SBC letters to Different Denominations--Membership

caddy · #1 (**permalink**) 09-20-2007, 08:20 PM

I recently asked that mine and my wife's letter be sent to the Presbyterian Church were we are about to join. We have been members in good standing for the past 10 years at a local SBC church. Our secretary emailed me back stating:

"I cannot send a letter to a different denomination church only to a Baptist Church...."

I was not aware that this was SBC policy. Anybody familiar with this?

We know that we will be required to go before the elders for our testimony for membership, but I did discuss with one of the elders about our SBC church sending a letter as well. Thing is, this particular elder grew up in the SBC church we are now leaving for his church years and years ago. Just looking for other SBC pastor, deacons out there to shed some light on what your policy is in your churches. I was a deacon at this church since 2001.

Calvibaptist · #2 (**permalink**) 09-20-2007, 08:24 PM

Typically, Baptists only send letters to other Baptist churches or maybe even non-denominational churches. The litmus test seems to be baptism.

I don't necessarily like that practice. I would think if you are joining another Bible-believing church, even if we disagree over baptism, we would be able to recommend you for membership.

Pilgrim · #3 (**permalink**) 09-20-2007, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caddy

I recently asked that mine and my wife's letter be sent to the Presbyterian Church were we are about to join. We have been members in good standing for the past 10 years at a local SBC church. Our secretary emailed me back stating:

"I cannot send a letter to a different denomination church only to a Baptist Church...."

I was not aware that this was might be SBC policy. Anybody familiar with this?

We know that we will be required to go before the elders for our testimony for membership, but I did discuss with one of the elders about our SBC church sending a letter as well. Thing is, this particular elder grew up in the SBC church we are now leaving for his church years and years ago. Just looking for other SBC pastor, deacons out there to shed some light on what your policy is in your churches. I was a deacon at this church since 2001.

This would be the local church policy due to the nature of the SBC. It also is not surprising since they (unless they are liberal and perhaps not even then) would not accept a letter from a paedo church and would require baptism by immersion to join the church.

caddy · #4 (**permalink**) 09-20-2007, 08:27 PM

I agree Douglas. I think the letter of recommendation was what I was looking for.

I distinctly remember the Pastor at CP ( Covenant Presbyterain ) in our new members class stating that Presbyterians will accept the Baptism of other churches but that Baptists won't accept those of Presbyterians. It seems the whole issue of Baptism is the issue here. I was simply looking for my SBC pastor--who I consider my friend--to send CP something to the effect that I have been a vauled member of the church and contributed not only my tithes and offerings, but with my prayers and labors for the congregation for years. I guess I am just a little taken back by this. Is this really too hard a thing to ask? This should not be a padeo vs. credo issue. Maybe I was asking for too much. I know that it might not be needed on CP's part, but I thought it would say something to my new church home--the member(s) that I think my wife and I were to that body of believers for years.

Thanks

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

Typically, Baptists only send letters to other Baptist churches or maybe even non-denominational churches. The litmus test seems to be baptism.

I don't necessarily like that practice. I would think if you are joining another Bible-believing church, even if we disagree over baptism, we would be able to recommend you for membership.

Pilgrim · #5 (**permalink**) 09-20-2007, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

Typically, Baptists only send letters to other Baptist churches or maybe even non-denominational churches. The litmus test seems to be baptism.

I don't necessarily like that practice. I would think if you are joining another Bible-believing church, even if we disagree over baptism, we would be able to recommend you for membership.

To those baptistic folks who agree with this: Would you accept someone coming from a paedo church who doesn't see the need to be immersed and regards his infant sprinkling as valid baptism?

Calvibaptist · #6 (**permalink**) 09-20-2007, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

To those baptistic folks who agree with this: Would you accept someone coming from a paedo church who doesn't see the need to be immersed and regards his infant sprinkling as valid baptism?

It is one thing to recommend someone for membership in another church who varies from you in baptismal beliefs and practices. Basically recommending someone for membership is informing another church that the prospective member is, in fact, a member in good standing with your church and you believe they would make a good addition to their church.

But, it is another thing to receive into membership in your church someone who disagrees with your views of baptism. I know that Piper is currently discussing this with his church and, so far, I disagree with him. I would be thankful for the information from the other church, but would also require the person to be re-baptized. That is because I am a Baptist. (I can't say that I will always hold this particular position, but I do at this point)

elnwood · #7 (**permalink**) 09-20-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

Typically, Baptists only send letters to other Baptist churches or maybe even non-denominational churches. The litmus test seems to be baptism.

