God. It’s hard to say which mode of baptism best accords with being incorporated into a name. In 1 Peter 3:20-21, baptism corresponds with Noah being saved through the flood. Here is a water symbol, to be sure, though no one should insist that the ark was fully immersed in the floodwaters, which would have resulted in drowning rather than salvation. Other examples could be given in addition to these.
Our point is not to suggest that immersion isn’t to be preferred. Much of the symbolism points in the direction of immersion, and, to say it again, “to immerse” is the standard lexical meaning of the word. Our point is simply that some symbols of baptism do not definitively suggest immersion but correspond just as well with other modes, particularly the mode of pouring.
3. Early Christians, that is, Christians living within 50 to 75 years of the time of the apostles, practiced immersion as the preferred mode of baptism but accepted pouring in certain circumstances.
The Didache is one of the earliest documents of church history in our possession. It is a church manual, written most likely by the end of the 1st century A.D. The article on baptism reads as follows:
Now concerning baptism, baptize in this way. After rehearsing all these things, baptize in running water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. But if you do not have running water, baptize in another type of water; and if you are unable to baptize in cold water, then baptize in warm. And if you should not have either, pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. (Article 7)
The clearest understanding of these instructions is that the early Christians practiced immersion in the freshest source of water they could find, such as a river. Barring the presence of a river, they used standing water, which would have been warmer in temperature. If neither running water nor standing water were available for immersion, they considered pouring to be an acceptable mode of baptism.
Church history is not authoritative. But it is helpful in providing us a window into how our brothers and sisters in previous centuries understood various doctrines. According to The Didache, these earliest of Christians understood immersion to be the preferred mode of baptism but did not consider pouring (at least) to be invalid.
4. We aren’t asking Concord to believe something about baptism that we don’t already practice with the Lord’s Supper.
Our Lord gave the church two ordinances: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. When it comes to the Lord’s Supper, Baptists distinguish between meaning and mode. We believe that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial to the body and blood of Jesus, through which a church proclaims the Lord’s death until he comes. The bread and the cup are signs of our communion with Christ as his new covenant people.
That’s the meaning, but what of the mode? Aside from the bread and the cup, Baptists practice a mode of the Lord’s Supper that would seem peculiar to the early churches in Scripture. The NT consistently depicts the Lord’s Supper being observed as part of a meal (Luke 22:14-20; 1 Cor. 11:20-26; Jude 12). Not only that, but the bread would have been baked in a loaf or cake, and the cup would have been filled with wine. Despite this clear NT pattern and the rich biblical imagery associated with it, Baptists have not insisted on following a similar mode when observing the Lord’s Supper. We have removed the Supper from the context of a supper; we have reduced the bread to tiny, pre-packaged bites; we have substituted grape juice for wine. For all our insistence on the mode of baptism, why are we so untroubled about the mode of the Lord’s Supper?
The point here is not that we should overhaul our practice of the Lord’s Supper. Rather, the point is that Baptists are capable of distinguishing between meaning and mode. We are able to acknowledge that our practice of the Lord’s Supper is irregular, based on the pattern of the NT. But we do not consider our practice to be invalid, as if we haven’t truly taken the Lord’s Supper. If we can consistently practice—not just accept, but practice—an irregular but valid form of the Lord’s Supper without compromising our faith, we believe we can accept—not practice, just accept—an irregular but valid baptism.
The Bottom Line
Based on the reasons outlined above, the elders are unwilling to tell a person who has been baptized as a believer by pouring or sprinkling that his or her baptism is invalid—i.e., false, unrecognized by God. Consequently, that person cannot become a member and must decide whether to find another church or to remain a perpetual visitor (which creates a new set of complications for pastoral oversight, ministry involvement, and covenantal accountability).
Is believers’ baptism by pouring or sprinkling ideal? No. We unequivocally believe that immersion is the best depiction of the meaning of baptism. We are not advocating that Concord practice any mode other than immersion. However, to maintain that other modes of baptism are less than ideal isn’t the same thing as saying that that they are categorically wrong.
Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to welcome into membership someone who has received a valid baptism, even if the mode of his or her baptism was irregular.
Invalid Baptism
This discussion raises the question of what constitutes an invalid baptism. The list is short but important. We deem that an invalid baptism has occurred if a person:
is baptized prior to a profession of faith in Jesus (e.g., infant baptism);
is baptized in some name other than the name of the triune God;
is baptized by a false church (e.g., Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, Catholic).
In these cases, we do not consider that a person has been truly baptized according to Scripture. Their baptism isn’t irregular but false. It is unrecognized by God as biblical baptism.
Further Questions
Other questions must be answered. We can’t answer all of them in this document, but we hope that providing brief responses to a few questions will be helpful.
1. Would acknowledging irregular but valid baptism put us on a slippery slope toward compromise?
If we were making a case to accept an invalid baptism (see the previous section), we would be on a slippery slope. We are advocating accepting what we understand to be a valid (though irregular) baptism.
2. How can we still be called Baptists if we accept some baptisms as irregular but valid?
We would still be Baptists because (a) we only accept believers’ baptism, and (b) we only practice the immersion of believers. No non-baptistic person in the world would mistake us for anything but Baptists.
3. Would accepting some baptisms as irregular but valid necessitate changing our Bylaws?
Yes. In Article 6, Sections 2 and 3, we would need to strike the phrase “by immersion.” The two statements currently read:
Concord is comprised of persons who profess personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; who have received baptism by immersion as believers; who are actively following the Lord Jesus Christ in discipleship; and who affirm the mission, doctrine, and covenant of the church.
…of any person being baptized as a public profession of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, or of any person from another denomination who has not been baptized by immersion as a believer.
4. What’s the problem with people just getting rebaptized so they can join our church?
The Bible teaches that there is “one baptism” (Eph. 4:5). Therefore, we never intend to rebaptize anyone. If we baptize a person at Concord who was previously baptized, it’s only because we believe his or her baptism was invalid (see the previous section).
If a person’s baptism is considered valid, despite being irregular, there is no reason for him or her to redo the sign that has already been received. To require such a person to be rebaptized would obscure the biblical meaning of baptism and reduce baptism to a denominational hoop.
5. Do we just want more members in our church?
No. Space is already getting tight. Our desire is simply to honor valid baptism, even if irregular.
Next Steps
We are asking our church family to study, to inquire of the elders and of one another, and to pray—all while zealously maintaining a spirit of love and peace. We also respectfully ask that everyone keep this discussion in-house rather than taking it online. It is our desire to recommend an amendment to our Bylaws at a future Members Meeting, though we are not bringing a recommendation at this time in order to allow room for low-pressure discussion. May Christ be honored in all our deliberations.
Bylaws Recommendation on Baptism
November 2022
In order to accept a person into membership who has received an irregular but valid baptism, while guarding immersion as Concord’s regular practice of baptism, the elders recommend the following changes to the bylaws [revisions are italicized]:
Article 6, Section 2
“Concord is comprised of persons who profess personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; who have received baptism by immersion as believers; who are actively following the Lord Jesus Christ in discipleship; and who affirm the mission, doctrine, and covenant of the church.”
Article 6, Section 3
“Concord will admit members in one of the following ways:
(1) By baptism of any person being baptized as a public profession of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, or of any person from another denomination who has not been baptized by immersion as a believer. Concord’s regular practice of baptism is immersion.
(2) By letter from another Baptist church of like faith and practice that recommends the applicant for membership.
(3) By statement from any person with no letter of recommendation from another Baptist church or with no membership elsewhere, but who meets the requirements for membership as stated above in Article 6, Section 2.”