Death And Dying: A Catechism:
https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/article/death-and-dying-a-catechism-for-christians/
Death And Dying: A Catechism:
https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/article/death-and-dying-a-catechism-for-christians/
Article “Is the Lord’s Day the Christian Sabbath?” by Luke Plant
Original post: https://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/is-the-lords-day-the-christian-sabbath/
Most of this post was written a long time ago, but I thought it would be useful to have somewhere public that I can point people to for my answer to this question, so I’m finally publishing it.
At the outset, I need to say that this issue is one that I think Christians should not divide over. The view I present below is not the one I grew up with, but I have no particular ambition to convert people to my view — except that, with regard to those who have the duty to teach God’s word, it is important to do so properly, “rightly handling the word of truth”, preaching the full counsel of God with all His authority, but never giving human ideas that same authority. It is to people with those duties that the following is really directed. The tone of this article should be interpreted with that in mind — my concern is with those who are not rightly teaching scripture (while being aware that I have failed and probably continue to fail in this extremely demanding privilege in many ways).
Before going on — if you are worried about the length of this article, the last two thirds of it actually consists of an appendix containing quotations from the early church, and are not part of the main argument.
For my definition of the concept of a “Christian Sabbath” or “Christian Sabbatarianism”, I will take this quotation from The Westminster Confession:
Chapter 21 VII. As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath.
We need to ask if the above statement is biblically grounded or not.
First, a principle: in teaching people to obey God, it is a sin to add to the commands that God has given us. We are allowed to go no further than what the Bible itself requires in the demands we place on people, or we come under the condemnation of Jesus (Matthew 15:7-9).
We must teach only what the Bible teaches, and what can and must be deduced from it. As the Westminster Confession puts it so well:
Chapter 1. VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
In other words, we are not free to extrapolate, “read between the lines” or “join up the dots” in any way we please, but must teach all of what Scripture explicitly says and what necessarily flows from it, according to its own logic, and only that.
We note that Scripture may teach by precept, example or implication, but precept is stronger than example, as an example of behaviour found in the Bible could be good, bad, or incidental. Implication can be fairly strong or fairly weak, depending on the details.
I will respond to the claims of the Westminster Confession with a series of questions:
This leaves the case for Christian Sabbatarianism on very shaky ground, with neither precept nor example to support it.
However, we still want to answer the question “what should we do with the 4th commandment?”. This could potentially provide a case for a Christian Sabbath concept by way of some biblical logic. Answering this question requires looking at both the OT background to the command, and how the NT treats it.
We find:
On this basis, it seems very unlikely that the Jewish Sabbath is part of the moral law that all the world must obey. The Westminster Confession does not have an adequate biblical basis for saying that God appointed one day in seven to be kept holy by all people “from the beginning of the world”.
Does the NT ever speak directly on the issue of how laws about Sabbath or special day observance are to be handled by Christians? Thankfully, it does:
Negatively, the council of Jerusalem is also deafening by its silence on the issue. It specifically discusses the points where Jewish law impinged upon Gentile consciences. Sabbath observance was not practised among Gentiles, so I think the silence of Acts 15 on this matter is rather difficult to explain if the apostles believed that Sabbath observance was necessary for Gentiles and had been moved to the Lord’s Day after Christ’s resurrection, as claimed by the Westminster Confession.
OT and NT point unambiguously in the same direction. Other texts that are sometimes quoted (“The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” etc.) simply don’t address the question (unless you have made the unbiblical equation of “the Sabbath” equals “the Lord’s Day”, in which case seeing these texts clearly will require a fair amount of un-thinking).
One text which is sometimes used to support the universality of the Sabbath is Mark 2:27, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”. This argument depends firstly on translating ‘anthropos’ as ‘man’, and then understanding ‘man’ to mean ‘all mankind’. It is perfectly possible to translate ‘anthropos’ as ‘people’ (as per the NET translation) or understand it in that way, and the argument then disappears. If I said “The Highway Code was made for people, not people for the Highway Code”, I would not be implying that wherever there are people, there is the Highway Code, and it will always be that way, time without end. In fact I would more likely be implying the opposite — the Highway Code is an invention that serves human needs, and can be adjusted or abandoned if necessary. The question is then: which meaning is more appropriate for this text? Given the OT history, which gives no hint of Sabbath observance for all mankind, either by precept or example, with the Sabbath being introduced by Moses and understood as a specific sign of God’s covenant with the nation of Israel (as above), it seems far more appropriate to understand this text as meaning simply “the Sabbath was made for people” — and not as a statement of the universality of the Sabbath.
