“I believe the Bible also allows for such temporary provisions in a church’s order and life in extraordinary moments. For instance, we should ordinarily baptize people in the gathered assembly of the church, as the combination of Matthew 18:20 and 28:19-20 teaches and the precedent of Acts 2:41 illustrates. Yet in Acts 8 we find something exceptional. The Holy Spirit plops Philip down in the middle of a desert, where he finds himself with an Ethiopian eunuch who professes the gospel and asks to be baptized. No church is in site, but Philip baptizes him.”
-Jonathan Leeman, “Has COVID-19 Made 9Marks Raise the White Flag on Multi-Site and Multi-Service Churches?”
But what is the rush to baptize? Is this really an extraordinary moment? Capitol Hill Baptist Church delays baptizing children for years – they promote waiting until a child has matured and moved out from under the authority of his parents to see if he really is displaying evidence of being born again before they feel comfortable baptizing him. In the case of the Ethiopian eunuch, why not wait a week or two, enabling the new Christian to be baptized in a “gathered assembly of the church?”
An article titled, “The Baptism of Children at Capitol Hill Baptist Church,” church leadership makes it quite clear that they do not normally baptize children until they are no longer under parental authority. Below is an extensive quote from the article:
“We do understand that the consideration of an appropriate age for a believer to be baptized is a matter not of simple obedience on an issue clearly settled by Scripture, but rather is a matter of Christian wisdom and prudence on an issue not directly addressed by Scripture. Though the baptisms in the New Testament seem largely to have occurred soon after the initial conversion, all of the individuals we can read of are both adults and coming from a non-Christian context. Both of these factors would tend to lend credibility to a conversion. The credibility of the conversion is the prime consideration, with the effect upon the individual candidate and the church community being legitimate secondary concerns.
We believe that the normal age of baptism should be when the credibility of one’s conversion becomes naturally evident to the church community. This would normally be when the child has matured, and is beginning to live more self-consciously as an individual, making their own choices, having left the God-given, intended child-like dependence on their parents for the God-given, intended mature wisdom which marks one who has felt the tug of the world, the flesh and the devil, but has decided, despite these allurements, to follow Christ. While it is difficult to set a certain number of years which are required for baptism, it is appropriate to consider the candidate’s maturity. The kind of maturity that we feel it is wise to expect is the maturity which would allow that son or daughter to deal directly with the church as a whole, and not, fundamentally, to be under their parents’ authority. As they assume adult responsibilities (sometime in late high school with driving, employment, non-Christian friends, voting, legality of marriage), then part of this, we would think, would be to declare publicly their allegiance to Christ by baptism.
With the consent and encouragement of Christian parents who are members, we will carefully consider requests for baptism before a child has left the home, but would urge the parents to caution at this point.
Nothing in this statement should be construed as casting doubt about the legitimacy of the baptism of any among us, regardless of how young they were when they were baptized. Because they have continued in the faith into their adult years we assume the legitimacy of their initial profession made at baptism. The question we are concerned with here is looking forward, not backward. To put it another way, we are raising the question about how many people have been baptized at this church in the past as younger people and children who went on to give no evidence of ever having been savingly converted, and what damage was done to them, and to the witness of the gospel through the church’s premature baptism of them. It is our judgment that while there is some danger of discouragement on the part of those children who do give some good evidence of being converted and yet are not baptized and welcomed into communicant membership in the church, through good teaching in the home, and through the loving inclusion of the families in the church as we currently do, that danger is small. There is, however, we believe, a greater danger of deception on the part of many who could be wrongly baptized at an age in which people are more liable to make decisions which are sincere, but ill-founded and too often short-lived.
Two other notes in conclusion. First, we realize that this issue is an issue of great emotion for some, and we in no way are trying to lead anyone to disobey their conscience on this matter; we simply are trying to inform and educate our consciences from the Scriptural necessity of a credible profession of faith for baptism. Second, while it is not generally known among American evangelicals today, the practice of baptizing pre-teenage children is of recent development (largely early 20th century) and of limited geography (largely limited to the United States, and places where American evangelicals have exercised great influence). Baptists in the past were known for waiting to baptize until the believers were adults. Baptistic Christians around the world are still much more cautious than modern American Christians, often waiting in Europe, Africa and Asia to baptize until children are grown and are in their 20’s.”
Well, there is this:
“But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, “Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.”
Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
Acts 16:28-34 NKJV
It seems to me there were probably some children in the jailers household, and I would guess some of them were under twenty. At the very least, we can surmise that Capitol Hill Baptist Church wouldn’t baptize any of the children because they weren’t out from under the authority of the parents, nor would they have had time to observe the fruits in their lives to verify that they were all truly converted.
No, Jonathan, it really isn’t only people of today that have thought you don’t need to be baptized prior to joining a church. The quotes below are taken from “The Works of John Bunyan, Differences About Baptism No Bar To Communion,” pages 8-10, 19, 32-33
And now, reader, although this author hath thus objected against some passages in this my first argument for communion with persons unbaptized; yet the body of my argument he misseth and passeth over, as a thing not worth the answering; whether because he forgot, or because he was conscious to himself, that he knew not what to do therewith, I will not now determine. 1. I effectually prove, ‘That baptism is not the initiating ordinance.’ 2. I prove, ‘That though it was, yet the case may so fall out, that members might be received without it.’ 3. I prove, ‘That baptism makes no man a visible saint, nor giveth any right to church fellowship.’ 4. I prove, ‘That faith, and a life becoming the law of the ten commandments, should be the chief and most solid argument with true churches to receive saints to fellowship.’ 5. I prove, ‘That circumcision in the flesh, which was the entering ordinance of old, was a type of circumcision in the heart,’ &c. These things, with others, our author letteth pass; although in the proof of them abideth the strength of this first argument;
6. The sixth argument is, There is ‘one baptism.’ Now we are come to the pinch, viz., Whether it be that of water, or no? which I must positively deny. (1.) Because water baptism hath nothing to do in a church, as a church; it neither bringeth us into the church, nor is any part of our worship when we come there; how then can the peace and unity of the church depend upon water baptism? Besides, he saith expressly, It is the ‘unity of the spirit,’ not water, that is here intended: and the arguments brought to enforce it, are such as wholly and immediately relate to the duty of the church, as a church. (2.) Further, That other text, that treateth of our being baptized into a body, saith expressly it is done by the spirit: ‘For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body’ (1 Cor 12:13). Here is the church presented as under the notion of ‘one body’; here is a baptism mentioned, by which they are brought, or initiated into this body: Now that this is the baptism of water, is utterly against the words of the text; ‘For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body.’ Besides, if the baptism here be of water, then is it the initiating ordinance; but the contrary I have proved, and this author stands by my doctrine. So then, the baptism here respecting the church as one body, and water, having nothing to do to enter men into the church, nor to command them to practise it as a church, in order to their peace or communion, or respecting the worship of God as such: and (I say again) the baptism in the sixth argument, being urged precisely for no other purpose, but with respect to the church’s peace as a body; it must needs be THAT baptism, by virtue of which, they were initiated, and joined together in one; and that baptism being only that which the Spirit executeth; this therefore is that one baptism.
