Discerning theology in community

What you aim for is not always what you get.

In a brochure promoting “Rite and Pilgrimage: A Study Conference on Baptism and Church Membership”, the Canadian MB Conference Board of Faith and Life (BFL) stated that it hoped to uphold the current Confession of Faith while also considering “the challenge of variant practice” The hope was that the participants, as a hermeneutical community led by the Holy Spirit, would “interpret Scripture and choose a direction together” and “come to a consensus on the issue”.

The study conference, held May 22–24 in the Great Hall of the Canadian Mennonite University, was a useful and a good experience in many ways. Consensus, however, simply didn’t happen.

Collage of images of participants in prayer at the Baptism and Church Membership Study Conference, May 22–24 (Winnipeg)

How the conference was structured

Every session began with a time of worship. The session then moved to the presentation of a major study paper, followed by two formal responses and discussion around tables.

Participants were asked to categorize their discussion under five Thinking Hats:

• a red hat for immediate emotional responses
• a black hat for critical judgment to prevent hasty and unwise actions
• a yellow hat to optimistically focus on what can be done
• a green hat to generate creative thinking and new ideas
• a blue hat to bring it all together in a conclusion.

The results of the table discussions were forwarded to a findings committee, summarized and later reported to the whole gathering. There were several “open mic” sessions for discussion by the whole group.

The format was mentally demanding. For the most part, presenters read their papers in full (only about half had read the papers, available on the Conference website ahead of time). Long before the end, people were complaining about information overload.

Read the papers

The full texts of the papers and responses are still available on the Canadian MB Conference website.

Who came, who didn’t

There were 147 people registered for the conference.

Of these, 65 came from Manitoba, 32 from B.C., 15 from Saskatchewan, 11 from Alberta and 11 from Ontario. Six were from United States, and 1 each from Austria and Germany. There were no participants from Quebec or the Maritimes.

Twenty-six of the registrants were women. No statistics were kept on the age of participants. There were no representatives of the so-called ethnic churches.

The papers and the responses

The four major papers commissioned for the conference were intended to examine current alternative practices, present the historical MB practice, support this with an overview of New Testament teaching, and then sum it all up theologically. Each paper was given two formal responses, one in support and one as critique.

Rev. H.S. Voth and Rev. Herman Neufeld baptizing MB believers in a creek west of Winkler (Manitoba), 1928 #NP18-5-7, courtesy of the Canadian Centre for MB Studies.

Paper one: Baptism and Membership . . . An Alternative Perspective

David Falk, interim lead pastor of The Meeting Place in Winnipeg, described his church’s practices. This church, which focuses on reaching young seekers, sees faith as a journey. People are baptized, often soon after accepting Christ and after taking a four-session course called “Journey”. Baptisms are held outside of the regular services. The candidate is baptized by a mature Christian of his or her choosing (an affirmation of the “priesthood of all believers” – at a recent baptism, 22 candidates were baptized by 12 Christians), and the candidate’s family and friends come forward to stand in support.

The Meeting Place tries to remove “barriers” the person may have to accepting baptism. It insists on believer’s baptism, but does not force the person to give an oral testimony, for instance; someone else can read the testimony. One of the barriers The Meeting Place removes is requiring those baptized to join the church. They only join the church later, after taking a further course. Part of the reason for this is that the church feels real community does not come out of formal membership in a large congregation but through the support of the people who know the person (friends, family, mentors). Another part of the reason is that the church has a specific vision for ministry (intentionally addressing the needs of spiritual seekers) and wants to protect this vision by giving the right to choose leaders and define the vision to people who are mature Christians, understand the vision and are committed to carrying it out.

Bruce Enns, college and career pastor at Forest Grove Community Church in Saskatoon, affirmed the approach of The Meeting Place. He had surveyed 44 young adults from a variety of denominations, only about half of them church members: 95% agreed that baptism was important, 82% said that an “Acts 2” Christian community was important, 100% said they wanted more accountability in their lives, 79% agreed that there should be some “rite of passage” to indicate one’s covenant commitment to a church, but only 44% thought that church membership was important.

Second responder Vidya Narimalla, senior pastor of Kitchener (Ont.) MB Church, stated that he had never encountered anyone in India or Canada who saw the requirement of church membership as a barrier to baptism. He noted that while there may not have been formal membership lists in the New Testament, new Christians automatically joined the body of believers (Acts 2:41,47) and could be removed from the body in order to maintain a pure church and bring erring Christians to repentance (1 Corinthians 5:13). Thus, church membership is important for fellowship, accountability and the witness of the church.

