Archive for October, 2005

It’s time to consider what the New Testament pattern is concerning baptism, and we all know that this is a contentious issue amongst evangelicals, whether charismatic or not. Restorationists, however, are firmly in the “believer’s baptism” camp, and this is the position I will argue for. Baptism is a practise that we can find mentioned in many books in the New Testament, although as usual there is no one place that sets out an exact definition of how the ceremony is to be carried out.

For Believers

When we first encounter baptism in the New Testament – it is John’s baptism “for repentance”, and was clearly administered to adults. In Acts, again we see that people who believe are then baptised. It is presented as the logical next step to repentance and faith.

Those who argue for infant baptism generally make three points. First, reference is made to various “households” who were baptised. It is argued that this must have included infants. This is of course possible, but not necessary. As someone has pointed out (Fee I think), the word for household can sometimes include animals, but no one thinks they were baptised. If the general understanding was that baptism was something that those who had made some sort of “confession” underwent, then it would be taken for granted that the very small children would go through this at a later stage. Even proponents of infant baptism generally recognise the need for some later ceremony (i.e. confirmation) to make this important stage explicit.

Second, a parallel is seen between circumcision and baptism. There may be something to this, but it is not a very convincing case for arguing for extending baptism to infants. After all, only male children were circumcised. An extra stage needs to be inserted into the argument (Gal 3:28) to make it work. This view is also strongly linked to a certain view of being in the “covenant”, which Restorationists do not generally share.

Finally, it is pointed out that we have some records of the early church practising infant baptism. I am in no position to comment on the evidence or lack of it, and how early this went back, but for Restorationists, this is not a particularly important point. They are happy to concede that the early church may have wandered from the New Testament pattern in a number of ways, and so what exactly they did in regards to baptism is not thought to be binding.

Total Immersion

I believe it is much easier to demonstrate etymologically (what the word baptism means), logically (why rivers were used, when jars of water were to hand) and theologically (symbolising dying with Christ and rising to new life) that total immersion was the normal New Testament mode of baptism.

Public Profession

All the baptisms recorded in the New Testament are preceded by some form of public profession of repentance and faith – turning from an old way to follow a new one. These baptisms are also all performed in the presence of witnesses – usually family and friends, but often held in public places.

Apparently, many early churches had “baptismal formulas”, or creeds which affirmed the basic beliefs of the faith, some of which may even be quoted in various New Testament passages. Restorationist churches encourage people to give their “testimony” (although this is not insisted upon), and will usually speak a very short formula before performing the baptism (e.g. “on profession of your faith we baptise you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”).

Hearing baptismal testimonies is often very encouraging and moving, although sometimes they do reflect a very limited understanding of the gospel. Perhaps we would do well to encourage candidates to make some form of creedal statement of faith as part or instead of this testimony. I thing this would be helpful, as baptism is usually linked to formally joining the church, which requires an assent to the doctrinal statement of the church, which is normally done privately (e.g. signing a form).

More to learn?

Baptism is a subject on which Restorationists feel very confident that the NT pattern is being followed. Yet there are two obscure verses concerning baptism, which people of all persuasions struggle to adequately fit into their theology. 1 Pet 3:21 comes very close to making baptism sound essential to salvation, an idea that evangelicals do not subscribe to. Perhaps it is just that it is inconceivable to Peter that a believer would not go on to be baptised. 1 Cor 15:29 talks about a practise where people were baptized “for the dead”, which barring an archaeological find that sheds some light onto this phrase, must remain an enigma.

After a bit of a blogging break, I want to return to thinking about the New Testament church pattern, and how Restorationism seeks to build churches that are faithful to this. A key text for Restorationist churches is Eph 4:11 which lists what are often referred to as the “Ephesians 4 ministries” – apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.

Cessationists believe that the first two ministries are no longer in operation in the church, but Restorationists strongly emphasise the need for all of them. The most controversial of these is apostles, but New Frontiers at least are happy to concede that there was something unique and unrepeatable about the original twelve, which puts most people’s fears to rest. Apostles are understood as those who relate to churches (particularly newly planted ones) in a fatherly way, giving direction and advice to the leaders, without having authority over them in an official denominational sense.

As important as these five ministries are, they are not understood to be exhaustive by Restorationists. Indeed, modern ministries such as “worship leader”, “small group leader” and “youth leader” are flourishing in charismatic circles, and supported by a wealth of training materials and courses.

But where do “eders / overseers” and “deacons” fit into the picture? Are these additions to the list of ministries? While I have never heard this explicitly expressed, I believe that the New Frontiers position would be that these are the only two “offices” in the church. In other words, anyone exercising a leadership or authoritative ministry is either an elder or a deacon. Most of the Ephesians 4 ministries would be exercised by the elders of a church, while those with the other “modern” ministries I have mentioned are understood to be deacons (although they would never be called this). I’m pretty sure that all the “apostles” in New Frontiers are also elders in their home churches.

Each local church is understood to be led by a group of elders, often with a senior elder (the pastor) being first amongst equals (theocracy is preferred to democracy in Restorationist church government). The church also would usually relate to someone with an “apostolic” ministry, who would meet with the elders on an occasional basis and provide some guidance, and prophetic direction. However, the elders are understood to be autonomous, and free to refuse the advice given (although this may result in the apostolic relationship being broken).

For complementarian groups such as New Frontiers, eldership is seen as male only, but the “deacon” ministries are open to all. So many female worship leaders, cell group leaders and youth leaders are to be found within these churches.

