Is The Baptist Church A Cult?

The short answer is, No. Of course the Baptist Church is not a cult. A more complete answer would start with another question, Why would you even ask such a ridiculous question?

In the 60s and 70s new and foreign spiritual and religious ideas and practices began to gain a foothold in the West. “Moonies,” Hare Krishnas, and others. They were strange, perplexing, and sometimes just plain annoying. The devotion of their new found followers, more often than not, previously normal, middle class and educated people, mystified many. Then, in 1978, one group, the People’s Temple, committed mass suicide in their compound in Guyana. Over nine hundred people drank cyanide laced Kool Aid at the command of their leader, Jim Jones. Time magazine’s headline was “Cult of Death.” The word cult may well have a long and varied history, but since then its popular usage has been pejorative. To label a group a cult is to warn others against associating with it.

In recent years it has become to habit of some within the Evangelical movement to label anyone who is different as a cult. One site I visited listed everything from other religions (Buddhism, Hinduism) to handwriting analysis and the martial arts as cults. Even some aspects of Judaism. Typically, a cult has become defined as any group that veers from traditional doctrinal beliefs. This is a definition that raises two immediate problems. The first is that it is less than honest. When a group is called a cult, it is done knowing the term will raise alarm and distrust amongst those unfamiliar with the group. It is a derogatory term and it is being used as such. The second problem is that there is more than one tradition within Christianity. There are, in fact, a great many traditions and even within each tradition a great deal of variety and interpretations. That doesn’t mean they are all right, that you should accept all doctrinal teachings as equally valid, but it does mean that the practice of denigrating others as cults is essentially to replace apologetics with slander.

As an example of the ridiculousness of all this, I return to the first question, is the Baptist Church a cult? The Baptist Church has long taught that baptism plays no role in our salvation. Instead, it represents an outward sign of an inward act. We are saved once we accept the Lord as our saviour and are baptized out of obedience to His commands. But is this really a traditional Christian doctrinal belief? Let’s look at five Churches. I start with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I realize that many in the Evangelical movement reject much of what these two bodies profess, but they are the oldest Churches, with the oldest traditions. To counter these concerns I also look at three of the oldest Protestant Churches, the first to turn from Rome. What I have done is looked up their statements on baptism. I don’t mean to assert that all of them hold identical beliefs or that there aren’t differences within the groups, but they all agree that there is more to baptism than it simply being an outward sign.

Catholics:

It forgives all sins that may have been committed prior to a person's baptism including original sin and it relieves the punishment for those sins.

Orthodox:

Christian baptism is the mystery of starting anew, of dying to an old way of life and being born again into a new way of life, in Christ. In the Orthodox Church, baptism is "for the remission of sins" (cf. the Nicene Creed) and for entrance into the Church; the person being baptized is cleansed of all sins and is united to Christ; through the waters of baptism he or she is mysteriously crucified and buried with Christ, and is raised with him to newness of life, having "put on" Christ (that is, having been clothed in Christ). The cleansing of sins includes the washing away of the ancestral sin.

Calvinist (Presbyterian):

Baptism signifies:

the faithfulness of God,
the washing away of sin,
rebirth,
putting on the fresh garment of Christ,
being sealed by God's Spirit,
adoption into the covenant family of the Church,
resurrection and illumination in Christ.

Anglican:

From the Thirty-Nine Articles:

XXVII. Of Baptism.

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.

Lutheran:

Holy Baptism is God’s gracious act by which He bestows on the baptized the gifts of forgiveness of sins and adoption into His family.

Again, I am not saying that these Churches hold identical views on baptism, or even that every church within their fellowships holds the same view (at least, in regards to the Protestants), but all of them have traditionally accorded baptism some role in our actual salvation. Unlike the Baptists. If a cult is any group that teaches something other than traditional Christian doctrines, where would that place the Baptists? Let’s look at two responses Baptists may make. The first would be to point out that their position can be dated as far back as the Anabaptist movement of the early Reformation. This is true, but it does raise the fact that there is more than one tradition in Christendom. A perfectly legitimate position for anyone to make, in fact, it’s the one I am making, but it that undermines the argument that anyone who teaching doctrines that differ from those of my tradition is in a cult.

