Voices: Baptists, baptism and open membership

The Smith family has decided to join your church. They’re already in Sunday school and involved with various ministries. They even have participated in the Lord’s Supper since your church is seeker-friendly.

However, when applying for membership, it comes to light Mr. Smith was baptized as an infant. Even when he had a born-again experience in college, where he met the soon-to-be Mrs. Smith, a Baptist, he didn’t feel right about receiving what he considered to be a “re-baptism.”

The question now is, should Mr. Smith be accepted as a member? Or will he be listed under “watch-care” while his family joins as full members?

Closed vs. open membership

Traditionally, most Baptist churches have insisted on a believers’ church, that is, a church made up only of those who have received a believer’s baptism by immersion. This view is called the “closed membership” position.

I, however, have become convinced Baptist churches should adopt the “open membership” position. This view assumes a church can accept members based on their professions of faith, even if they were baptized in another mode.

To be clear, these open-membership Baptist churches still only perform full-immersion baptisms for professing believers. In other words, if you were baptized as an infant, they can accept you as a member, but if you, as a member, ask them to baptize your infant or baptize someone by pouring, they will refuse.

Baptists can remain firm on the commitment to administering believer’s baptism, even when taking a charitable stance in accepting Christians who practice things differently.

Exceptions to tradition

We also should admit even traditional Baptists allow for exceptions when it comes to baptism. Consider, for instance, the scenario of a hospital deathbed conversion: The individual requests baptism, but immersion is impossible.

While in seminary, I took a course taught at a Baptist school by a Baptist minister and was presented with this case and instructed to administer baptism by pouring. Why? Because the pastoral call to care for this individual’s unique need outweighs the “proper” way to baptize.

That same Baptist minister in that same Baptist course told us about tragic cases of infant mortality, where parents request their baby be baptized. In such a case, my professor instructed us to baptize the child, because the spiritual need is urgent and so a pastoral response is required.

Is that the “correct” kind of baptism? Is it “ideal”? No, but nothing about this situation is ideal. In fact, in cases where pastoral care is most needed, the situation is often least ideal.

One of the earliest Christian texts to address the issue of baptism, other than the New Testament, is a work written around A.D. 95 called the Didache. One section explains how to baptize, which is by full immersion.

Then, the text discusses another way that is not ideal, but is acceptable: If there is not enough water for immersion, one is allowed to pour water over the head. It does not specify when this is allowed or what circumstances would prohibit having enough water. The Didache is likely from Syria, so we may be talking about a desert context.

The point, of course, is in extenuating circumstances, pastors sometimes must make exceptions.

Baptism through church history

In the centuries that followed, Christians also began to allow infant baptism, apparently because of cases of infant mortality. But for hundreds of years, the norm still was full immersion for professing believers.

As the Mediterranean world became thoroughly Christianized and as infant mortality continued to rise in the Middle Ages, more parents requested their babies be baptized in this admittedly less-than-ideal way.

Let’s just say the situation became problematic with generations of Christians baptized as infants. In fact, no one even questioned the practice until the “Radical” part of the Reformation. And when they did, Baptists had to defend believer’s baptism courageously in order to establish a believers’ church—as opposed to a church of merely nominal Christians.

Even then, the earliest Baptists, like John Smyth, practiced “believer’s baptism” by pouring instead of immersion.

So, while it is true many in the so-called Anabaptist tradition died as martyrs because they insisted on reclaiming the New Testament ideal, today, with that ideal firmly established, it is time to re-assess how a believers’ church can make exceptions and incorporate members from other traditions.

Fifteen years ago, Curtis Freeman argued in favor of open membership (see also his 2014 Contesting Catholicity). Curtis is a Texan, a lifelong Baptist and a scholar whose work I admire.

I suspect Curtis’s experience in and commitment to interdenominational dialogue likely has a big part to play in his views. I sympathize with that motive, but to be clear, I am addressing this matter from a different angle.

Aligning belief and practice

I have served several churches on their pastoral staff, as interim pastor, guest preacher, teacher and consultant. Many churches are struggling with the issue of incorporating believers who come from paedobaptist denominations.

It is safe to say most of our churches—certainly most of our growing churches—have appropriated the seeker-friendly approach, even on Sundays when we serve the Lord’s Supper.

Those who practice “open” communion and “closed” membership have set up an inconsistent situation. You are welcome to the Lord’s table, because we recognize you are—in some way—baptized into Christ, but we do not accept you as a member of Christ’s body, the church. So, should we revert to a closed table, or shift into open membership?

Is a born-again believer who remained in their childhood’s paedobaptist denomination part of the church universal? All Baptists would say, “Yes,” because baptism is not a matter of salvation.

So, when that person who belongs to the universal church wishes to move their membership to our local church, why would we not embrace them?

I suggest Baptists adopt an open membership policy and welcome the Mr. Smiths of the world, recognizing them as full members of Christ’s body, the church.

David Wilhite is professor of historical theology at Baylor University’s Truett Theological Seminary. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author. A contrasting view can be read here.