How faithful is this to the New Testament pattern? Richard Collins understands Eph 4:11 in a very different way. He sees it as expressing the diverse models of leadership that God is pleased to use in different churches. But as with the charismatic gifts, I would place more emphasis on the diversity within an individual church. So not everyone has the gift of prophecy, and not everyone has the ministry of evangelist, but we should desire all gifts and ministries to be operating within the local church.

So it boils down to three main levels of leadership:

1. Apostles – providing ongoing support to new churches, and ensuring they stay faithful to the gospel
2. Elders – initially perhaps only one, but quickly growing to a team of elders as the new church grows
3. Deacons – people given responsibility to lead in different areas of service as the elders see fit (see Acts 6 for an example of how a need was seen and met with the appointment of leaders)

While I don’t believe there is only one possible structure of church leadership, I do think that this general setup is preferable to some of the more complicated structures that exist in other circles. More importantly, I believe that it fits in well with what we see in the New Testament about church leadership.

In my second post considering what the New Testament teaches and models about church, I want to think about “worship”. Worship has got to be one of the most hot topics in Christianity today. Many people will judge a church they have visited by whether they considered the worship to be “alive” or “dead”, or perhaps “reverent” or “flippant”. Various bloggers have been touching on the issue this very week, with “This Great Argument” launching a somewhat caustic attack on charismatic worship, and “The Blue Fish Project” highlighting the importance of the words we sing. When I lived in Dunstable, the church I attended went through a period of ditching the charismatic choruses in favour of hymns, and the tensions that can be caused by different approaches to worship have caused serious divisions in church. I realise that the word “worship” has more than one level of meaning. In this post I discuss the part of the worship service during which we express our praise to God through songs and prayers.

The New Testament is surprisingly silent on how worship should be conducted. But this hasn’t stopped many people from proposing quite rigid models. I have been to countless seminars on worship, from a variety of theological perspectives, and they have all tended to be preoccupied with the pattern. One speaker insisted that the first hymn be about God the Father and you could only sing about Jesus later. Another spent a good deal of time telling us about the hand and foot signals a worship leader could use to indicate a repeat of the chorus to the rest of the band. Another shocked the gathering of conservative evangelicals by declaring organ music to be “crap”.

In other seminars, I have heard how it is really important to be as undignified as possible, and that David danced completely naked! One speaker stressed the importance of avoiding songs by Graham Kendrick, as before you knew it, people would be raising their hands. Some insist that there should be no speaking between songs as this quenches the Spirit, while others are equally adamant that there ought to be a linking prayer or devotional thought between every song, during which the congregation must be seated. Some want the musicianship to be of the highest quality possible, while others claim that anything more than simplicity will detract attention from God.

The more traditional denominations that the early Restorationists left would have a church leader (typically an elder) choosing and announcing the songs, while the musicians simply provide backing music. Most Restorationist churches have now opted for the “worship leader” and “worship band” approach, with someone who is a gifted musician taking the role of selecting and introducing songs. This has the benefits of allowing the standard of music to be much higher, but at the same time can give the impression that leading worship is about selecting the best songs from the current Christian “Top of the Pops” worship song charts.

In this regard, the Restorationists demonstrate that they are not really trying to recreate early church worship. No one really believes that there were electric guitars, microphones, worship CDs and computerised words projections in the first century. Most would also admit that the role of “worship leader” was not as tightly defined as it is today. In other words, although we believe in a “New Testament Pattern”, we believe in recontextualising it to our own situation, rather than rigidly copying the style of a bygone age.

In 1 Corinthians 14:26, we see more than a hint that there was not one person responsible for choosing songs. Anyone could bring one in much the same manner that anyone could prophesy. There was a phase in charismatic churches where this was commonplace, but it has been many years since I have encountered it.

So if the New Testament gives us so much freedom, does anything go? Is there one model that is better than the rest. Perhaps I will offer what I think are some principles of the “worship” part of our meetings. More could be added I’m sure.

1. Worship songs are for all to participate in. Therefore the style of music should be such that most people like the tunes and can sing along. This rules out some genres due to the difficulty of singing them (heavy metal, rap, opera etc), but the older hymns and modern choruses both fit this criteria. A variety of musical styles will be needed to properly express the variety of emotions that the words of the songs convey – (e.g. joy, awe, peace, triumph).

2. The words of our songs should be of course theologically correct, but more than that, they can serve to teach us, inspire us, remind us of great Biblical truths, and give expression to our joy at God’s blessings as well as our trust in his grace during times of trial. Those who choose songs have a responsibility to select the best in terms of words, not just tunes. The words we sing do matter, and the subjects we sing about matter to. Lots more could be said on this one (perhaps a challenge some other bloggers might like to take up).

3. New songs are to be encouraged as they bring fresh ways of expressing old truths. Old songs too should not be overlooked as they enable everyone to join in right from the start, and often cover a broader range of subject matter than the very latest few songs do. I must commend the songwriters in the Sovereign Grace movement as coming out with some of the most excellent lyrics in their new songs, as well as being appreciative of the best of the older ones.

4. Those who are “worship leaders” should remember that songs are not the only part of worship. Prayers and Scripture readings at the very least should be incorporated, as well as space made for the diverse gifts of the Spirit to be used to edify the body.

5. It would help if we got over the tendency to evaluate times of worship purely on external measures – how many danced, or raised their hands, how many brought prophecies, and whether the band sounded really good. If worship is to be “in spirit and truth” then it matters most that everyone meant what they sang and entered in wholeheartedly. This is not to say that “what we felt” doesn’t matter.

A edify those time of worship that is truly faithful to the New Testament will glorify God, and present. There will be a sense of both the transendance and the immanence of God – both an appropriate reverence for him and intimacy with him. People will be drawn to worship as part of a community, and also find a context in which they can sincerely and genuinely express their devotion to God.