We come now to my seventh argument, for communion with the godly, though unbaptized persons; which you say is LOVE. My argument is this; ‘Therefore I am for communion thus; because love, which above all things we are commanded to put on, is of much more worth than to break about baptism.’ And let the reader note, That of this argument you deny not so much as one syllable, but run to another story; but I will follow you. I add further, That love is more discovered when we receive for thesake of Christ, than when we refuse his children for want of water: And tell you again, That this exhortation to love is grounded not upon [water] baptism, but the putting on of the new creature, which hath swallowed up all distinctions (Col 3:9-14).
Quest. 7. ‘Whether your principle and practice is not equally against others as well as us, viz. Episcopal, Presbyterians, and Independents, who are also of our side, for our practice, though they differ with us about the subject of baptism. Do you delight to have your hand against every man?’
Ans. I own water baptism to be God’s ordinance, but I make no idol of it. Where you call now the Episcopal to side with you, and also the Presbyterian, &c. you will not find them easily persuaded to conclude with you against me. They are against your manner of dipping, as well as the subject of water baptism; neither do you, for all you flatter them, agree together in all but the subject. Do you allow their sprinkling? Do you allow their signing with the cross? Why then have you so stoutly, an hundred times over, condemned these things as antichristian. I am not against every man, though by your abusive language you would set every one against me; but am for union, concord, and communion with saints, as saints, and for that cause I wrote my book.
To conclude,–1. In all I have said, I put a difference between my brethren of the baptized way; I know some are more moderate than some. 2. When I plead for the unbaptized, I chiefly intend those that are not so baptized as my brethren judge right, according to the first pattern. 3. If any shall count my papers worth the scribbling against, let him deal with my arguments, and things immediately depending upon them, and not conclude that he hath confuted a book, when he hath only quarrelled at words. 4. I have done when I have told you, that I strive not for mastery, nor to shew myself singular; but, if it might be, for union and communion among the godly. And count me not as an enemy, because I tell you the truth. 5. And now, dissenting brethren, I commend you to God, who can pardon your sin, and give you more grace, and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in Jesus Christ. Amen.
“The heart is deceitful above all things,
And desperately wicked;
Who can know it?”
Jeremiah 17:9, NKJV
As you have seen above, Mark Dever has, as a general policy, the practice of denying water baptism to children who attend Capitol Hill Baptist Church. Dever believes that “the church that has fewer false conversions will be a more powerful witness and a better advertisement for the gospel of Jesus.”
While agreeing with the sentiment Dever expressed, I disagree with his solution – not baptizing children. Dever feels if he waits until a child is out from under the authority of his parents he can better judge if the individual is truly a Christian.
We cannot know our own hearts, much less the hearts of others. I fail to see how Dever is going to be able to better judge of a young person’s heart once the individual has moved out on their own.
As a side note, Capitol Hill Baptist Church does not allow a person to become a member of their church unless they are baptized. Capitol Hill Baptist Church also makes the case for formal church membership because they claim this is the only way church elders can know who belongs to their church and thus, whose souls they must watch over because they have to give an account to God for their members (Hebrews 13:17). Therefore it must logically follow that the elders of Capitol Hill Baptist Church don’t have to watch over or give an account for the souls of children attending their church because they are not formal members, therefore the elders have no clue that they are responsible for these children. Ridiculous? Yes, but so is the claim that unless you formally join their church, signing their membership contract, they have no way of knowing they are responsible for your soul.
To illustrate the fallacy of Mark Dever’s policy of not baptizing children until they are out from under their parent’s authority because he believes he can more accurately judge whether the young adult is a genuine Christian, let’s take a look at Dever’s Pastoral Internship program. While Dever may see and actually interact with a newly emancipated young adult attending his church once or twice a week, an intern would receive much more attention.
According to the document below, interns are expected to join CHBC, signing the CHBC Statement of Faith and Church Contract. Prior to the elders recommending any individual for membership to the congregation two of the elders conduct an interview with the prospective member to verify the individual is a genuine Christian. After this the congregation votes to accept the individual into membership.
Internship at CHBC is a five-month program in which the interns are spending six, maybe seven days a week with Mark Dever or other elders. As the document below states: “The internship program at CHBC affords us the occasion to focus time, attention and resources on the training of future shepherds of Christ’s Church.” One could reasonably assume, therefore, that Dever and his fellow elders know the interns much better than they would know a young adult who has been attending their church once or twice a week. They should be much more able to accurately judge whether an intern is a true Christian than they could judge anyone else. (Notwithstanding the fact that they and the entire congregation have already voted them into membership, thus exercising their “keys to the kingdom,” judging him to be a bonafide member of the Kingdom of God.)
Consider now the case of Anthony Moore, an intern at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in the Spring of 2014. You may recall that Moore was fired from The Village Church in January 2017 when it was discovered that he had been videotaping his good friend on numerous occasions while showering at Moore’s home. Moore was then hired by his good friend Thomas White, who was the president of Cedarville University. Moore reported for work in August 2017. Then, in April 2020 Moore was once again fired when bloggers published the sordid details of his story.
Below is a quote from Julie Roys’ article on Moore’s firing highlighting Moore’s bizarre behavior during the time that he was an intern (and I assume) a member at CHBC.
“some of the most intense control and manipulation happened when Moore moved to D.C. to intern for Capitol Hill Baptist Church under Pastor Mark Dever.
The victim said Moore suffered from depression during that time, and on a couple occasions threatened to kill himself if the victim didn’t call him. The victim said that multiple times during his relationship with Moore, the victim wanted to end the relationship, but “I just didn’t see a way out.”
In 2014, Moore became campus pastor at TVC Fort Worth and hired the victim to be the youth pastor. The victim said he began to suspect that Moore was inappropriately dependent on him. But he said he never imagined that Moore, a husband and father of three, struggled with same-sex attraction.
I believe this sufficiently illustrates the fallacy of Mark Dever’s baptismal practice. It is impossible to judge a man’s heart, so why not just baptize children on their confession of becoming a Christian? Will you have some individuals in your church who are not truly converted? Yes, but that has been the case since the beginning of Christianity. Remember Judas? A more recent example is Joshua Harris, CJ Mahaney’s handpicked replacement at Covenant Life Church. Harris has recently renounced his Christian faith.
The photos below illustrate just how totally Moore had Dever fooled. Dever’s promotion of him at such an early stage of his ministry was unprecedented and with hindsight, we can see it was foolish. Dever had the con-man sharing his wisdom obtained during his one-year of ministry with men who had 3 or 4 more years of experience than Moore.
I wrote an article a few years ago about Mark Dever and 9Marx. I received several comments which were quite favorable of Dever by a past intern at CHBC. When this individual mentioned that he had been an intern I checked the “Past Interns” list and did not find his name. I advised him of this fact. He replied that he had been removed from the list of Past Interns because he had become an atheist. I recently emailed him and asked him how long it had taken for his name to be purged from the Past Intern list. Here is his reply:
Below are two screenshots of the “Past Interns” list. The first was taken two days ago. It has been three months since Anthony Moore was fired from Cedarville University, yet Moore still remains on the list, showing him as an assistant professor of Theology at Cedarville University. The second screenshot reflects the “Past Intern” list on August 2, 2016. At that time Anthony Moore was a pastor at the Village Church.