I don't necessarily like that practice. I would think if you are joining another Bible-believing church, even if we disagree over baptism, we would be able to recommend you for membership.

To those baptistic folks who agree with this: Would you accept someone coming from a paedo church who doesn't see the need to be immersed and regards his infant sprinkling as valid baptism?

Into membership? Baptist views generally fall into at least four categories regarding membership:
1. Accept those paedobaptized into membership.
2. Accept only those credobaptized regardless of mode.
3. Accept only those credobaptized by immersion.
4. Accept only those credobaptized regardless of mode and subscribe to credobaptism.
5. Accept only those credobaptized by immersion and subscribe to credobaptism.

1 is the most common in elder rule "Baptist" churches. The last couple churches I've gone to have been 3 and 4. I would tend to lean towards 4.

DMcFadden · #8 (**permalink**) 09-21-2007, 02:09 AM

Don nailed the range of views common in Baptist churches. Many church constitutions require that candidates coming from another Baptist church enter by "letter (of transfer);" those who have received believer's baptism and come from another denomination or independent church may enter by "Christian experience;" those who were not baptized as believers (or in many cases "immersed") must be re-baptized.

Calvibaptist · #9 (**permalink**) 09-21-2007, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Don nailed the range of views common in Baptist churches. Many church constitutions require that candidates coming from another Baptist church enter by "letter (of transfer);" those who have received believer's baptism and come from another denomination or independent church may enter by "Christian experience;" those who were not baptized as believers (or in many cases "immersed") must be re-baptized.

Typically, "Christian Experience" is called joining by Statement of Faith and Christian Baptism. In other words, a person joining from a Bible Church would simply state that they have believed and been baptized by immersion as a believer. A lot (most?) of Baptist churches would not accept a letter from this type of church because they are not Baptist.

Pilgrim · #10 (**permalink**) 09-21-2007, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elnwood

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

Typically, Baptists only send letters to other Baptist churches or maybe even non-denominational churches. The litmus test seems to be baptism.

I don't necessarily like that practice. I would think if you are joining another Bible-believing church, even if we disagree over baptism, we would be able to recommend you for membership.

To those baptistic folks who agree with this: Would you accept someone coming from a paedo church who doesn't see the need to be immersed and regards his infant sprinkling as valid baptism?

Into membership? Baptist views generally fall into at least four categories regarding membership:
1. Accept those paedobaptized into membership.
2. Accept only those credobaptized regardless of mode.
3. Accept only those credobaptized by immersion.
4. Accept only those credobaptized regardless of mode and subscribe to credobaptism.
5. Accept only those credobaptized by immersion and subscribe to credobaptism.

1 is the most common in elder rule "Baptist" churches. The last couple churches I've gone to have been 3 and 4. I would tend to lean towards 4.

I would say that #1 is more common than it was previously, but that it is not the most common in elder rule churches. But maybe it's different on the west coast. It does seem to be more common in independent churches as opposed to the SBC, etc. It would be rare at best in Founders churches.

caddy · #11 (**permalink**) 09-21-2007, 08:31 AM

Gentleman

This is really not about going from Presbyterian to Baptist and what they accept. This was simply about me getting a letter from my Baptist Church stating I was in good standing and sending it to the Presbyterian Church. Does the Presbyterian church require it? Probably not.

NaphtaliPress · #12 (**permalink**) 09-21-2007, 08:40 AM

It's tacky to say the least if you cannot get a simple letter that you were free of scandal and not under discipline. It's a statement; not a transfer. It probably is not required, but a good Presbyterian church would want to know about your back ground and standing and an official letter helps in that regard.

caddy · #13 (**permalink**) 09-21-2007, 09:31 AM

Thanks Chris

I just called my old Pastor at that SBC church and asked him. Acutally he was not in so I left a VM for him to call me back. This is important to me. I guess we will see where it goes....

Pilgrim · #14 (**permalink**) 09-21-2007, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caddy

Gentleman

This is really not about going from Presbyterian to Baptist and what they accept. This was simply about me getting a letter from my Baptist Church stating I was in good standing and sending it to the Presbyterian Church. Does the Presbyterian church require it? Probably not.

