Shameless of me, I know. Using Piper’s name up there to catch your eye. Then that annoying question—it’s got let-me-tell-you-how-to-run-your-church, nobody’s-got-it-right-but-me, I-have-all-the-answers written all over it. Seriously, though, this post has nothing to do with Piper. It was honestly just a dirty marketing ploy to get you mad so you would read this post. If you’ve been following the comments on the last post you’ll see that some of us are leaning towards going with credo-baptism only for our churches. Others, while still holding to credo, will happily admit paedobaptists into our membership. This post is about that second group. Should we, if we adopt Piper’s position, drop the term “Baptist” from our churches?
First of all, this isn’t just about labels. Well, it is, but it’s about much more than labels. In contrast, the fundamentalism issue was all about labels. A while ago fundamentalists from different stripes tossed around the idea of getting rid of the label “fundamentalism” since it is one of the most offensive terms in the English language. Basically, the thinking was, if I have to spend ten minutes explaining what I DON’T mean by a term, maybe I need a different term. I remember being at BJU when Bob Jones III declared from the chapel pulpit that they were going to drop the term in favor of a new one—and I wish I could remember what that new term was. Either way, it didn’t go over.
The “Baptist” label is a different story. One of the unfortunate blemishes on the historical record of the Reformation is the way Protestants at times treated fellow Protestants. Among those who came out of the bondage of the Roman church were those whose conviction about Baptism is our conviction—they believed baptism should be administered after the person professes his or her faith. The majority of the Protestants, however, remained paedobaptists, even though their understanding of the matter changed when they parted with Rome. These early Baptists suffered persecution, torture, and death at the hands of their Protestant “brothers.” They did exactly what we would hope to do if we were in their situation—after prayerfully considering Scripture, exclaiming “Hier steh ich; ich kann nicht anders; Gott helfe mir!” and then face martyrdom.
We are the heirs of these Baptists. I’m not necessarily saying they were right just because they died for what they believed. I am not even saying that their martyrdom should be taken into account in evaluating one’s own decision in this matter. Scripture should be the deciding factor, not what others believed Scripture to teach. I would not even go so far as to say that we somehow “owe” it to them to insist on believers baptism for all of our church members. All I am saying is that they died solely because of the label “Baptist.” If we end up taking an inclusive position on church membership, should we out of deference towards our brothers in Christ who were accused of being “Baptists” and were martyred because their conscience would not let them do otherwise, gladly forfeit that label that cost them their lives?
