Hammett, John S. Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology

Hammett, John S. Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology, Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2005. 368pp. $19.99

Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches has proved to be a very enjoyable and informative read. Hammett does a good job of surveying many issues surrounding the Baptist church culture and showing where it is positive and negative. The main focus of this book is to discuss Baptist ecclesiology, which is branch of theology that is concerned with the nature, constitution, and functions of a church; but through out this book he hits on other issues that stem out of these discussions. Hammett lays out a solid foundation for those interested in the Baptist tradition and the scriptural and theological reasons for such tradition.

Summary

Hammett divides his book up into five main sections aimed at answering five main questions. The first question that Hammett asked is “What Is the Church”. In this section of the book, Hammett discusses the nature, marks, and essence of the church. He defines the church by the Greek word ekklesia (26). From the use of that word, which means “the called-out ones” (26), Hammett argues that there are two primary churches: the church universal and the church local (28). From this he argues that there is only one church. “There is one and only one people of God” (32). We should not think that each local church constitutes a different people of God. However, he notes that no local church is dependent on another local church, or the universal church, in order to carry out its function. Each local church is fully able to carry out the task of God as a body of Christ (37).

Because of this, any true church will have certain marks about it, which include true believers who descend from the apostolic teaching. This does not imply that a church has to come from apostolic succession, which is never implied in the New Testament, but that they follow in what was taught by the apostles (60). For a church to be a church it must have the gospel of Jesus Christ (63). Thus Hammett argues that the essence of the church is not just a group of people, but an assembly of people elected by God for a divine purpose (68).

The second section discusses those who make up the church, which gives Hammett grounds for discussing in section three how it should be governed. Stemming right out of his discussion about the nature of the church comes regenerate church membership. This chapter, chapter four, will in many ways be foundational too much of the rest of the book. Hammett argues from both Scripture and tradition demonstrate that regenerate church membership is the only way to have a true church that is effective in its mission (102). Because Hammett holds to a fully regenerate church by only allowing believers to be baptized and practicing church discipline, he asserts that the proper church government is congregationalism. Because the whole church are true believers and all believers and priest before God, He affirms that all members of the church should hold equal right in governing itself (149); though he does argue for eldership leadership and the special role of deacons.

The forth section asks the question, “What does the church do?” Hammett says that the church’s functions can be discussed in five areas: the ministry of teaching, fellowship, worship, service, and evangelism (221). The church also partakes in the sacraments instituted by the Lord: limited only to baptism and the Lord’s supper (259). Hammett does a great job of discussing the proper role of the two sacraments and their sacramental value, which must be understood as means of grace, though not salvific (281).

Lastly, after Hammett has discussed many of the modern flaws of Baptist churches, he ask the question “Where is the church going?” This final section is interesting and challenging as some of the modern features of Baptist churches are discussed. Hammett discusses the positives and negatives of the “seeker sensitive movement” asserting that even though they are doing good things, dangers could come from a lack of gospel proclamation (309).

He also discusses the new wave of postmodernism and how the “emergent” movement is seeking to be relative to it (328). Near the end of his assessment on the churches seeking to reach the postmodern community, he says this about their changes in church life compared to that of the Reformers, “this movement did not begin with a call to change to be faithful to Scripture, but a call to change to responsive to culture” (329). Hammett argues that some of the motives are good and even some of the changes; however, we cannot depart from our orthodox heritage (331), which leads to the discussion about the shift of Baptist back to their roots in a desire to return to biblical faithfulness and mission (331-347).

Critical Evaluation

One of Hammett’s most helpful areas of discussion is the issue of regenerate church membership. This, above any other issue, has been the staple of the Baptist faith since the beginning. If it were not for the Baptist’s firm conviction of a regenerate church, the issue of credobaptism would have never come about. Baptists from the beginning have seen the New Testament’s demand for a pure church.

The description of local churches in the New Testament assumes that these local, visible congregations are composed of believers only. The church of God in Corinth is called “those sanctified in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:2). The letter to the Ephesians is addressed to “the saints in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 1:1) (84).