North End MB church baptism, Assiniboine River (Winnipeg), access from Assiniboine Park, c. 1928 #NP66-3-8, courtesy of the Canadian Centre for MB Studies.

Paper two: The Church “Without Spot or Wrinkle”: Testing the Tradition

Walter Unger, president emeritus of Columbia Bible College and chair of BFL, presented the “traditional view” of baptism and church membership. Sixteenth-century Anabaptists stressed the visible church, which one entered through the door of baptism and in which accountability and discipline were practised in a covenanting community. Within this tradition, in the 16th century and in the founding of the Mennonite Brethren Church in the 19th century, there was tension between those who stressed the letter (strictly disciplining wayward Christians to maintain a pure church) and those who stressed the spirit (advocating a believers’ church but recognizing that Christians were still sinful). Noting that the MB Church has moved away from an over-emphasis on the letter, Unger argued for a balance because accountability and church discipline are still necessary for a healthy church.

Gerry Ediger, professor at Canadian Mennonite University, argued that in no longer enforcing the peace position and now allowing non-baptized children and adults to participate in the Lord’s Supper, the Mennonite Brethren Church has already ceased to pursue the goal of a pure church. The MB Conference changed its position on these particular issues because so many congregations were already deviating from Conference policy. Ediger argued that the MB Church should therefore embrace the spiritual branch of the Anabaptist tradition wholeheartedly and free MB imaginations to follow a variety of baptismal and membership forms.

Bruce Guenther, faculty member at MB Biblical Seminary–ACTS, explained that the term “membership” has various intertwined meanings, which has caused confusion. Politically, in the 16th century, believer’s baptism meant separation from the state church and a demand for religious freedom; it no longer has such strong political connotations. Socially, the original concept of belonging to a care-giving religious community has given way to a concept of belonging to an ethnic group, in which baptism is a “rite of passage” for teenagers, and people want to remain on the church membership list as a sign that they are still part of the ethnic community even though they are no longer part of the religious community. Organizationally and legally, membership is a useful tool for keeping statistics, voting on leaders, paying Conference “norms”, creating church structures so that the church can be registered with the government and give charitable donation receipts. Sacramentally, baptism has sometimes (but not often in Anabaptist/Mennonite history) been misunderstood as conferring grace or even salvation. Theologically, baptism is a sign of spiritual rebirth, commitment to follow Christ and commitment to become part of a fellowship of believers where the person receives nurture and is accountable; more recently, the theological meaning has changed to mean incorporation into the universal, invisible body of Christ but not commitment to any specific body of believers, as salvation is seen as purely a vertical transaction between the person and God. Guenther argued that the organizational and legal aspects have come to dominate the meaning of membership.

Baptism at Bird’s Hill (Manitoba), c. 1950 #NP44-1-1, courtesy of the Canadian Centre for MB Studies.

Paper three: Baptism Among the Early Christians

Jon Isaak, New Testament professor at MB Biblical Seminary in Fresno, Calif., outlined washing rituals in Greek and Jewish culture at the time of Christ, baptism in the New Testament, and baptism in the early church (up to about 300 AD). He proposed using an early church model in which conversion is marked by some other ritual, and baptism, still tied to local church membership, is seen as commissioning for service after some years of examination and training.

Lorraine Dick, associate pastor at South Langley MB Church in Langley, B.C., went over the material in the biblical section of Isaak’s paper, stressing that baptism is a sign of repentance, commitment to Christ and becoming part of the body of Christ. She called for a renewal of membership in practice so that accountability of members is again practised.

Gay Lynn Voth, instructor at Columbia Bible College in Abbotsford, B.C., focused on one question in Isaak’s paper – whether those baptized are baptized into the universal, invisible church or into the visible, local body. Based on the New Testament material, she argued that there is only one church because the local church is part of the universal church. She noted that baptism was delayed after conversion during periods of persecution to make sure that the new believers were committed enough to face martyrdom, but that these unique examples should not necessarily be a model for today.