There remains one argument I know of in favour of Christian Sabbatarianism: the Sabbath is part of the Ten Commandments, which are God’s eternal moral law, and therefore must continue.
First, in response, the Bible never states that the Ten Commandments are God’s eternal moral law. The division of the law into moral, civil and ceremonial, while useful, is not strictly biblical, and must always be subject to what the Bible actually says. The NT texts on the Sabbath make it clear that the Jewish form of the Sabbath (one day in seven rest) is ceremonial. We must not allow the systems that we have extracted from scripture (or think we have) to override plain exegesis. It is infinitely better to have holes, even gaping holes, in our systematic theology, than to handle the Bible in such a way that we override or ignore just one of God’s holy words.
The argument that the Sabbath is part of God’s eternal moral law reminds me of the proof that 2 is an odd number. It goes like this:
The proof that the Sabbath is an eternal moral command looks the same:
Even if we were to conclude the Sabbath is a moral command and must continue, we’re not free to make up how it should continue. The NT actually gives us no ground for saying the Jewish Sabbath has been moved to the Lord’s Day. We would be left saying that it continues just as it is in the OT (producing many difficulties which I won’t go into) — or, it continues and applies in the New Covenant age in the way described in Hebrews, that is, in a spiritual way as above (in other words, a long way round to the non-Sabbatarian position).
In fact, the NT is clear that the command is fulfilled in Christ just as other ceremonial commands are. We’re not left in the dark about how to understand it. If we attempt to put observance of the Lord’s Day as a Sabbath into a moral category, we produce an impossible situation when it comes treating people who fail to observe it. For matters of plain morality, we are required by scripture to judge people, to the extent of putting them out of the church and not even keeping company with them — “expel the wicked person” (1 Corinthians 5). When it comes to observing holy days, Romans 14 tells us that we must not judge each other, but rather accept one another (v1, 5, 13). To claim, as some do, that Romans 14 is talking about sacred days apart from the Lord’s Day is simply special pleading, as there is no basis for saying so. This is a simple reductio ad absurdum that shows we erred when making literal Sabbath day observance a NT obligation. Rather than it being logically inescapable that the Lord’s Day is to be observed as a Sabbath — which is the standard required for us to teach other people to so observe it — the reverse is actually the case.
To conclude the argument from Scripture:
The idea stated in the Westminster Confession that the Lord’s Day is to be the Sabbath from the resurrection of Christ to the end of the world cannot be found in Scripture, just as its statement about Sabbath observance “from the beginning of the world” is also insufficiently supported by the Bible. There are no statements whatsoever supporting the claim that the Sabbath must be observed on the Lord’s Day to this effect, either by precept, example or implication. If this idea comes from the Bible at all, it only does so by one possible extrapolation among several, and not by “good and necessary consequence”, which is the standard any teaching must pass before it can be taught from our pulpits. Further, it is an extrapolation that contradicts how the Bible itself handles the subject.
However:
The principle behind the need to set time aside to worship God can certainly apply to how we use Sunday (as well as other times in the week), especially if we have the freedom to use Sunday in a way that we choose. We also have the freedom as believers to “observe” the Lord’s day if we want to, whatever we mean by that — but not to put that requirement onto others (Romans 14:5-6). There is also the pattern that NT believers have handed on of meeting together on the Lord’s Day, and the commandment in Hebrews 10:25 to not forsake meeting together, which also mean that for most people, setting aside time to meet with God’s people on Sunday must be a high priority.
For myself, with my work situation meaning that I have the freedom to rest on a Sunday (when I’m not preaching), I’ve found it an enormously helpful practice, and one that I commend to everyone. In fact, I would be suspicious of myself and my walk with God if I was preferring to do other things on the Lord’s Day — I’ve got the other days of the week when I can work. My practice has changed relatively little since I’ve come to a non-Sabbatarian position. But making this a binding rule on others, or even on myself, is not something that Scripture allows me to do.