I am of the opinion that Mark Dever knew of Anthony Moore’s firing from The Village Church and he is also aware that Moore has been fired from Cedarville University. Since the intern list has been changed from Moore working at TVC to working at Cedarville, Dever obviously knew of the job change. You can bet he has also kept abreast of the situation at Cedarville. Yet three months after Anthony Moore was fired the listing for him has not been updated! This is very strange. Since Zach Moore’s name was removed from the list within a “matter of weeks” I can only conclude that Mark Dever finds it very embarrassing to have a man who converted to atheism after interning at CHBC on the “Past Intern” list, whereas having a sexual pervert who has been fired from two jobs on the Past Intern list is no big deal.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Mark Dever has never retracted his letter of support for his good friend C.J. Mahaney, a man who has been credibly accused of covering up sexual abuse while he was in charge of the Sovereign Grace denomination and also blackmailing Larry Tomczak, the co-founder of the organization.
Oh well, as long as no children are being baptized at Capitol Hill Baptist Church, all is well at the 9Marx flagship! Because, as Dever said, “the church that has fewer false conversions will be a more powerful witness and a better advertisement for the Gospel of Jesus!”
Numero uno?
“having a sexual pervert who has been fired from two jobs on the Past Intern list is no big deal.”
Priorities. Actions speak; words are cheap. Church is the Hunting Ground harvesting victims for Predators; then church serves as the Predator Protector. Predators and Enablers find each other, co-dependently running this operation, the Predator Protector Hunting Ground. Enter & engage at your own family’s risk.
I don’t see dozens of past interns on the list there. Are there multiple pages?
Sometimes kids from Christian families feel pressure to either profess faith (if baptized as a baby) or undergo believer’s baptism. Of course no one should act on being pressured by parents or peers. So that’s a problem. Pastors should warn against such pressure. It can be a sin of a parent who wants to maintain the image of the “perfect Christian family” who urges a kid to get baptized when they are not inwardly renewed. Yet it seems like Dever is so consumed by his own rules that are outside the Bible that he fails to see an apostate in his midst, day after day!
Yes, the list is quite long. I shot screencaptured a small portion of it.
On the most recent “Past Interns” list I included two from the Spring of 2012. Any guesses as to why?
Todd: On the most recent “Past Interns” list I included two from the Spring of 2012. Any guesses as to why?
“Apparently a $10,000 donation to Mark Dever will also purchase you two slots to Mark Dever’s internship program. Brian Chesemore and Mike Bradshaw are both son-in-laws of C.J. Mahaney. Back in 2012, at the height of furor over the Sovereign Grace sexual abuse scandal, C.J. was able to parlay his friendship with Dever into obtaining two slots in the Spring internship program at Capitol Hill Baptist Church for his boys. ” From Thou Art the Man 8/9/17
Both interns in Louisville: one listed at SG church.
Dever’s BFF, CJ Mahaney.
Also from the internship info: “Acceptance into and / or completion of the program in no way implies our affirmation of your sense of call“.
Yet the info indicates this is specifically for “training future shepherds of Christ’s church”, and carries the expectation that these ‘future shepherds’ “join the church, having signed our Statement of Faith and Church Covenant”.
So the deeming of ‘future shepherds’ in training carries no implication regarding their affirmation of their ‘sense of call’?
“Dever feels if he waits until a child is out from under the authority of his parents he can better judge if the individual is truly a Christian.”
The thing that kept leaping to mind on this of waiting until not being under parental authority was that the earthly authority in waiting (and a prime interpreter of the heavenly authority for their charges) would then be nobody else but him and his deputy diaspora.
https://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/past-interns/
And some other familiar names around here like Jonathan Leeman and Owen Strachan
The need for control of these 9Marks churches/pastors continues to astound me. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to institute a ‘waiting period’ in between a profession of faith & baptism. NOWHERE! It is not the pastor’s job to judge anyone’s heart. If the person made a profession of faith, then baptize them and leave the rest up to God. What Dever is doing here is a form of pride, control & protection of the reputation of the local church. It’s just not scriptural. It’s actually harmful, and as Todd has proven in this post, not effective.
The impression I get here is that there is an underbelly of sin, morally decrepit behavior, enabling of abuse & excessive control at CHBC. Dever knows more t hat he will ever admit to. Poisonous & toxic church.
These passages are a deliberate distortion of the history and role of baptism throughout the history of Christianity.
“…the practice of baptizing pre-teenage children is of recent development (largely early 20th century) and of limited geography (largely limited to the United States, and places where American evangelicals have exercised great influence).”
Ridiculous. I was baptized as an infant and raised from birth in a Christian family. This is the practice of believing families in many traditions: Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican, and others. Many of these traditions have something called confirmation. THAT is the statement of belief.
“…children who went on to give no evidence of ever having been savingly converted, and what damage was done to them…”
Again ridiculous. Infants have not had time to live a life of wantonness and develop a testimony. If a baby is raised as a Christian in a Christian family, the idea of conversion is nonsense.
“I simply lack the authority to admit someone to the Lord’s Table who has not been baptized.”
Then why call it the Lord’s Table?
Bingo!
Bingo!
Here’s one for you- back when we were still attending church, the PCA church we were going to refused to baptize my husband (an adult convert) unless he became a member of the church!!!
Let’s be honest about the REAL reason they do this–they can’t make someone under 18 sign a contract (covenant). Because they view covenants as legal contracts, there’s no point in making a minor “join” the church until they are legally able to sign the covenant and pledge their life and decisions (illegally) to the church.
Should someone tell Dever that John Calvin (pbuh) vigorously defended infant baptism in his Institutes?
https://www.reformedtheology.ca/baptism.html
ishy,
They probably found that in the book of revelations… with a small “r.” 😉
Good point. I had not thought of that.
That sounds crazy. I wonder if that is the case with all PCA churches?
Friend,
I just looked it up. The first absolute mention of Paedobaptism is generally credited to Ireaneas around 180 AD…
His statement isn’t just a distortion of Church history – it is a blatant lie. The Baptism of infants (pre-teenage children) has been around since long before the 20th century – either this pastor didn’t know that – in which case he is woefully un-informed concerning one of only two sacraments that basically the whole church agrees on (Baptism in general – not necessarily infant), or he is intentionally lying. There is absolutely no excuse for any pastor to make this statement.
BINGO!
These guys (the whole rogues gallery) have the Bible comin’ outta’ their ears and out the wazoo, how can they not be ‘scriptural’?
Ken F (aka Tweed),
The church I attended as a teen had Calvinist leanings. One time an usher asked the associate pastor if the ushers could start wearing white carnations on Sundays when infants were baptized.
Pastor: “What would the white carnation represent?”
Usher: “The purity of the infant.”
Pastor: “And what is the purpose of baptism?”
Usher: “The remission of sins.”
Pastor: “How about wearing black carnations? They use those a lot at funeral homes.”
Most young adults are yearning to spread their wings, and these men think they want to fly head first into the nest.
Well, we can’t have dumb sheep wandering around unshepherded, even if they are older than the pastor and elders!
Church motto could be “We’re not happy ’till you’re not happy.”
