In 2002 the Orchard Group (formerly “Go Ye” Chapel Mission) helped plant a Southern Baptist Church in New York City. They did this by providing funding for an intern and a staff member. The church, Mosaic Manhattan, does not hold the biblical view of baptism as a condition for salvation. Here is what their website says: “Eternal life begins the moment we invite Jesus Christ to forgive our sin and lead our life.” There is no reference to baptism in salvation section. Here is what they say about baptism “Baptism is a Christian’s public identification with Christ and His church, a physical symbol of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus and our participation in them.” That is a typical statement by a Baptist church that does not connect baptism with salvation but with obedience that follows salvation. They see it as something done by a Christian to identify with Christ publicly not something done by a sinner to become a Christian. That is the 10% we see. Let’s see if we can find the 90% that is below the surface.

The partial funding of this Baptist church plant by a Brotherhood organization shows that the organization believes that the Baptist view of baptism is just as legitimate as the biblical (RM) view of baptism or at least the difference is not significant enough to make any meaningful distinction. Surely they would not fund a position that they don’t think is a legitimate biblical position especially when it contradicts a defining doctrine of our Brotherhood. This would seem to be true not only of those that made the decision at the Orchard Group but those Brotherhood churches that funded the people on staff. Funding for the additional people on the staff came in part from the largest church in our Brotherhood. Apparently, they feel that the Baptist position is just as legitimate as the Biblical (RM) position as demonstrated by partially funding the project. Justification was made that they were just funding an intern so he could learn from the experience but further examination shows the involvement was much deeper than that.

The leader (director) of the Orchard Group is also an editor of the CS, the most influential publication in the Brotherhood. Thus, we have one of, if not the. most influential people in our Brotherhood who also leads another major Brotherhood organization, using Brotherhood funds, and Brotherhood staff to start a church that contradicts defining doctrines of our Brotherhood, baptism for the remission of sins and weekly communion. The acceptance of these positions as legitimate options is further seem by the editor/director being a guest speaker and teacher at the Southern Baptist church plant. Funding the additional staff person also shows the involvement was deeper than just an intern.

Initially, the Orchard Group presented the church plant as their church plant. In their early publications reporting on it there was no mention of the Southern Baptist connection. Only later when they were challenged by the Restoration Herald about planting a “faith only” church did they begin to say it wasn’t really one of their church plants but they were just funding an intern there. Although the later story is perhaps more accurate, it understated the level of Orchard Group involvement. The way the story unfolded made the Orchard Group appear to be deceptive.

Let me now discuss the most important part of this whole story.

When the Restoration Herald brought this to light what was the result? Nothing. There may have been unseen consequence but nothing public. It should also be noted that events like this and the lack of meaning response to them is why many are withdrawing from events like the NACC and dropping their subscription to the CS. The latter is what I did.

Since key brotherhood leaders and institutions help plant a church that contradicts defining Brotherhood doctrines and practices without there being in meaningful consequence, our new understanding of baptism as been defined by default. It is now acceptable in the Restoration Movement to see baptism as an act of obedience for the believer. This is a very important point so let me say it again. If brotherhood leaders and institutions are able to plant churches that hold a view of baptism that is at odds with our view of baptism then it become acceptable to hold that new view of baptism. The failure of the Brotherhood to exercise discipline on this occasions makes the new view acceptable. The failure of the movers and shakers to correct the act is a de facto support of it. It redefined our doctrine of baptism and changed the Restoration Movement into the Christian Church Movement. Thus, those that want to continue the old Restoration Movement are forced to withdraw weakening the resistance to the shift. Once the boundaries and definitions were changed by the lack of response it made it possible for them to be further moved. I will post about that later.

Here is a very important point. The shift is reveal not only by the actions of the Orchard Group but more importantly by the response in the Brotherhood. The Orchard Groups actions revealed the shift and tested it. The failure of the Brotherhood to correct those actions legitimized them and reinforced the shift making it possible for the shift to continue and accelerate. A shift has taken place. Those with eyes can see it.

 Update:  I am adding a link to the 2004 Editorial in the Restoration Herald that deals with this.  It is in July and is titled “An Open Letter . . .”

http://www.thecra.org/2004%20Editorials.htm