There is also the principle of “rest”, which is big topic and it’s not my purpose to look at it in this post. While I couldn’t agree with every word of it, I found Tim Keller’s sermon on Work and Rest to be really helpful.
While it is Scripture and Scripture alone that settles the matter, the Early Church is also of interest. To diagnose our own blind spots it is often helpful to look to what the Church has historically believed. The earlier you go, the less likely it is, in general, that waters are muddied by traditions of men that have been added.
I have not been able to find any evidence of Christian Sabbatarianism at all in the first two centuries. Many sources suggest some Christians continued to observe the Jewish Sabbath (i.e. Saturday) for centuries, but I haven’t yet found an early source for that.
In general, they describe the practice of Christians meeting together on the Lord’s Day as being pretty much universal, but without making it a Sabbath day.
Origen in 220 AD is the first to say that the Lord’s Day should be observed as a day of rest, but he seems to be out of line with most people of his time, who made no such rules.
Very clear quotes on the subject from early Christians, including early believers like Justyn Martyr, and authorities like Tertullian and Augustine etc. can be found at http://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm and are copied below.
They are quite explicit about Christians not observing the Sabbath, and not being required to — and in fact you are overthrowing the gospel if you do (Chrysostom)! Where they talk about Christians “observing” the Lord’s Day (which starts from about 3rd/4th century), it is as a contrast to observing the Sabbath, the main requirement being that Christians be joyful and that they meet together, and not that they refrain from any activity — which is called Jewish superstition and idleness.
Put together, they present overwhelming evidence that there is not a hint of a “Christian Sabbath” tradition that was passed down from the apostles.
Justin Martyr is worth looking at in some detail:
This is a report of a long debate with some Jews, in which the subject of Sabbath and circumcision comes up several times. It’s extremely clear that Justin Martyr did not consider Christians to be bound to observe the Sabbath or sabbath days, and had an understanding of the Sabbath exactly in line with what I have written above, often with the same proof texts.
And when they ceased, I again addressed them thus:—
“Is there any other matter, my friends, in which we are blamed, than this, that we live not after the law, and are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and do not observe sabbaths as you do?
Trypho:
But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious, and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from the nations, in that you observe no festivals or sabbaths, and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God, while you do not obey His commandments.
Justin Martyr:
I also adduced another passage in which Isaiah exclaims: “ ‘Hear My words, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Behold, I have given Him for a witness to the people: nations which know not Thee shall call on Thee; peoples who know not Thee shall escape to Thee, because of thy God, the Holy One of Israel; for He has glorified Thee.’ This same law you have despised, and His new holy covenant you have slighted; and now you neither receive it, nor repent of your evil deeds. ‘For your ears are closed, your eyes are blinded, and the heart is hardened,’ Jeremiah has cried; yet not even then do you listen. The Lawgiver is present, yet you do not see Him; to the poor the Gospel is preached, the blind see, yet you do not understand. You have now need of a second circumcision, though you glory greatly in the flesh. The new law requires you to keep perpetual sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you: and if you eat unleavened bread, you say the will of God has been fulfilled. The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances: if there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true sabbaths of God. If any one has impure hands, let him wash and be pure.
“For since you have read, O Trypho, as you yourself admitted, the doctrines taught by our Saviour, I do not think that I have done foolishly in adding some short utterances of His to the prophetic statements. Wash therefore, and be now clean, and put away iniquity from your souls, as God bids you be washed in this laver, and be circumcised with the true circumcision. For we too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you,—namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts. For if we patiently endure all things contrived against us by wicked men and demons, so that even amid cruelties unutterable, death and torments, we pray for mercy to those who inflict such things upon us, and do not wish to give the least retort to any one, even as the new Lawgiver commanded us: how is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us, —I speak of fleshly circumcision, and Sabbaths, and feasts?