Intentionally lying – he is not poorly educated. All the big names in the reformation defended infant baptism. It was the radical reformers (Anabaptists) who opposed it. I guess he assumes he has dumbed down his sheep so much that they won’t fact-check him.
“MAN SEES A CUTE LITTLE BABY — GOD SEES AN UTTERLY DEPRAVED SINNER!!!!!”
— some radio preacher I heard in the Seventies who yelled every word
Ken F (aka Tweed),
Or maybe just “understand your sacrament.” The language is close to that of an exorcism.
I do prefer baptisms that emphasize love, and welcome the baby. At our church,* the slightly older children are invited to say how they will help the baby. “I’ll be her friend,” “I’ll hold his hand,” “I’ll help them if they get lost,” etc. That’s not a formal part of the ritual, but it helps to reinforce the idea that the family and congregation together are committing to raise the baby in a Christian environment.
*In the Before Times. I don’t know when baptisms will resume.
Meredithwiggle,
Interesting. I was baptized as an infant, but was never confirmed because I was unchurched as a child. As an adult, I underwent a believer’s baptism at a non denominational church without having to become a member. Anyone who wants to be baptized can just show up during baptism services. I hope to become a member as soon as this pandemic stuff passes but no pressure. Very unique.
Or as Voddie Baucham says, “Vipers in diapers.”
Baptism is for remission of sins. If you don’t hold that humans come into the world in need of salvation then baptism is an empty rite. Some practice infant baptism, in which case the child joins if and when he exercises faith. It may never happen or happen when he’s 72.
Baptist churches only baptize upon profession of faith. Whenever that happens the person will be baptized in most churches, except 9 Marks baptist ones. I can’t judge Dever’s heart. It may be a holier than thou thing. But it’s sure not foolproof.
9Mark Dever has a Cambridge PhD. in Church History, yet he puts out this whopper about it being a:
“recent development (largely early 20th century) and of limited geography (largely limited to the United States, and places where American evangelicals have exercised great influence)” —ruling on the baptism of minors by CHBC Elders
In reality, the scheme that’s been cooked up by the 9Marksists is reminiscent of Soviet-era bans on baptizing young people that that registered Baptist churches acceded to.
Rebuke from a pre “20th Century” Baptist (also non-American):
“Let the child avow its faith in Christ and, if you have not confessed Him in Baptism, yourself, stand rebuked that a child is ready to obey its Lord while you are not!” —Charles Spurgeon
“I will say broadly that I have more confidence in the spiritual life of the children that I have received into this church than I have in the spiritual condition of the adults thus received.” —Charles Spurgeon
“to convert children as children, and to regard them as being as much believers as their seniors…To this…I cling with all my heart.” —Charles Spurgeon
I was baptized as an infant, then in college decided I wanted to be baptized as a knowing believer (that church only baptized believers, but it was unusual in that it accepted any baptism for people to become members). I was not pressured at all to do so.
My Mom was upset and asked me to talk to the Minister of our home church (Lutheran), who implied that I was trying to “earn” my salvation, and how many times would it take? I listened politely, then went on with the plan.
I did the same thing, and I was also raised Lutheran. I still believe in an ordinance of believer’s baptism, but I think the only church membership it is connected to is the universal church, not a local church. But because I don’t believe it is a sacrament, I also don’t believe it matters a whole lot, and I would never require it personally for local church membership.
Dever is all about control and baptism is just another way he exerts control over members.
I should clarify, that by “it” I mean that I don’t believe it matters a lot how old someone is when they are baptized.
Joining is different from baptism or confirmation, though. To me, joining is a human act of adding one’s name to membership rolls. I have always belonged to a church, but only ever deliberately joined a church as an adult.
Our offspring have never joined, being accepted members since birth.
Friend,
Good point
Jerome,
Yikes! I love it.
Great article, explains a lot to those of us who are not part of the Baptist tradition in any way.
I was raised Anglican so was baptized as an infant. The idea as I understand it is to welcome the infant into the community – the emphasis is on the parents guiding the child.
When I attended a Pentecostal church, they have infant dedication but baptism is a declaration of faith generally done when the person is older and able to decide to follow Jesus – my wife was 14 when she was baptized. That church did not consider me baptized (and I never did go for the adult as I never embraced Pentecostalism).
But this article brings up a different agenda to how baptism is managed.
Most of the emphasis is on “authority”. The mindset is you must be under someone else’s authority with a line all the way up to God. A child is under the authority of the parents. The parents under the authority of the pastor or whatever.
But the clincher is that a minor cannot sign a legal document – which is what the church membership covenant is. In essence, the child is not the pastors responsibility, it’s the parent’s. If the child grows up as not one of the elect then they won’t sign the document and the pastor has no responsibility to their version of God.
To get the child under proper control they have to be of legal age so they can legally sign the contract to be a member. Baptism is thus the means to that end – the carrot so to speak – so they want to make sure that the baptism is as close to the signing of the contract as possible. Otherwise they baptize them at age 10, it may be more difficult to get them to sign the contract 8 years later or they may sign up with another church.
But this affects the mindset in a fundamental (lol joke intended) way. A perpetrator who signed the contract is the pastor’s responsibility under “god”, the victim as a minor is not.
And women? Well we know they don’t count at all…
In the Anglican tradition, that’s the confirmation ceremony. It’s as important as the baptism and you become a full member of the denomination (no contract though!) I disagree that infant baptism is an empty rite, it’s important to the parents of the child. To each their own.
One other thing with the article. It’s a bit of a misnomer to say you “convert” to atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief. I know Richard Dawkins bangs the drum about calling atheists “Brights” or “free thinkers” but when you leave your faith you don’t convert, you de-convert.
Unless you switch faiths, like converting to Islam or Judaism or Hindu or whatever..
Todd Wilhelm,
I don’t think so. It sounds really odd to make someone a member before baptism. I’ve seen people in PCA churches baptized and join the church in the same service or people baptized in one service and then join the church in a later service. I’ve never seen someone join before being baptized.
Not just Anglican tradition, but found all through the Western Rite Liturgical tradition. (I’m not familiar with the Eastern Rite, but given West and East were the same church for the first millennium, it’s very likely. Which would make it the tradition for any infant-baptizing church.)
Dawkins is a Fundamentalist personality.
Both terms are Fundy-like putdowns of The Other.
It can also be very important to the child. I loved hearing my grandmother tell me about my baptism. Photos of our offspring after baptism are important to them. For children, watching other baptisms deepens the experience of the faith.
As a tiny child, at bedtime, one of our offspring used to reach up, trace a cross on my forehead, and say, “You are marked as Christ’s own forever.”
“The Great Chain of Being”.
AKA “Boots stamping on faces all the way down, by Divine Right.”
With God at the apex of the pyramid, with the Biggest Boot.
How is this not the worship of raw naked POWER?
It’s a rite-of-passage ritual commemorating Birth. (Of which “Infant Dedication” is a crippled copy.)
Just as Confirmation is a coming-of-age ritual (like a Bar Mitzvah).
i.e. Pastor is Off the Hook.
“Sign this, please. It absolves me from all blame.”
— Lucy Van Pelt, Peanuts, Fifties/Sixties vintage strip
Another who has, unlike Anthony Moore, been removed from the roster of Dever’s interns published at the church’s website:
From the same intern class as Owen Strachan…Blake Johnson.