McIvor Ave. MB Church (Winnipeg) baptism at Bird’s Hill Park, June 2003

Paper four: MB Theology of Baptism

Lynn Jost, professor at Tabor College in Hillsboro, Kan., outlined the Mennonite Brethren position, as stated in the MB Confession of Faith, that baptism signifies both personal salvation and incorporation into the body of Christ. He noted that in church history baptism was always tied to church membership. He also stressed that there is only “one baptism” (Ephesians 4:4–6). Jost then outlined five principles for working out this MB tradition:

• If a person wants to be baptized but not join the church, the person should be taught that conversion and baptism necessarily include becoming a member of the church.
• Children should not be baptized until they are old enough to understand its meaning and are ready to accept mutual accountability; the MB Church has erred in allowing non-baptized children to participate in the Lord’s Supper.
• The Holy Spirit is received once and for all at conversion.
• It will be difficult to agree on baptism when different metaphors are used to describe the church: an emergency room (David Falk), a wrinkle–free bride (Walter Unger) and a salvation caravan (Jon Isaak). Jost did not resolve this dilemma, just added a fourth metaphor, the church as a community in exile.
• Because there is only “one baptism”, Mennonite Brethren should consider accepting as members, people who have been baptized as infants in an evangelical, believers’ church, accepted Christ and during confirmation in an evangelical, believer’s church accepted their earlier baptism as a sign of later faith.

In assessing the tension between narrow legalism and spiritual freedom, Roger Thiessen, pastor of Westwood Community Church in Winnipeg, suggested that Jesus has called Christians to an awkward dance of interpretation and discernment in which they are to follow whatever is life-giving and liberating. He affirmed Jost’s last point calling for acceptance as members of some people who have been baptized as infants, rather than causing pain to prospective members and their families by denying the meaningfulness of their tradition.

Ed Boschman, a pastor at Laurelglen Bible Church in Bakersfield, Calif., argued that it is conversion that cleanses from sin and incorporates the believer into the universal, invisible church. Therefore, it is all right to separate baptism (as a sign of conversion and incorporation into the universal church) from becoming a member of a specific local church. However, it is not all right to accept as a valid sign a baptism that occurred years before the conversion; those baptized as infants should be rebaptized when they become believers.

Discussion

Discussion of the papers often hopped back and forth between topics and offered a variety of viewpoints. However, some general themes emerged.

1. Despite the various opinions expressed, the tone of the conference was very cordial and gracious, even salted with humour and laughter. Only once or twice did noticeable tension creep into the discussion.
2. Although many aspects of baptism and membership were discussed, discussion kept coming back to two practices that are out of step with MB doctrine as defined by the Confession of Faith. The first was the practice of some churches like The Meeting Place, SunWest Christian Fellowship in Calgary and, it was suggested, 40% of church plants, which baptize people without making them members of the church. The Meeting Place was asked what happens to such people; David Falk stated that many drift away and are never incorporated into the church, and admitted that The Meeting Place is still struggling to find answers on the whole question of membership.

   It was also asked whether these churches developed their model because of direct experience with seekers who didn’t want to join the church or because of the reluctance of the leaders themselves, possibly because they were following the model of the Willow Creek Association. The danger with separating baptism and membership, some participants said, is that it separates salvation and discipleship. If someone claims to be saved but does not want to be part of a church or be accountable for how he/she lives, asked others, is that person really committed to Christ?