Sorry if you think I hijacked the thread. But if they refuse to send the letter then baptismal views and the fact that the new church isn't Baptist are the reasons.

Blueridge Believer · #15 (**permalink**) 09-21-2007, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

Typically, Baptists only send letters to other Baptist churches or maybe even non-denominational churches. The litmus test seems to be baptism.

I don't necessarily like that practice. I would think if you are joining another Bible-believing church, even if we disagree over baptism, we would be able to recommend you for membership.

To those baptistic folks who agree with this: Would you accept someone coming from a paedo church who doesn't see the need to be immersed and regards his infant sprinkling as valid baptism?

I know that some of my baptist brethren might disagree with me but I would. I tend to see this issue and Bunyan did and Piper does. While I would not practice infant baptism nor teach it, I would not refuse membership to good christian people who hold a differing view nor refuse the Lord's table as some extremists do. To make such a difference over this issue is to divide the Body of Christ over a nonessential secondary doctrine imo.

caddy · #16 (**permalink**) 09-21-2007, 10:33 AM

Not at all Chris, just trying to hone in on my aim and purpose for the Post. Your assessment just might be right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Quote:

Originally Posted by caddy

Gentleman

This is really not about going from Presbyterian to Baptist and what they accept. This was simply about me getting a letter from my Baptist Church stating I was in good standing and sending it to the Presbyterian Church. Does the Presbyterian church require it? Probably not.

Sorry if you think I hijacked the thread. But if they refuse to send the letter then baptismal views and the fact that the new church isn't Baptist are the reasons.

DMcFadden · #17 (**permalink**) 09-21-2007, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

I know that some of my baptist brethren might disagree with me but I would. I tend to see this issue and Bunyan did and Piper does. While I would not practice infant baptism nor teach it, I would not refuse membership to good christian people who hold a differing view nor refuse the Lord's table as some extremists do. To make such a difference over this issue is to divide the Body of Christ over a nonessential secondary doctrine imo.

Me too. I actually argued the point with a board once . . . and lost. Since I attended a school with 40% Presbyterians, it is very difficult for me to see the value in forcing rebaptism of sound people. Since the earliest baptists practiced non-immersion, it is even more difficult for me to see the logic in not accepting those baptized by believers' baptism by other than immersion.

As to our brother's point . . . I would simply ask the pastor to do you a favor and write a personal letter to the pastor of your new church commending your conduct and Christian conversation. Unless he is of the species of Baptist thinking himself the only true Christian, he should be willing to accommodate you.

Calvibaptist · #18 (**permalink**) 09-21-2007, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

I know that some of my baptist brethren might disagree with me but I would. I tend to see this issue and Bunyan did and Piper does. While I would not practice infant baptism nor teach it, I would not refuse membership to good christian people who hold a differing view nor refuse the Lord's table as some extremists do. To make such a difference over this issue is to divide the Body of Christ over a nonessential secondary doctrine imo.

Me too. I actually argued the point with a board once . . . and lost. Since I attended a school with 40% Presbyterians, it is very difficult for me to see the value in forcing rebaptism of sound people. Since the earliest baptists practiced non-immersion, it is even more difficult for me to see the logic in not accepting those baptized by believers' baptism by other than immersion.

As to our brother's point . . . I would simply ask the pastor to do you a favor and write a personal letter to the pastor of your new church commending your conduct and Christian conversation. Unless he is of the species of Baptist thinking himself the only true Christian, he should be willing to accommodate you.

Do you have documentation (I'm sure you do!) that early Baptists did not practice immersion? I am quite interested in fleshing out Bunyan's and Piper's reasonings within a Baptist framework (understanding that if it's biblical it doesn't matter if it's Baptist).

elnwood · #19 (**permalink**) 09-21-2007, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Me too. I actually argued the point with a board once . . . and lost. Since I attended a school with 40% Presbyterians, it is very difficult for me to see the value in forcing rebaptism of sound people. Since the earliest baptists practiced non-immersion, it is even more difficult for me to see the logic in not accepting those baptized by believers' baptism by other than immersion.

Do you have documentation (I'm sure you do!) that early Baptists did not practice immersion? I am quite interested in fleshing out Bunyan's and Piper's reasonings within a Baptist framework (understanding that if it's biblical it doesn't matter if it's Baptist).

I believe it was the early Anabaptists who had practiced sprinkling, not the Baptists.