Therefore to you alone this circumcision was necessary, in order that the people may be no people, and the nation no nation; as also Hosea, one of the twelve prophets, declares. Moreover, all those righteous men already mentioned [Abel, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek], though they kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God; and after them Abraham with all his descendants until Moses, under whom your nation appeared unrighteous and ungrateful to God, making a calf in the wilderness: wherefore God, accommodating Himself to that nation, enjoined them also to offer sacrifices, as if to His name, in order that you might not serve idols. Which precept, however, you have not observed; nay, you sacrificed your children to demons. And you were commanded to keep Sabbaths, that you might retain the memorial of God. For His word makes this announcement, saying, ‘That ye may know that I am God who redeemed you.’
“Moreover, that God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and impose on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness, and that of your fathers,—as He declares that for the sake of the nations, lest His name be profaned among them, therefore He permitted some of you to remain alive,—these words of His can prove to you: they are narrated by Ezekiel thus: ‘I am the Lord your God; walk in My statutes, and keep My judgements, and take no part in the customs of Egypt; and hallow My Sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between Me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God. Notwithstanding ye rebelled against Me, and your children walked not in My statutes, neither kept My judgements to do them: which if a man do, he shall live in them. But they polluted My Sabbaths. And I said that I would pour out My fury upon them in the wilderness, to accomplish My anger upon them; yet I did it not; that My name might not be altogether profaned in the sight of the heathen. I led them out before their eyes, and I lifted up Mine hand unto them in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries; because they had not executed My judgements, but had despised My statutes, and polluted My Sabbaths, and their eyes were after the devices of their fathers. Wherefore I gave them also statutes which were not good, and judgements whereby they shall not live. And I shall pollute them in their own gifts, that I may destroy all that openeth the womb, when I pass through them.’
I also came across this work, dating from AD 130 to the end of the century, which is relevant for its general tenor:
Chapter IV.—The other observances of the Jews.
But as to their scrupulosity concerning meats, and their superstition as respects the Sabbaths, and their boasting about circumcision, and their fancies about fasting and the new moons, which are utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice,—I do not think that you require to learn anything from me.
Chapter V.—The manners of the Christians.
For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers.
The following are taken verbatim (including comments) from http://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm . I have checked the accuracy of some, but not most of them.
Article: Youth and Church Membership—Or, Stop Baptizing Children into the Ether by Alex Duke, editorial manager of 9Marks. He lives in Louisville, Kentucky, where he also works at Third Avenue Baptist Church as the Director of Youth Ministry and Ecclesiological Training.
So as to begin on the surest footing, allow me to list all the verses that directly address the topic of young people (that is, under 18 years old) and church membership:
That’s right. There are none. Never does the Lord tell us: this is how the new covenant people of God ought to embrace children into its number. (As I say this, paedobaptists grouse and facepalm.)
PRINCIPLED PRUDENCE
This conversation ought to happen in the realm of prudence and wisdom. This isn’t “Thus sayeth the Lord”; it’s “because the Lord hath sayeth thus about this and this and this, we’re inclined to believe this is the best way forward on that.” But the best prudential decisions are informed by principles; the best wisdom considers the law.
So what principles inform our understanding of youth and church membership? I can think of a few.
1. God saves young people.
If you were to take a straw poll at church this Sunday and ask your people a simple question—“How many of you were saved before your 18th birthday?”—it’s safe to say that many if not most people would raise their hands. Why? Because God saves young people. He saves 17-year-olds whose friends invite them to youth group. He saves 5-year-olds who show up at VBS because their unsaved parent simply needed a break and some free child care. God saves young people.
2. Church membership is only for those whom God has saved.
Our local churches—that is, our gatherings of the new covenant people of God; that is, our embassies of true Israel, now reconstituted under the headship of the risen and reigning Christ, filled by Spirit-filled priests—are not mixed bodies by design. National Israel followed a different story, of course: she was mixed by design. But not true Israel. In the new covenant age, God wanted to make crystal clear that new hearts aren’t given at the end of a
birth canal, but at the beginning of a life of faith.
3. When discerning an individual’s salvation, we look for a credible profession of faith.
When discerning whether or not someone should be recommended for membership—regardless of their age—we ought to listen for a clear understanding of the gospel, a clear sense that one has indeed been converted from death to life (even if they can’t pinpoint the day, month, or even the year), and a clear change in lifestyle and desires. If any of those three are absent, you should at least be willing to pause and consider whether or not the person in front of you has indeed been born again.