3. The other issue that kept cropping up in the discussion was acceptance as members of people who had been baptized only as infants but later underwent confirmation in an evangelical church. It had not been scheduled to be on the agenda, but was raised by the final point in Lynn Jost’s paper, even though he had tried to define very narrowly who might be accepted under his proposed exception. In fact, discussion of Jost’s paper focused almost exclusively on this one point of disagreement with the traditional position. This issue had also been raised to the BFL by the River East MB Church of Winnipeg. It became clear that some other churches and pastors are wrestling with the same issue, although still other churches have firmly insisted on believer’s baptism and see no problem at all.
4. The discussion clearly revealed, time and again, that part of the problem is that churches are using widely different definitions of terms, particularly the term “membership”. The Meeting Place is using the legal/organizational definition of membership and thus considers it not very important for all Christians. Others focused on the theological definition (accountable covenant community) and said it was very important. It was even suggested by others that The Meeting Place, in stressing community and support groups, seems to be using a form of theological membership and tying it to baptism, even though that church does not call it membership. Someone else wondered whether that means in practice that such churches really have two tiers of membership.
5. If consensus emerged anywhere, it was in the understanding that the current practice of membership is not working. Regardless of what theological definition of membership is held in theory, it is obvious that in practice membership in many churches is just “a name on a list”, and young people are right to question such a meaningless practice. The existence of many “inactive members” is another symptom that the system is not working. In this sense, it was stated, the majority of churches are not being faithful to the Confession of Faith, not just the minority with different policies. There was a widespread desire for covenant community and mutual accountability to become a reality in practice, where churches would not only discipline members but also support and disciple them. Churches like The Meeting Place were commended for wanting to “raise the bar” of expectations for membership. Others suggested raising the bar by discipling people after they have become members.
6. There was considerable discussion about the relationship between the universal invisible church (all Christians in all times and places) and the local visible church. The papers argued that for the early church and Anabaptists there was no conflict between the two – the local church was just one part of the universal church, and when a person joined one, he/she automatically joined the other. It was pointed out that the danger in this thinking is that it can lead to a “sacramental” view of baptism and membership, the idea that it is baptism and membership that save a person and not faith in Christ, or at least that baptism and membership as well as faith are needed for salvation. On the other hand, it was argued that now there is too much focus on the universal church. When people are baptized into the universal church but do not join a local church, they can have a self-centred faith (just Jesus and me) and never be accountable or discipled. It was stated that salvation should have both a vertical and a horizontal dimension: “How can you be a Christian without being part of the community?” “How can there be accountability without membership?”
7. The idea of salvation as a journey – with baptism, membership and discipleship being seen as the various steps along the way – was a key element in the first paper (by David Falk). Many participants affirmed it. A few noted the extent to which it contrasted with the traditional Mennonite Brethren emphasis on conversion. Willy Reimer, senior pastor of SunWest Christian Fellowship noted that the process used to be that people would believe (in Christ), behave (repent and start living a Christian life) and belong (join the church), but now people belong (identify with the local church community), behave and only later come to believe.
8. A number of delegates complained that not enough emphasis was placed on studying Scripture; systematic examination of the Bible’s teaching only began with the third paper. This led to the complaint that the conference was trying to derive theology from experience and culture rather than from Scripture. Considerable discussion did revolve around two specific Bible passages. The first concerned whether the story of the Ethiopian eunuch, who was baptized but did not join a church (Acts 8:26–40), should be used as a model for church life today. The second concerned whether the reference to “one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5) means that those christened as infants should not be rebaptized.
9. There was considerable discussion, mainly by Conference leaders, on whether the MB Confession of Faith is “prescriptive” (meaning that churches are obligated to follow it) or “descriptive” (the Confession describes what MBs believe the Scripture teaches on a topic). If prescriptive, the question arose how to respond to churches that have practices different from those set out in the Confession of Faith. River East MB Church was praised for bringing its proposed deviation from the Confession to the Conference before putting it into practice. The Meeting Place was praised for being willing to come to the study conference and discuss its policies, even though it had implemented them without reference to the Confession of Faith. One comment from the floor argued that covenant community and mutual accountability should be practised not only in the local church but also in the MB Conference and that it shows a lack of integrity for churches to make decisions without consulting the larger body.

   Another participant asked who establishes policy for the MB Church – the Conference or churches? Canadian Conference executive minister David Wiebe noted that in every organization, new paradigms are always found at the edges; it is in local churches that ministry happens, churches should be as creative as possible to reach people, but study conferences are necessary for dialogue between the core and the edges so that creativity does not go too far. Gerry Ediger said he found himself taking positions he never thought he would take and suggested that the Conference remove the rules on membership and bless diversity. On the other hand, James Toews, senior pastor of Neighbourhood Church in Nanaimo, B.C., argued that it is difficult to make good decisions in the middle of difficult circumstances on the periphery, and that such decisions should be made beforehand “in a sober place of reflection” (that is, the Conference).

What’s next?

The Board of Faith and Life announced it plans to use the findings from the study conference to develop a position paper on the issue of baptism and membership, which will be processed with the churches and provincial conferences this fall and then presented to the Canadian MB Conference convention for ratification in July 2004.

The problem for the Board of Faith and Life is that while the study conference increased understanding of the current diversity within the MB Conference, no consensus emerged on what the Board should do in future. This was a thinking-out-loud, exploring-the-edges kind of meeting. It helped participants understand each other and revealed strengths and weaknesses in various positions, but in the end the Mennonite Brethren position on baptism and church membership seems not much clearer than it was before.