A second response is to turn to scripture. A foundational Christian principle (at least within the Protestant traditions) is sola scriptura: by scripture alone. The Bible is the final authority on doctrine. All others are subject to it. Only teachings that are in the Bible, or can be logically deduced from scripture, are true. Anything that contradicts scripture cannot be accepted as true. What does the Bible say about baptism and salvation?

(I am quoting the ESV.)

1 Peter 3:18-22

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

Just as the ark saved Noah and his family from the flood, God’s judgement on mankind, so baptism now saves us.

Acts 2:38

And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 22:16

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

In the first scripture (2:38) Peter has just preached and the crowd responded by asking how to be saved. He told them to repent and be baptised and that God would fill them with the Holy Ghost. Why were they to be baptised? “For the forgiveness of your sins.” In the second scripture (22:16) Paul is recounting his own conversion. Jesus had stopped him in his tracks and revealed Himself, and calling Paul to preach the gospel, but Paul still had to be baptized and have his sins washed away.

I have known Baptists respond to these scriptures by asserting that we are saved by faith alone. That anything else is ‘works’. That doesn’t really explain how these scriptures could mean anything but that baptism is a part of God’s salvation plan. It’s a teaching, formally called sola fide, goes all the way back to Martin Luther. But what did Luther have to say about baptism?

To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save. No one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, to 'be saved.' To be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil and to enter into the kingdom of Christ and live with him forever.

Obviously he say no contradiction in the ideas the we are saved by faith in Christ redemption alone, and that Jesus requires all His followers to be baptized in order to enter into that redemption. Baptism is not a work of the flesh.

If our doctrines are to be built on scripture alone we must not try to explain away what these three scriptures - 1 Peter 3:18-22, Acts 2:38 and 22:16 - say. Each explicitly link salvation and baptism. To say otherwise is to distort the literal, obvious, plain meaning of the text.

Before moving on I want to talk about two examples of just that kind of behaviour. There are two other scriptures linking salvation to baptism and some responses I have heard could only be asserted by someone desperately wanting to put their preconceptions ahead of what the scriptures say. I point this out because I realize that those who don’t have an interest in this debate may have trouble believing these arguments are put forth in any serious manner and I don’t want you think I am selecting them because they are so obviously weak. People actually make these arguments.

John 3:1-8

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him." Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Most would say that the water and spirit Jesus is talking about is baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Not so, reply many wanting to diminish the role of baptism. According to them Jesus is talking about natural birth. The water is the woman’s water breaking prior to birth and the spirit is the baby’s first breath. If so, is Jesus saying to Nicodemus, ‘Yes, you must enter a second time into your mother’s womb’ or is He saying that all who are born are saved? I’ve never heard a Baptist come right out and teach either position.

And, Mark 16:16:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Its hard to think of a more obvious scriptural teaching than this one: to be saved you have to believe and be baptized. Oh, but the doubters reply, just because those who believe and are baptized will be saved, that doesn’t mean those who believe and aren’t baptized won’t be saved. That’s like arguing we are saved by faith, but not having faith doesn’t mean you aren’t saved! The reason baptism isn’t mentioned in the second half of the sentence because those who don’t believe won’t be baptized, but the meaning of the first half is clear and obvious: those who believe and are baptized will be saved.

The fact that the last two arguments could be made without being met with scorn and derision reflects another aspect of this problem. Not only are there different traditions, but many of them have built up networks of schools, institutions, and media that allow them to operate without interacting with other traditions. They are all in their own little bubbles - the Evangelical bubble, the Catholic bubble, the Mainstream, or Liberal, Protestant bubble - and they can see each other, but the don’t interact in any meaningful way and their preconceptions about the other groups are rarely challenged. Everything they come in contact with reinforces their own views and preconceptions. Some bubbles are bigger than others. The Evangelical bubble dominants much of contemporary Christian culture, certainly pop culture, and it in turn is widely influenced by Baptists. That’s why I chose the Baptist Church as my example. No, the Baptist church is not a cult, but the five churches that I quote in support of the importance of baptism represent four out five of the world’s Christians! That’s right. Most Christians belong to churches that believe baptism serves a role in God’s salvation plan.