(He’s now known as Father Blake Johnson)
Compare:
pre-expungement intern alumni list:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070923174612/http://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/CC_Content_Page/0,,PTID324006%7CCHID682880,00.html
current intern alumni list:
https://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/past-interns/
If one doesn’t believe a human being has sin, then it’s dishonest to have them baptized. “For the remission of sin”. I find infant baptism very important and not empty at all. Only Baptists would say that. And unbelievers of course.
I love the story of putting the cross on the forehead. Once baptized even as an infant one must renounce it if you don’t believe. As you say, deconvert. So many good comments in this thread!!
Yes, but the baby is not presented as a sinner in infant baptism, at least in my tradition.
The baby is presented by parents and godparents to receive the sacrament of baptism. The adults commit to raise the child in Christian faith and life, through prayers and witness.
Then the parents and godparents—adults—recommit to renounce sin in their own lives, much as is done in weekly prayers of confession and recitations of the Creed.
Then all believers present in the congregation also renew their commitments to guard against sin.
I wanted to point this out, because the belief that babies are sinners and rebels has led to a great deal of child abuse.
My own view is that we are all born into a broken world, but we can build the Kingdom and the Beloved Community.
Dever was twittering snapshots almost daily over the past year of a frathouse?/monastery?/compound? for all the interns, being erected in the church parking lot.
Said it’s “additional housing for interns”:
https://twitter.com/MarkDever/status/1093626407555600384
“5 town houses” which will also accommodate 9Marksist pastors spending their sabbaticals at headquarters:
https://twitter.com/MarkDever/status/1240076543285768193
The entire ethos of CHBC is very controlling and authoritarian. The obsession with authority is not a biblical one.
Sadly this authoritarian church culture is spreading to the UK – among my circles, Capitol Hill BC is held up as a model church.
I get a horrible feeling when I run ad about it.
Only God can judge one’s heart.
The entire ethos of CHBC is very controlling and authoritarian. The obsession with authority is not a biblical one.
Sadly this authoritarian church culture is spreading to the UK – among my circles, Capitol Hill BC is held up as a model church.
I get a horrible feeling when I read about it.
Only God can judge one’s heart.
Jerome,
“pre-expungement intern alumni list:”
++++++++++++
ha…. what a word. i can just see it now.
CALL TO WORSHIP
Leader: “Thou shalt expunge from thy lists with exceedingly great expungement him who is a threat to your reputation”, thus saith the Lord.
People: “His name, oh Lord, have we expunged.”
Indeed, but God left us in charge of the church, and gave us minds and memories to judge the foolish and cruel works of certain self-appointed leaders. We don’t have a duty to remain naive. We have a duty to safeguard.
You’ve outdone yourself today! 🙂
There was this criminal hanging on a cross beside of Jesus who will be at the table at the marriage supper of the Lamb. That criminal wasn’t baptized, so I reckon Dever thinks he is a little to high-brow society to bother attending that supper. Oh, well……
Friend,
why, than you. 🙂
Revenue, as in $$$.
Probably now is the definition of legitimacy in “church”. Everything else is dead weight, to be ghosted.
Ever been ghosted at “church”?
Isn’t that from the Book of Armaments?
Very small rocks? A duck!
Ken F (aka Tweed),
could have sworn i read that in the ESV…
Yes! The church authorities are throwing in our face that we had wrong-footed ourselves all along by imagining that we could hold them to objective truth (attested by reliable traditional interpretations) about “their” god. And I’m thinking of a denomination who won’t have heard of Capitol Hill!
Exactly. One is baptised ‘in’ (i.e ‘at’) a church not INTO it as an institution and that is where Dever is in devious error. I love the Spurgeon quotes. Dever is a pharisee not giving anyone the boot-stamp of approval till he has deformed them. He is stringing them along and rationing all spiritual benefit until it suits him (and they are past benefitting). He feels out-competed by anyone with wellbeing. I’ve seen it done in a different kind of church from his, but too similar. The spontaneous thing he speaks about is an easy target, a false dichotomy.
I don’t see how it is possible to lack belief. Isn’t Atheism a positive belief that there is no God? Even the agnostic has a positive belief that the existence of God cannot be known. I am having a hard time trying to understand how a person can lack belief.
I had to read that twice…
Exactly!
And shockingly, there are many today who have no idea why my answer to you is correct.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
“And shockingly, there are many today who have no idea why my answer to you is correct.”
probably the same people who have never heard of Journey or Rush.
(well, they probably think they’re churches)
Yes. I was going to go here as well. Baptism is an outward sign of what has already taken place within the believer. It is not salvation itself. Jesus is our salvation.
Jack,
All this under authority sounds like they are turning into Roman Catholics!
So very true elastigirl.
“In a tree by the brook
There’s a songbird who sings
Sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven…”
Baptism: I was not baptized as an infant, but cleaned the UMC church with my mom when I was a toddler. She told stories of the pastor there that my great grandmother liked such as his saying, “you can drown some people and they still won’t change” (the pastor’s statement about immersion)
Later we attended a CoC and there was a cluster of kids my age there. Much later I found out that my great grandparents on my mom’s side had helped start the CoC community in that area.
A friend from that era of my life (not CoC related) told me as an adult that she and her mother baptized each other in one of their horse tanks. I thought that was impressive.
Here’s some irony:
For all the bad-mouthing done by fundagelicals toward the Catholic Church, modern day Catholicism has a better track record of celebrating what it means to be human, by way of human rights advocacy, and human flourishing in general.
What I was thinking was in terms of any sort of religious organization. Atheism or even agnosticism are not the same as the different streams of Christianity. Sure you can have “religion” without God although the state or a cult of personality replaces the deity.
But when you don’t subscribe to any faith (and I’m not talking about dones who still are Christian) you may believe things (like sasquatch) but not have specific “beliefs”. It’s like saying “you don’t believe in a God but you kind of do”. Not all humans need a supernatural entity in their life.
In my experience, no Catholic Church had anyone sign a contract but there have been some parallels insofar as unquestioning loyalty at the expense of abuse victims.
Muff Potter,
Unfortunately nobody can claim innocence. I’ve been to places where the RC Church has been involved assisting insurgents when it suits them. Often when the government tried to implement family planning. Very active in politics similar to the Christian blocks in us politics.
Now that’s the church as an organization not individual congregations, just like in the many streams of Protestantism.
And yet I stated that infant baptism was important and I am an…never mind. As you were… I’ll just be over here, with the Baptists
In UK there was a belief that if a baby died before being baptised he/she would go to hell. Following on from this, if circumstances demanded a baptism could be conducted by anyone (the example we were given at school was a nurse), the tests of validity being intent, water and the words “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. In fiction you can find this in Thomas Hardy’s ‘Tess of the d’Urbervilles’ http://www.bookrags.com/notes/tess/part14.html#gsc.tab=0
His way of doing church doesn’t line up at all with Christian orthodoxy, but it does up and down with cult strategy. This is exactly how cults work…
Keeping professing children away from baptism is just another evidence of the control issues at 9marks churches. In Matthew 19:14, parents were bringing their children to Jesus, and the disciples rebuked the parents. Jesus said, “Let the children alone and do not hinder them from coming to me…”
9marks false teaching on “the keys” takes away the authority of the believing parent and their believing child, and hands it to authoritarian elders who “know better.”
