Beyond The Horizons
Why Baptists Vote On Receiving New Members
An article by Elmer L. Gray in the Baptists Standard, July 13, 1960 defends the practice of voting on "candidates" for baptism. Gray states his position as follows:
This vote by a congregation to authorize baptism and to admit one into its fellowship has been questioned by some and even criticized by others. Such objections arise from a misunderstanding either of baptism or of the nature of the church. The Baptists position regarding the authority of the church in this matter was stated by J. M. Pendleton. He declared that persons desiring to unite with a church and giving evidence of having passed from death unto life "are by vote of a church recognized as candidates for baptism, with the understanding that when baptized they will be entitled to all the rights and privileges of membership."
To uphold the practice of voting to authorize baptism, Gray appeals to sources other than the New Testament and asserts that those who criticize the practice misunderstand either baptism or the nature of the church. To substantiate his assertions he appeals to Baptist authorities — J. M. Pendleton, George V. McDaniel and B. H. Carroll. Is it not noteworthy that he fails to appeal to the scriptures? In the quotations he listed from these men there is only one reference to the Bible. This is a reference to Romans 14:1: "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations." Is this their proof-text for a practice which Gray says is "a right to be exercised, but it is more. It is an obligation?"
Gray says of the church: "All its members are equal fellow citizens, and the majority decides. It is of the people, for the people, by the people. This democracy receives and dismisses its members, chooses or deposes it own officers, and manages its own affairs." This he says of the Baptist Church. The church you read about in the New Testament is called the body of Christ, the temple of God, the household of God and the kingdom of God. Never is it referred to as a democracy in which the people rule. As to the reception of members the Bible says "the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." (Acts 2:47) When the eunuch of Acts 8 was baptized by Philip, he was saved and thus added to the church, but no church voted on him for membership. The Bible is right and the Baptist are wrong.
Of course Baptists do not believe it is necessary for a man to be baptized to be saved anyway. The Bible says Baptism is essential to salvation (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 1 Pet. 3:21) The Baptists say baptism is essential to getting into the Baptist Church. Thus getting into the Baptist Church has nothing to do with salvation and it may be that Baptists occasionally vote against someone who has been saved Does God accept the person and then the Baptist reject him?
As to the proof-text, Romans 14:1, that word "receive" must certainly be swelled beyond its limitations if it is to include the Baptist practice of voting on candidates for baptism. Romans 14:1 is talking about receiving weak members, the Baptist practice has to do with receiving those who want to become members.
The Baptists are wrong on the nature of the church, the purpose of baptism, and consequently they are wrong in their practice of voting on candidates for baptism.
Women Elders
In the 1960 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland the subject of women elders came up. A Scotland correspondent reports and comments as follows:
Another widely publicized decision was the vote by a majority of one to send down approval by the presbyteries the proposal that women should become elders on the same terms as men. This has been a talking point since the 1929 union of churches and has frequently been before us in recent years. If a majority of presbyteries approve, the proposal will become a part of our procedure in 1961 — although it may now be the presbyteries' turn to become canny and we cannot tell how things may go.
Like the Baptists, the Church of Scotland rejects the kingly rule of Christ and resorts to majority rule. This matter once again illustrates the boldness of denominational bodies in giving up New Testament authority. Paul's injunction in I Timothy 2:12 loses its authority to the Scotland Presbyterians, and Paul's qualifications for an elder (1 Timothy 2, Titus 1) are considered out of date. Presbyterians in America opened the doors for women elders several years ago. While churches of Christ have respected the prohibitions God placed on the woman respecting authority, and have not yet appointed women elders, they have been bothered with what is commonly nicknamed "she-elders."
Catholic Political Party In Puerto Rico
The Roman Catholic Church could not get its way in Puerto Rico so the prelates have touched off a move for a new political party, the Christian Action Party. Our Sunday Visitor, a Catholic weekly, says that "Formation of the Catholic oriented party was touched off on May 18 when the Puerto Rican House of Representatives killed a Catholic-supported measure calling for a released-time program of religious instruction for students attending public schools." In other words, "Because of the failure in the Puerto Rican legislature of a Roman Catholic Church-sponsored effort to introduce religious instruction into the public schools of the commonwealth, the two bishops of the island have publicly endorsed the formation of a Catholic political organization known as the Christian Action party." (Christian Century, July 20, 1960)
The Catholic clergy has declared that the party is not a Church-sponsored movement "because the Church keeps hands-off policy in political issues." Yet the bishops stated that "As religious pastors of more than 2,000,000 Catholics, we urge the people to support and help the new party whose aim is defense of Christianity and continuing material prosperity without detriment to spiritual happiness." It is obvious that the new party is indeed a Catholic Church movement in spite of the denials of the Catholic bishops. The activities and statements of the bishops in pushing the new party make their denials boldly inconsistent. Such pressure in the United States would create a great wave of resentment among non-Catholics. Roman Catholic officials can hardly be so bold in inconsistencies here, but where the Catholic population is overwhelmingly in the majority they can place themselves in such inconsistencies without suffering too great an adverse reaction.
The Christian Century editor comments well on the Puerto Rico situation:
Bishops Davis and McManus are undoubtedly influenced by their understanding of European politics, since Catholic political parties or groupings have played part in the histories of France, Germany, Italy and Austria, to name only four countries. They can hardly have been sensitive to the American tradition of separation of church and state, or have cared very much as to what effect their action would have on the presidential prospects of Senator John Kennedy. While they unquestionably find justification in the Catholic theory of the state for their direct entry into partisan politics in Puerto Rico, Protestant and Jews will find in their latest action in a small democracy another expression of their policy of interference followed by the Roman Catholic Church whenever and wherever circumstances warrant, and will strengthen their will to resist encroachments of clerical power in politics as well as in education. (July 20, 1960)
It would be well for Americans to consider this Roman Catholic activity in the Caribbean possession of the United States of America in view of the November election.