When anyone argues that a group is a cult because their teachings don’t reflect traditional Christian doctrines, it is the speaker and not the group we should first be wary of. They lack either a basic knowledge of Church history and the many traditions that exist within Christianity, or the ability to defend their own views in an honest manner, or both. I don’t believe all traditional teachings are equally valid. No one could. Many churches have adopted contradictory views on a variety of issues. To know which are true, however, requires careful, and prayerful, study, so be careful when someone resorts to slander to end discussion. Truth doesn’t reinforce itself with dishonesty.

June 29, 2010

I haven't posted about my one thousand day program in a while, and I don't think I've posted about it on this blog at all. A year and a half ago, on my other blog, I made this post:

What happens on June 29, 2010? Its the thousandth day from now (including today, October 4, 2007). For a while now I have felt a growing dissatisfaction with my spiritual status quo. I don't know what it is exactly -- if I did I'd address it -- so I am giving myself a period of time to figure out what it is and what to do about it. I didn't want it to be a short time -- this is serious -- but I didn't know how long. After some consideration I decided on one thousand days. More than two and a half years. If I can't at least get a handle on it by then, I haven't been trying.

(Yes, I think my calculations were off by a couple of days.)

The time since has not exactly flown by, but while I've waited for the spiritual penny to drop there has been more progress in many areas of my spiritual walk than it often feels like. I have developed the habit of early morning prayer, getting up most mornings and starting my day with a half hour of prayer. I have read my Bible through from cover to cover from the first time in years, and I went on a three day (72 hour) fast, something I've only done once before. That was when I was a new Christian. When you're just starting out, its easy to push yourself to new levels, but over the years you start to settle. It would be nice to believe that you have simply done all the easy levels and that things have slowed because you're working from a 'higher' level, but that's not really true. And its not just me. I've noticed this in others.

There are other things to be happy about, but right now I am enjoying the prospect of shaking off the dross and rekindling things. In my second year in the Lord a lot of things happened to me and I made some decisions that would bear consequences down to the present day. Yesterday I was thinking about today and the next year, and it occurred to me that this could be a new second year. A time to move forward again from the position of a mature Christian and a mature person. I was only a teen back then.

I am still waiting for the spiritual penny to drop, for the big 'Aha!' moment, but right now I am happily looking forward to the next year.

Bible Reading

I finished reading my Bible yesterday. The whole thing, cover to cover. I don't know how many times I've done it, probably because I haven't done it in years. Perhaps a decade. I was using a reading chart designed to take you through in a year, reading a few chapters a day. I did it in fits and starts and took about eighteen months. A knowledge of God and the scriptures is a basic part of any Christian's spiritual foundation and there isn't any better way of gaining it than reading the Bible. I just wish I could be more systematic. I have developed the habit of getting up early and praying most days. I need to develop a similar one for reading my Bible. I don't think its necessary to read from cover to cover, the Bible wasn't written with that in mind, nor do I think its necessary to read it all in a year (or eighteen months, in this case). The Bible isn't supposed to be approached like any other reading project. You need to take the time to aborb it. Still, I using a yearly chart keeps you to a schedule and reading all the through ensures you read everything and aren't concentrating on the parts that interest you most.