It seems to me that Dever requires these children to “earn their salvation” before being allowed to be baptized and “join” the “church.” These false shepherds in effect usurp Jesus, demanding that the children come to them…
Perhaps Dever can co-opt a slogan from the U.S. Marines… “the few, the proud, the 9marxist.”
CHBC parents should just go ahead and baptize their own children and be done with it. They don’t because they have been indoctrinated by these false authority figures.
Several years ago I attended a 9marks conference at SEBTS in Wake Forest, NC. Dever asked everyone attending when they became Christians. The VAST majority claimed before the age of 18. Personally, I became a Christian at age 34. Out of the 1000 or so attending, I think I was the third or fourth oldest convert. I didn’t know Dever’s agenda for asking the question. Now I do. Way too many false converts that need to have their passport stamped by Mark.
NW Hiker,
Good comment.
Anna Keith leftt a great comment on Twitter. She said that this was Dever’s form of Rumspringa.
I agree. Dever holds to firm authority and church discpline.
Todd I really respect your work. I was really impressed by your stand against the abuse you took over the stand you took against selling of C.J. Mahaney’s books. I am no fan of Dever, Lehman, Strachan, etc.
What I see here and in many of these problems from Big EVA reformed types was an over correction. No? The church had gotten into such a sad state. Baptizing anyone who made a profession of faith. Keeping members on the roles for decades though the “member” hadn’t been in that church for those decades. Very sad.
Things needed to change. When Dever set up his rules I assume he was trying to institutionalize against what was a very gross abuse of baptism. I was not raised as a Baptist. I was raised RC. When the Lord saved me and as I became convicted of Baptist understanding of believer baptism and local church independence, it appeared to me something had to change in the way Southern Baptist and Baptist in general dealt with the way they handle baptism. I saw Dever’s church rule on not baptizing child members as an attempt to put some check in place on this abuse. I don’t know if you are a baptist now or not. If you are what would you do? I see it as a sincere attempt to check a problem of severe abuse of baptism. I think we all understand that the best of efforts will never keep some people from false professions and what will appear to be a walking away from the faith. Did Dever ever claim he would be able to root out all false professions? I thank you for the exposure of Moore. But it doesn’t surprise me that someone would end up going through Dever’s internship and latter seeing that he was living a double life. Yes I think that many Big EVA institutions are over eager to find minorities to fill positions to promote their diversity public relations. That seems to be a separate issue to me. I would really like you to address this more.
“Feed on Christ or you will feed on Christ’s sheep.”
I was once the entree at Cornerstone Community Church in Atascadero, California, with much due owed to Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman and their excellently eisegesed (yeah, I meant that) required reading, I mean, purchasing. I did make every attempt to make both Dever and Leeman (and the other $$$ genius Ken Sande) aware of how their books had been used to advance some truly perverse and harmful deception within the church, but I heard not one word from anyone. A couple of months ago I even left a few messages for Leeman on Twitter thinking he would surely see them and he probably did, but I assume they were deleted or ignored as they might have disgraced the name of Jesus (damn! I keep doing that! I should just stop talking…)
My question: If wise man Dever could miss the mark on hiring a sexual predator, who’s to hold him to spiritual, legal and financial accountability? Yoohoo, Ken Sande?
If I understand Catholic doctrine correctly, that is because you are not technically a member of a Roman Catholic church. The Church is the magesterium. You go to participate with the “Church”. You are not the “Church”.
dee,
That’s incredibly insightful. Give them time in the world to prove whether they really want to be a Christian.
The question for Dever is how much time does one need? This kind of reminds me in the early church where many advocated delaying baptism until one was on their baptism. It was the only way to be really sure.
Testimony of leading Baptists of centuries past that refutes Dever’s lies about them:
https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/high-doctrine-and-broad-doctrine
“Do not think that you have to wait until you are grown up before you may come to Jesus. We have baptized quite a number of boys and girls of ten, eleven, and twelve. I spoke the other day with a little boy nine years of age; and I tell you that he knew more about Christ than ever so many grey-headed men do”
https://www.spurgeongems.org/vols7-9/chs381.pdf
“We do not contend for the baptism of adults; we contend for the baptism of believers. Show us a child however young, who believes in Christ, and we gladly accept him”
https://benjaminkeachjournal.com/keachs-publications/
Benjamin Keach, A Counter Antidote; or an Answer to Shute’s Antidote to Prevent the Prevalency of Anabaptism…Wherein the Baptism of Believers is Evinced to Be God’s Ordinance (London, 1694)
p. 16
“little children who do believe in Christ, have an indubitable right to Baptism and to the Lord’s Supper also as soon as they are Baptised”
Contrast that with 9Mark Dever & Co.:
“As they assume adult responsibilities (sometime in late high school with driving, employment, non-Christian friends, voting, legality of marriage), then part of this, we would think, would be to declare publicly their allegiance to Christ by baptism….the practice of baptizing pre-teenage children is of recent development (largely early 20th century) and of limited geography (largely limited to the United States, and places where American evangelicals have exercised great influence).”
I think Dever has gone beyond what people generally see as Catholicism’s Authoritarianism. I don’t know of Catholic Churches that require signed covenants, or don’t let people leave their church, or chase them down to other churches, or decide for parents when their child should or shouldn’t do something.
The Catholic Church seems more Authoritarian about its doctrine (as many religions are) than with its congregations (people).
I’d rather not be baptized if it meant being baptized by the likes of Mark Dever.
Yeah, that’s a radical statement to make, but you know, I wonder if a person being baptized by Dever is being baptized into the family of God or into Mark Dever’s little cult?
And yeah, I suppose if we applied Steve Hassan’s BITE Model, we’d find out that Dever’s Capitol Hill Baptist Church is a cult.
My own personal opinion. Your Mileage May Vary.
*drily* I had someone at a church I was protesting tell me that yes, fertilized human ova that failed to implant in the uterine wall (which happens a lot more than one might think) were judged by God, some to glory, some to damnation. *blink*
Oh yeah, this was in front of a church that teaches from the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.
LOL. In most communions that do allow infant baptism, the baby baptizand usually wears a white christening gown — to signify his or her purity *after* baptism. This pastor seems to be saying that baptism does NOT in fact remit Original Sin. Say what?
Bridget,
Good points all Bridget.
The authoritarianism of the Holy See in Rome is not the same thing as the totalitarianism found in fundagelical Protestantism.
Adding to mix on discussion baptism: some do see it as for remission of sins, but others see it as a public confession of faith. I spent literally decades in the SBC and never heard the term “original sin” as in born guilty. Now, indeed, we were taught everyone is born with a sin nature and when they are old enough to choose between the right and the wrong everyone will sin. But babies were not baptized for two reasons: 1. They were not old enough to exercise saving faith. 2. They were not born guilty, but born in innocence and only when old enough to sin and repent, thus needing faith in Christ, would they need to make that public commitment. Baptists do NOT see baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments. All that is required for salvation is saving faith in Christ for forgiveness of your sins.
