ORDER
(5th in a series)
Any discussion of good church order must include a discussion of baptism. The ordinances define the extent of the church. Where the church is, there are baptism and the Lord’s supper. Where there are no valid baptism and communion, there is no church. The three will always be found together. Baptism has often been described as the door of the church, and this door is in the exterior wall of a building.
It generally has been accepted among our people that the three elements to Scriptural baptism are the correct mode, a valid subject and a valid administrator. I will not now take the time to establish the necessity of those three elements for valid baptism. Concerning the first two there has been pretty much universal agreement among our people. Our brethren have been agreed that a valid administrator is necessary to valid baptism, but occasionally there has been some question as to who is a valid administrator.
The question that complicates the discussion of a valid administrator comes when there is error in a church, for that introduces the old question, “How much error can exist in a church, and for how long, before a church ceases to be a true church?” True New Testament baptism exists only in the true New Testament church, and so the “churchhood” of a body is one of the main things that determines the validity of its baptism. Since we do not get letters from heaven telling us when God has removed the candlestick from a church, there is a judgment that must be exercised by individual churches in assessing the situation that exists with erring sister churches. That is not a very pleasant duty, but we have it to do.
I would argue that recognizing the identity of a church does not necessarily imply complete agreement nor a direct connection with or close fellowship for that church. As long as the candlestick is there the ordinances are there, but at the same time it may not be a “safe” situation, i.e., it may be one from which we feel we need to keep some distance. In other words, though we might feel that a particular erring church is still a true New Testament church, yet we may feel that they have moved into some error to such an extent that it is not safe to be closely or functionally connected with them. We would not wish that church to be exerting any influence upon our members until such time as they have come out of that particular error. If the premise that I have set forth is true, then it would follow that it is not inconsistent to receive the baptism of a church while at the same time being unwilling to have her ministers come among us or to have close fellowship with her.
The situation that I have described in the paragraph above is the reason that, during times of local division among our people, we have seen the practice of receiving members “by relation,” that is, in recognition of the validity of their baptism, but without direct correspondence or functional fellowship between the churches because of their divided state, and therefore no letter would be received by one from the other. Obviously, this is a difficult state of affairs and one greatly to be regretted, but it serves to illustrate the principle that our people have admitted the existence of the candlestick – and therefore the authority for baptism – in instances where they had no wish to have direct fellowship. The point is that sometimes churches do stray into serious error, and until it is determined whether or not they will continue permanently in that error, it is reasonable for sound sister churches to keep a safe distance. – From The Primitive Baptist/The Christian Pathway.