Not everyone who asks “What must I do to be saved?” really wants to be saved. Don’t believe me? Just consider the rich young ruler whose credible profession dissolved in an instant when Jesus asked him a single question about his life (Mark 10:17–22).
At least for credobaptists, these three principles are relatively uncontroversial. Unfortunately, I fear this fourth one has been largely jettisoned by many if not most credobaptist churches.
4. Baptism almost always accompanies church membership.
In 2002, I was baptized at a church but not into a church. I stood in the baptismal as a free-agent Christian, I went down into the water as a free-agent Christian, and I came up out of the water as a free-agent Christian. Never once did it occur to me—or, apparently, to anyone else—that baptism not only serves as an outward sign of an inward reality, but also as an outward introduction into a spiritual institution: the local church. I knew that baptism began my so-called Christian life, but I had no idea that my Christian life ought to be shaped around my submission to a local church.
Simply put, church membership should almost always accompany baptism. This is the nearly uniform witness of the New Testament, with the only exception that I can think of coming from Acts 8 when Philip baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch. But that exception proves the rule because it’s a baptism that occurs in a region and among a people where no church yet exists.
When we don’t keep baptism and membership close together, we turn membership into something unbiblical. So, unless you’re doing parachurch ministry among some remote tribe, baptism should accompany church membership.
That I was baptized without any connection to a church could only happen in a world that diminishes the role of the local church in a Christian’s life and discipleship. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon.
ONE OPTION OFF THE TABLE
Therefore, a church should not baptize young people apart from church membership. To do so is unbiblical, unhelpful, and unloving.
It’s unbiblical because the Bible never envisions baptized Christians living apart from membership in a local church (except on the missionary frontier, as with the Ethiopian eunuch).
It’s unhelpful because when young people begin to stray, their youth pastors are given a toolbelt with valuable tools already taken out. They can’t push a young person toward his elders; he has no elders. They can’t lay out the process of church discipline that lies before him should he continue on a particular path; he has no church who can discipline him, nor has he ever agreed to any kind of covenant that, upon breaching, would warrant his knowing removal.
And finally, it’s unloving because it hardwires in an individualistic understanding of the Christian life. For example, I was baptized at 12 and only about a decade later did I learn how Jesus intends for my discipleship to be shaped by and connected to a local church—under the authority of godly leaders, in fellowship with other saints.
That’s ten years where I was free to gallivant anywhere I wanted with no one in particular tasked before God to look out for me. Thankfully, God preserved me, but I think of my brother, or I think of literally dozens of friends whose baptism into the ether proved to be just that, the first step on a journey to nowhere. Their Christian life has dissolved, their Christian profession is now silent, and whatever tenuous connection to the local church their baptism established has been severed by a decade and a half of inattention. If a baptized person gets lost in a forest and no one is there to see it, does it really make a difference? Jesus seems to say it should (John 10:1–21).
Sadly, thousands of kids will face the same fate, and the churches they’re connected to have made it so.
They’ve been affirmed in their faith as a young person through baptism. Maybe they were 7-years-old; maybe they were 17. The moment accompanied such joy; it occasioned both a beginning and an ending, the old being washed away and the new finally coming.
But baptism apart from membership has led these young Christians through a doorway to nowhere.
It has ushered them into a place that looks like a beautiful home—a space where they can grow up and learn and explore. But it’s a façade. You see, when we baptize any new Christian, we tell them they’re family, that they can move in here with us, that they can plop down on the couch and pick out a bedroom and fill the refrigerator with their favorite food. After all, they’re going to be here a while. They’re home. But when we baptize someone apart from membership, apart from mutual commitment, we’re not inviting them into a home, but to an open house, 10am–2pm every Sunday. The furniture is staged, no one actually sleeps in these beds, and the appliances don’t even work. It’s all for show.
Churches and pastors and youth groups who make of practice of doing this, I encourage you to reconsider. It’s an unbiblical practice that bears bad fruit. Consider instead what might be helpful for that young person in five or 10 years. Consider how double-minded it is to affirm someone has been born again by God’s Spirit, but to keep them formally shut out of God’s people. Consider how—though I know it seems unthinkable right now, in a moment of such joy—you will one day forget about them, and they will forget about you, and all this would have stood for nothing.