All the rest: church membership, the ordinances, etc are just the frosting on the cake.
I am finding this covid19 isolating (health and age mean strong isolation for us) is wonderfully washing away decades of Churchianity. Cannot imagine ever again giving up the gospel for man made rites and rules!
Jack,
Ken F (aka Tweed): “…having a hard time trying to understand how a person can lack belief.”
Jack: “…It’s like saying “you don’t believe in a God but you kind of do”. Not all humans need a supernatural entity in their life.”
++++++++++++
belief… to me it connotes CONVICTION!
perhaps lack of belief is like lack of conviction.
disinterest.
things a person has ‘lack of belief in’ are perhaps things they simply don’t think about much, if at all, and have next to zero investment in (whether emotional, intellectual, relational, financial, philosophical…)
it’s not that they firmly disbelieve, but rather they just don’t really care all that much.
because it’s not worth the time and energy. (whatever it is)
because it’s confusing, it’s unhelpful, it goes against one’s personal integrity, it’s dumb, it’s inconsequential, it’s a nuissance, a waste of time,…
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,
“I’d rather not be baptized if it meant being baptized by the likes of Mark Dever.”
+++++++++
really, why can’t someone baptize themself?
who needs to surrender one’s physical body to some man or men doing this dunking thing, submerging you completely under water, face & all? talk about violatingly invasive…
——–
.
.
i’m back now…
baptism – it’s a very meaningful metaphor. a symbol.
on one or two occasions i’ve done that communion thing by myself at the kitchen table. it was helpful.
i can see myself at some point baptizing myself on the patio to remind myself of the spiritual reality it symbolizes.
that would be very helpful.
During my time in country (as HUG would say), I’ve heard pastors and Bible teachers harp endlessly on ‘sin nature’, but not once have I ever heard them mention humankind’s divine nature.
Muff Potter,
““In a tree by the brook
There’s a songbird who sings
Sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven…””
+++++++++++
so, i never really paid attention to the lyrics. i was just preoccupied with a very, very long slow dance. (which, if memory serves, could be very good or very bad)
it’s about… futility?
But it is bigger than that. It is keeping professing underage Christians from the communion table. My dad was really frustrated with our church growing up because they wouldn’t let me join prior to junior high. My parents were very frustrated that I wasn’t allowed to take communion when they were certain that they clearly saw the Holy Spirit at work in my life. It wasn’t their imagination either.
Nah, not futility. I just think it’s an enduring exhibition of two super talents (Jimmy Page and Robert Plant), and all the good things art stands for.
I was three – and I do not remember it. According to my parents and others who knew me as a toddler, there was a pretty dramatic, instantaneous change of behavior. My parents firmly believe what they witnessed. I am the only one of their children that they claim this about. All I know is that I do not remember a time when that Still Small Voice wasn’t there softening my heart. And no amount of gate-keeping or questioning by others will convince me otherwise. And I dealt with tons of it. From my Christian Camp counselors, friends and pastors – none of them wanted to believe that I could possibly have been saved before my memory. And it confused the dickens out of me because they clearly taught double predestination, and none of them could point to anything in the Bible or anywhere else that taught a “minimum age of salvific faith” doctrine.
For the same reason I find discussions of the salvation of Infants who die, baffling. And I find the questioning of the mentally challenged’s ability to be saved horrifying. God is perfectly capable of understanding the mental acuity of the individual He created and showing enough of Himself to them for them to be saved – at any age or IQ. To doubt the possibility of their salvation is to doubt God’s power to save.
Thanks, Jerome. I appreciate your research!
I think you meant “on their deathbed.” Thanks.
Janet,
It seems to me that when you obtain celebrity status you are above reproach. Although a guy like Mark Dever would likely claim his fellow elders hold him accountable, in my experience, it does not happen. You may recall I was a member of John Folmar’s church in Dubai. Folmar worked as an assistant pastor for Mark Dever prior to Dubai and his church is modeled after Dever’s CHBC. Folmar surrounds himself with “yes-men” as elders. The few who somehow got through the elder screening process and actually had a backbone didn’t last long. I imagine Dever’s fellow elders are much the same, but I only base that on the relationship I observe between Dever and Leeman.
And yes, for as much as these guys stress exegesis in their preaching, they seem to practice eisegesis when it comes to their views on church membership and baptism.
Thanks for the compliments, Ken. I agree with your assessment that Dever was attempting to combat what was apparently a huge number of “false conversions” he saw in Southern Baptist churches and I also agree with your statement that he over-corrected. It would seem his cure is worse than the disease.
What would I do? I refer to the comment by Jerome:
Testimony of leading Baptists of centuries past that refutes Dever’s lies about them:
https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/high-doctrine-and-broad-doctrine
“Do not think that you have to wait until you are grown up before you may come to Jesus. We have baptized quite a number of boys and girls of ten, eleven, and twelve. I spoke the other day with a little boy nine years of age; and I tell you that he knew more about Christ than ever so many grey-headed men do”
https://www.spurgeongems.org/vols7-9/chs381.pdf
“We do not contend for the baptism of adults; we contend for the baptism of believers. Show us a child however young, who believes in Christ, and we gladly accept him”
https://benjaminkeachjournal.com/keachs-publications/
Benjamin Keach, A Counter Antidote; or an Answer to Shute’s Antidote to Prevent the Prevalency of Anabaptism…Wherein the Baptism of Believers is Evinced to Be God’s Ordinance (London, 1694)
p. 16
“little children who do believe in Christ, have an indubitable right to Baptism and to the Lord’s Supper also as soon as they are Baptised”
I am also not surprised that Dever has had some interns whose views change at some point and they can no longer support 9Marx doctrines. Nor am I surprised that a man masquerading as a Christian was allowed into the intern program and subsequently heavily promoted by Mark Dever. Anthony Moore may not be the only one. I simply say that this is a good example of we humans not being able to judge another’s heart. Dever probably spends as much time with his interns as he does with some of his elders, yet he judged Moore an exemplary Christian. What surprised me was not that Dever quickly removed an intern who is now an atheist from the “Past Interns” list, but the fact that he has not removed a man with a very serious paraphilia problem.
Since Matt Chandler and Mark Dever are friends and speak at many of the same conferences, I would guess that Dever knew the reason Moore was fired from The Village Church back in January 2017. That was 3.5 years ago and Moore remains on the list!
Todd Wilhelm,
Thanks Todd. Helpful.
I shocked when I first learned that “sin nature” is not in the Bible. After being taught it for so many years I learned it is fiction.
I might just be being difficult, but that to me is an expression of the positive belief that certain things don’t matter. So even if a person does not care about a particular belief, it’s because another belief overrides it. I just dont see any evidence or possibility that a person can be a truly blank slate with respect to belief. We all live by faith in the things we believe. The reason I say we all live by faith is because none of us can know anything with certainty (and we cannot even be sure of this).
Oops, I must retract the “Father” bit, I mixed up the disappeared intern with an Anglican priest with the same name.
Something I found interesting is the Eastern Orthodox won’t give an answer for how many sacraments there are because they say everything we do by faith is sacred. Perhaps the Western tradition has made too much of a distinction about what is sacred and what is not.
By the same logic, that pastor should require all brides to wear black dresses. Sick.