The Bible I used was the King James, the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible With Apocrycha (the Penguin paperback edition). I especially liked its formatting, which prints the text as a single column per page. The papers covers, however, did't weather much use and I had to buy a covering for it. This was the first time, in my twenty eight years as a Christian, I read the Apocrypha. I have other Bibles that include it, but this is the first time I've read it. The Apocrypha is a collection of books, or additions to books, that were a part of the Greek translations of the Old Testament that the early Church used, but not a part of the Hebrew Bibles the Jews were using. Whether the Greeks Jews added them, or the other Jews dropped them, or never used them at all, is something we may never know. When Jerome originally translated the Vulgate he wanted to remove them, but the Church said no. When the Reformation happened the Reform churches did remove them, first setting them a part between the Old and New Testaments, and then dropping them all together. The rationale for initially keeping them, even though they weren't considered scripture, was twofold: tradition, they had been a part of the canon for a very long time, and they added to readers' understanding of the world of the New Testament. I've found them interesting enough to include in my next read through, which I am going to start July 1. This time with an English Standard Version (that also includes them). I am going to supplement my readings with William Barclay's New Daily Study Bible commentaries and have already picked up the first two volumes, which cover Matthew.

God Is Love, Part Two

In my last entry on this subject, some time ago, I discussed how the scripture ‘God is love’ (1 John 4:8 and 16) is linked to God’s inherent oneness. In this follow-up I want to discuss how the idea that God is love is linked to His omniscience. God is love because God is omniscient? That may not make sense on the face of it. How about if I rephrase it and say, God is love because He understands you perfectly? He knows everything about you, including how you feel, what happened to you, and what your motivations really are.

Sometimes when we talk about His omniscience, we imagine a big eye in the sky. A heavenly close circuit camera recording our every thought and action. This is a very limited understanding of His knowledge of us. The Bible says God looks on the inward man (1 Samuel 16:7). He looks beyond our actions, both mental and physical, to see why we are the person we are, and He not only does this with perfect clarity, but His understanding is even greater than our own. That is, He not only understands us when others don’t, He understands us when we ourselves aren’t sure of what is happening or why we behave the way we do.

What He doesn't do, however, is confuse explanations with justifications. Just because He understands why we make a mistake, it doesn't necessary follow that He will accept the mistake. We commonly do. I am sure we've all read of some trial in which there is an acquittal that simply makes no sense to us. There may be a technical, legal reason behind it, but sometimes juries seem willing to accept the most ridiculous explanations. Once, in the US, a man was acquitted of two murders because he had eaten some junk food and his blood sugar was high. There are many less bizarre examples and there is another consequence to this behaviour. We often won't hear an apology because we fear that in listening to why the person wronged us we are implicitly agreeing to accept their explanation. So we simply refuse to listen. God doesn't do that, either.

We all want understanding. We all want someone to identify with us, just as we identify with those we love. Their problems become our problems. Their aspirations our aspirations. Because God is omniscient He can be that person for us. He won't lie to us when were wrong, but His capacity for forgiveness is limitless. And His love for us is as boundless as His knowledge of us.

Pray Without Ceasing, 1 Thes 5:17

That it was a great delusion to think that the times of prayer ought to differ from other times. That we are as strictly obliged to adhere to God by action in the time of action, as by prayer in its season.

That his prayer was nothing else but a sense of the presence of God, his soul being at that time insensible to everything but Divine love: and that when the appointed times of prayer were past, he found no difference, because he still continued with God, praising and blessing Him with all his might, so that he passed his life in continual joy; yet hoped that God would give him somewhat to suffer, when he should grow stronger.

That we ought, once for all, heartily to put our whole trust in God, and make a total surrender of ourselves to Him, secure that He would not deceive us.

That we ought not to be weary of doing little things for the love of God, who regards not the greatness of the work, but the love with which it is performed. That we should not wonder if, in the beginning, we often failed in our endeavours, but that at last we should gain a habit, which will naturally produce its acts in us, without our care, and to our exceeding great delight.

That the whole substance of religion was faith, hope, and charity; by the practice of which we become united to the will of God: that all beside is indifferent and to be used as a means, that we may arrive at our end, and be swallowed up therein, by faith and charity.