THREE POTENTIAL APPROACHES
So, don’t baptize kids into the ether. That’s not a viable option. As I see it, however, there are at least three ways to approach this question without compromising any of the aforementioned principles. I’ll discuss these below, offering my own assessment as to how they adhere to biblical wisdom and best practices.
Approach #1: Except in unusual circumstances, a church will not accept any youth into membership because they will not baptize them.
A church like Capitol Hill Baptist would agree with the horror story I described above and, so as to avoid complicity in perpetuating that story to future generations, they will generally not baptize a young person who is still under the authority of their Christian parents. I think this practice properly underscores the seriousness with which any person—regardless of age—should take their profession of faith. See CHBC’s statement on children and baptism here.
An added bonus is that it clarifies that baptism is not a familial rite of passage. Baptism means a church has embraced an individual and an individual has submitted him- or herself to an institution other than their family.
The whirring engine behind this approach is that it’s simply hard to discern the credibility of a Christian child’s profession of faith. It’s easy to mistake obedience for regeneration.
Now, in unusual circumstances, a church like CHBC will show more flexibility: perhaps a neighborhood kid from a Muslim family starts going to church on his own and believes in Jesus; perhaps a 15-year-old has gone to public school his whole life and has a flourishing evangelistic ministry. In these made-up situations, the evidence would pile high enough so as to at least consider that young person a candidate for baptism and membership.
This is not my own view, but I’m sympathetic to this practice because it correctly identifies a problem: the scourge of nominal young people that scores of churches baptize year after year after year with no intention of ever bringing those individuals up for church discipline should their lives begin to undermine their profession of faith. In these cases, the problem isn’t the presence of baptism, but the absence of meaningful church membership and church discipline.
Sidenote: If you’re at a church that doesn’t practice church discipline at all, then you should follow this road if only because it keeps you from future disobedience.
Approach #2: A church will baptize a young person into membership-with-an-asterisk.
I’m currently the youth pastor of a church—North Shore Baptist Church in Queens, NY—that takes this second route. It’s a practice I inherited, and it works like this: We’ll baptize a young person into “provisional membership”—which means they can attend members’ meetings, serve in various capacities, receive free biblical counseling, and even be disciplined should they begin to live in unrepentant sin.
In almost every respect, they are members of NSBC except they can’t vote at our meetings, and they might be asked to leave should the topic be deemed (either by their parents or us as elders) too mature for them.
This approach acknowledges reality: they’re children, though most if not all are juniors or seniors in high school. But it also treats them in many respects as equals. It raises our expectations for them even as we’ve raised our own commitment to them—not just through their graduation from youth group but through the rest of their lives should the Lord tarry and should they stay nearby.
Approach #3: A church will baptize a young person into full voting membership.
This is basically the same as above, but with any restrictions removed. Sure, a parent may choose to withhold their child from a particular conversation, but it would not be required of them.
For what it’s worth, I’m partial to this choice because it’s cleanest. “Provisional membership” is an extrabiblical category. If a young person has been born again by God the Holy Spirit; if they are being renewed day by day into the image of Christ; if the Holy Spirit is producing in them such fruit as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control, then I’m happy for them to cast their vote on questions of membership, leadership, doctrine, and all the rest. Wielding the keys of the kingdom is a privilege reserved not for adults, but for those who have received the Lord Jesus, those who have believed in his name and in so doing have been given the right to become children of God.
CONCLUSION
Lest I be scolded by my higher-ups, I’m not offering the “9Marks view” on this topic, if there is one—only my own.
No matter which of the three options above you choose, you should help young people understand that the Lord’s Supper belongs to members of the church (or members of other churches in attendance). Like baptism and membership, the Supper is a sign that we belong to the body (1 Cor. 10:17). And so it makes no sense to give someone the Supper but not baptism, as parents sometimes do with their children. We must keep these three things tied together—membership, baptism, and the Supper. To divide them changes their meaning into something unbiblical.
It’s true the Bible never directly addresses the topic of how we ought to introduce young people into the membership of our churches. But it does offer principles about salvation and processes of membership that are non-negotiable and therefore must inform and shape our practice.