There has been a shift in our Brotherhood concerning the doctrine of baptism.  In the past we taught that baptism was a condition for salvation.  Now many are teaching that it is an act of obedience that follows baptism.  The evidence of the shift in the Brotherhood on baptism is so obvious to me that I find it hard to believe others cannot see it.  But there are people of good will who don’t so I will try to document it for them.

 

These kind people of good will that I am talking about see some evidence of the shift but they think that all they see is all there is and often think that what they see is magnified beyond what is really there.  They may be well meaning but they are looking away from rather than at the evidence.  They are missing the iceberg principle.  Although you only see 10% of the iceberg, you know there is 90% more below the water. It is hard to get a handle on the depth of the shift because people and churches are hiding it by not talking about it or speaking about in vague or deceptive terms. Also, one may not run in the right circles to see it. And, very importantly, no one is stepping up to the plate to point it out. I will try to do that but must admit I am apprehensive about doing so.  It is not a pleasant thing to do even if one thinks it is necessary.  I will start but only continue as the Lord enables me.

 

Here is my first example of the shift on baptism. I initially post it on a thread at www.christianchurchtoday.com and repeat it here only to have all the examples together.  The rest of the examples I plan to only post here.

Roughly five years ago two ministers from our Brotherhood, Gene Appel and Mike Breaux, left us to be teaching pastors at Willow Creek Community Church. They were the senior ministers at two of our five largest churches and well thought of rising leaders in our Brotherhood.  The RM in North America has believed that baptism is a condition of salvation. However, here is a statement from Willow Creek’s website, “You do not have to be baptized to have Christ in your heart any more than you must exchange rings to be pronounced man and wife. But if the inner commitment to trust Christ alone for salvation has been made, then the outward symbol of Baptism should be as valued and as visible as the gold ring on a newlywed’s finger.” They went to a church that held a different doctrine of baptism. How do you have two of your top pastors change their opinion on a defining doctrine and it not be a widespread problem? If you see 10% there is 90% you don’t see.

Now according to Brother Appel this was not a change of doctrine for him. In a Christian Standard interview he said, “I have always believed that when a person sincerely comes to trust Jesus Christ as leader, forgiver and Savior, and repents, the first step of obedience is to be baptized into Christ. That is what I have always taught, believed, and practiced.” So for the 20 or so years he was a brotherhood preacher he taught that it was the first step of obedience for the saved person as opposed to the last act of obedience of an unsaved person. How does he get by with this if it is not a widespread belief, at least among the movers and shakers in the Brotherhood? Or perhaps it is because that belief has become just as acceptable as the usual RM belief? If you see 10% there is 90% you don’t see.

Even after departing the Brotherhood and embracing a different non-biblical teaching on baptism both Appel and Breaux spoke at the NACC. Appel in a morning main session and Breaux in youth sessions, I believe. I do not think a person who did not hold the biblical (Restoration Movement) position on baptism had ever been allowed to preach in a main session before. Appel and Breaux may have been invited before the change was made known, but the decision to go ahead and let them speak communicated that their new position was acceptable. It had to have been a decision not just by the president but by the Executive Committee and Board of Stewards. That is a pretty significant group in numbers and influence that supported the decision. That could not have happened unless for the 10% you see there is 90% you don’t’ see.

I guess the only way to know for sure how widespread the shift is is to do a survey but I don’t think that is necessary to see the shift and the speed it is picking up. I will give more examples later. However, I hope we can see the 10% and know there is another 90% with out running into it and sinking our ship. That is if we haven’t already done so.