That all things are possible to him who believes, that they are less difficult to him who hopes, they are more easy to him who loves, and still more easy to him who perseveres in the practice of these three virtues.

That the end we ought to propose to ourselves is to become, in this life, the most perfect worshippers of God we can possibly be, as we hope to be through all eternity.

The Practice of the Presence of God, The Fourth conversation
Brother Lawrence, 1605-1691

The End Of Christian America

They say that once the national media picks up on a trend it is already passed. I've blogged about the decline of evangelicalism here and at my other blog and now Newsweek has discovered the trend with a major cover story, The End of Christian America.

Christian Right Defeated

James Dobson retired this week. As the head of Focus on the Family he was the last nationally recognized leader of the evangelical political right. I know some are promoting Rick Warren as his successor, but he doesn't (yet) share the same status. This is the first time since Falwell in the 70s that the movement has been without a figurehead. Dobson left the stage admitting the of defeat of their national agenda:

We tried to defend the unborn child, the dignity of the family, but it was a holding action... We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles.

Quitting Church

All the numbers point to it. The clergy (quietly) admits it. Evangelical Christianity is on the verge of a serious decline. It is perhaps only a generation away from the near collapse mainstream churches saw in the 60s and 70s. There is a growing number of books on the subject - I have already reviewed The Fall of the Evangelical Nation - and I have just finished Quitting Church: Why The Faithful Are Leaving And What To Do About It by Julia Duin, the Religion Editor for the Washington Times.

Duin has been a religion journalist for some time, a position that has allowed her access to many people in leadership, and to many people who have left their positions of leadership. The reasons for the decline seem as numerous as the people leaving, but certain themes emerge. The church has very little to do, or to say, to the lives people live through the rest of the week. It concentrates it efforts on winning the lost and consequently leaves the mature Christians to go hungry. What is taught is watered down in order to be inoffensive and the lack of serious teaching is reflected in the unchristian lives so many expressed Christians live. The Church is coming apart at the top with many ministers and leaders burnt out or discouraged. Tired of trying to live perfect lives for others, tired of not being fed, tired of having to find a niche within the existing structure or risk being ignored.

I am not surprised by any of this, having gone to church for almost thirty years. Duin herself came in to the Church through the Charismatic Jesus movement of the 70s and wonders what happened to it. Where is the Spirit now? Has it been completely shut out, locked down in order to allow programs to run smoothly? Her book is long on descriptions, but offers little in the way of solutions. Of course, that may not be her fault. Authors don't necessarily provide their book's subtitle.

Duin makes a lot of good points. One of the book's sharper points is when she makes the connection between sexual struggles, being single, and the Church's need to help unmarried Christian connect. Anyone unfamiliar with the Evangelical community might think that's blindingly obvious, but to too many inside the community its not. They actually are blind to the obvious. The book might have been stronger still if she had spent some time addressing the many conflicting opinions and solutions people have adopted. Some fault the Evangelical movement for not adapting to the world of the 21st century, particularly in its views towards women, but many of the people spoken to have turned instead to churches, such of the Orthodox, who aren't known for accommodating modern trends. Sometimes Reform theology is seen as the problem, but when one minister faults Charismatics for being Arminianist Duin lets the statement stand without comment.

I suspect that the audience for this book are the many Christians who feel isolated. Who wonder if they're the only ones suffering through these discouraging times. Of course, many people feel this way at some time in their walk and then reconnect. My own feelings about the possible end of the Evangelical movement, as we know it today, is mixed. I agree with many in this book that in its efforts to become 'seeker friendly' it has watered down too much of its identity, and that the result is exactly the opposite of what it intended. It has become less relevant, not more. My strongest concern at this time is that its self-destruction will leave behind a burned out generation. One that is so convinced that it already knows everything, that it can't listen to what it wants to hear. Whereas in my review of Wicker's book I said that the Evangelicals will simply adapt to a new reality, I am now wondering if they will have "ears to hear." It may well take the rise of a new generation before we see a broader revival within the North American Church. Let's hope not.