That’s because their god can only be fully glorified if people are eternally punished. The more punishment the more glory. That god does not ultimately defeat evil. And in fact, that god’s glory requires eternal evil. Hmmmm…
Once again, God just being God, beyond human comprehension. Nothing beyond reality (like the “name it, claim it” stuff & such), just beyond our comprehension).
Increasingly as it resembles a “movement” these are either spoken or tacit. One has to snap to what they say or one is seen as despicable (with some local pastors, whose opinion doesn’t matter, disagreeing)
We (whether continuing theists or not) see it as converting and “those who know better” see it as de-converting
I believe that we’re party to both natures and endowed with free will to cultivate the one we choose.
Here’s an old Native American proverb that illustrates the point well I think:
One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people.
He said, “My son, the battle is between two “wolves” inside us all.
One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.
The other is good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.”
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: “Which wolf wins?”
The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one you feed.”
Sorry but I’m a little lost here. I don’t know better but some christians assume there is a god shaped hole everyone must fill. I don’t know better than anyone else on this forum. There are many roads to the truth.
– or, in the case of an elite for dunces which I heard of through a friend of a friend a long time ago, demanded of adults to have “proceeded” for an inordinate time before being declared by special “animators” (not ordinary church seniors) to have “completed” and to be “placed inside” which seemed to mean no more than be prepared to be used (by the “animators”) as a kind of corkscrews against whoever.
This model has of course existed under several denominations for hundreds of years but seems to be more on the rise during about the last 75, each denomination rushing to copy the other, not caring whether they lose responsible control of the phenomenon or not.
Jack,
I was only adding to the point about the many usages of “converting” or “not converting”. We see our own moves (seeing ourselves as gainers) in a better light than those we are taking distance from (who portray themselves as losers) see them in. This applies whether one joins a Harris-Dawkins style cult with all its illumination, or simply ditches denominational baggage.
I know a man who left a church because of things that didn’t add up, and found the purpose in life is to care for others without abandoning his own self-respect, and thus would appear to come in the middle of the latter scale, as would people who “sort of” believe in sasquatch etc.
The viewpoint as to whether we are “converting” to our own relief, or “deconverting” as alleged by others, is just part of it. This isn’t the only perspective: in the case of the Capitol Hill intern turned atheist (of whatever kind), this is a stepping stone to him making a more genuine conversion later, probably.
Declaring oneself atheist is to my observation a safer way of throwing off pursuers with their “claims on one”, than telling them one wants to become less of a Presbyterian or less of a Baptist or a different kind of Calvinist.
In other words not only the nominal substance, but perspectives on the dynamic, can have many meanings.
May, the devastation in our hearts when yet another denomination which we had esteemed to a degree, succumbs to tyranny. God gave us our senses, to tell it how it is. There is now a large category of traumatised christians – some not realising it yet, in a walking coma.
I used to believe the same until I read “Tired of Trying to Measure Up” by Jeff Vanvonderen (co-author of “The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse”). It was the first time I saw that the Bible does not make any reference at all to us having a sin/sinful nature. Instead, the Bible emphasizes living according to the Spirit rather than according to the flesh. The NIV Bible translates sarx (flesh) as sinful nature. That creates theological problems because Jesus came in the sarx, suffered in the sarx, and told us we must eat his sarx. Paul wrote that the mind set on the sarx is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace (Rom 8:6). Vanvonderen uses that Native American proverb as an example of wrongly setting the mind on the flesh, which results on all kinds of problems such as legalism, shame, call-out culture, etc. He made the point that Jesus lived in the sarx but not according to it, and that by his life, death, and resurrection we can do the same.
Ken, a perceptive take on what ought to be part of the best of their doctrines. A mistake is then sadly made, that current and recent hierarchy members are “more” Church than the rest. Exactly the same is done in myriad evangelical groups I’ve known.
One is “the Us” if a boss, or “creeps to the Us”, but independent individuals aren’t allowed to be co-participants, no matter how well informed or good hearted. In most cases what lies behind the scenario is a vague system of revenge taking by neurotic pressures; in a few cases crimes.
– nominalising the lengthy and badly amplified rock concert (which in fact disorients everybody forever afterwards) as “anointed” and “not to be touched”
My take is this is a fake counter-antidote, a cherry picked false dichotomy (the issue we are citing is indeed conveniently to hand); the man is putting on a “studiedly casual” (TM) expression now familiar to me; and it is obviously their policy to put their “message” across mainly by video so that you can’t for example cough just to prove to yourself that you’ve got an objective existence.
Ken F: at least the original NIV used the term sin nature. That was, I was told at least by some translator folks, to differentiate the idea that we all just naturally grow up and sin from the concept of being born guilty for the sin of Adam.
After years of reading about church abuse and coming to terms with all that happened to me, I just can’t take original sin or sin nature seriously as anything except a threat that You’d Better Go To This Church Or Else.
Yes, there is sin. But for everyone who truly does evil, there are dozens or hundreds of others who cry themselves to sleep for kissing before marriage, or wanting an education, or not submitting enough.
Instead of focusing sooooooo hard on individual sin, why not think about the broken and imperfect world? That approach encompasses not only human wrongs across all belief systems (and none), but also the results of natural disasters. It is easier to see and address needs when everything is not Your Fault because of Adam and Eve.
His book explains it better than I do. In a nutshell, to say we have a sin/sinful nature makes it sound like something we have that can be managed somehow. But the real problem is much worse – we are born spiritually dead and can only live both in the flesh and according to the flesh. If anything, we were born with a death nature (mortality). Apart from Jesus, we can only live according to the flesh, which results in all kinds of dysfunctional behavior, including the trying harder / giving up cycle. Or putting it another way, relying on positive flesh to defeat negative flesh. But it all results in death. Dead people need life, and this is what God provides through grace.
I found out many years later that this view is very similar to the Eastern Orthodox view. Here is a short example:
http://stgeorgegreenville.org/our-faith/catechism/the-ofall/original-sin
So everyone else is dysfunctional, except Christians? I hope that’s not what you are saying.
No, that is not what I am saying. I recommend you read the book because he says it better than I do.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
Thank you, Ken.
This has a formal name:
The Heresy of Clericalism.
In the Anglican churches I’ve attended, you have to be baptized before you can take communion. The explanation I was given is that it’s reminiscent of how in the Old Testament, Jewish men had to be circumcised before they could eat the Passover. Since Paul makes analogies between baptism and circumcision in the New Testament, this makes a lot of sense to me (and is the main reason I believe in infant baptism). I wouldn’t get bent out of shape if someone took communion without being baptized, though.
Iirc the Anabaptist faith tradition (or some parts) did historically baptize members after the age of majority. Some Amish churches baptize adults only, for example.
But Dever’s explanation sounds like a cop out—like he’s looking for a loophole where he won’t be held accountable for his role in shepherding a certain demographic of the congregation. That attitude in itself is concerning to me. Especially when that leads to denying people of legal voting age the chance to participate in communion and church membership (plenty of 18 year olds are still under their parents’ household). Excluding believers from participating in the body of Christ to protect yourself from personal liability doesn’t sound like Jesus’s heart to me (though I could be misinterpreting Dever’s motives).