The challenge for this position comes from the long standing tradition of infant baptism. Even some of the Protestant persuasion would argue that believer’s only baptism (credobaptism) is a new concept, and not apart of the historical and apostolic tradition passed down to us by the early church fathers through the centuries. However, Hammett argues that

The early church did not move to the adoption of infant baptism and a corresponding adoption of infant membership in local churches as soon as their founding members had children. Most scholars agree that the practice of infant baptism did not appear until the latter half of the second century and did not become widespread or standard until the late third of even forth century. The issue was being debated as late as Augustine, but his support and rational for it became decisive. Infant baptism and acceptance of the church as a mixed body composed of saved and unsaved became standard for the next thousand years (85-86).

Hammett has weakness in stating this. He makes a bold statement, “Most scholars agree that the practice of infant baptism did not appear until the latter half of the second century”, but gives no evidence of worthy scholarship that states this or primary sources to back it up. Those of differing opinions would say that their equal scholarship agues against this.

However, the fact that the issue was even being discussed in the latter part of the second century does show that this is not something that paedobaptist can argue has firm foundation in the apostolic tradition. Those that the evangelical church holds to as orthodox and apostolic held to credobaptism and paedobaptism. Thus, the issue of church membership and its importance lays in its biblical warrant.

It is helpful to see why this major shift took place in the church’s make up. It is assumed by most that the Christian community was made up primarily of believers and their children.

Before Constantine, persecution tended to keep membership in the church limited to those who were genuinely believers, and the line between the church and state was clear. After Constantine, the church became the recipient of imperial funds and favor rather than persecution. As a result, membership in the church became a mark of social acceptability, and there was a virtual stampede of candidates for the priesthood. This growing friendliness between church and state led to the eventual union of the two (88).

Thus, with the removal of persecution came the great expanse of the Christian kingdom, though not always the Christian faith. What resulted from this was centuries of false churches made up not of Christians who trusted in the grace of God, but sinful men who paraded under the Christian banner to their own destruction.

Stemming out of this was the Protestant Reformation under the leadership of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, who all agreed that the church was not for the ungodly who sought to merit their own righteousness under the rule of Rome, but for those who trusted in the grace of God found in Christ Jesus. There was a push to move churches back to a regenerate and gospel oriented position.

England had a push towards the Reformation, but more for political reasons than for religious. However, there were two groups that rose up in protest of the church’s false doctrine: the Puritans and the Separatist.

Purity had been the motive for the Puritans; the Separatist and Baptist took the search for purity further. For Baptist, a pure church had to be composed of believers alone. True believers would obviously want to obey Christ’s command and rightly observe the ordinances, and Baptist saw believer’s baptism as the only proper way to practice baptism. Further, baptism was the event in which one gave requisite to church membership, then regenerate membership would be preserved. Believer’s baptism protected regenerate church membership. We see this principle consistently reflected in Baptist thinking about the church (93).

The Puritans desire for purity was just as vibrant as the Separatist, and called for the salvation of the lost and the discipline of the ungodly. However, they seemed to not want to take the logical steps of their desire. They desired purity, but did not desire to keep out unbelieving children.

From this point on, Baptist were distinct and diffidently different from the rest of the universal church. Only a small group of other sects would practice exclusive credobaptism.

On the issue of proper subjects for church membership, it [Orthodox Creed of the early English General Baptist] preserves the Baptist perspective: “none ought to be admitted into the visible church of Christ, without being first baptized; and those which do really profess repentance toward God, and faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance, according to our Lord’s holy institution, and primitive practice” (95).

These early Baptist compelled by Scripture believed that they had to do whatever they could do to protect what was clear in Scripture and what was clear was that, “Regenerate church membership is clearly taught in Scripture. That point needs emphasis because this teaching was absent from church doctrine and practice from more than a thousand years” (98). Therefore “regenerate church membership was the root issue behind the origin of Baptists and has been a historic distinctive of Baptists” (98).

So where does that put the church at today? The issue is not whether or not the church should be regenerate. Most in the Baptist tradition agree that the church is meant to be pure; it is meant to be regenerate. The thing that is facing the church today in Baptist circles is what to do with the pews that are full of unregenerate people. It is clear that most Baptist churches do not fit the mold of what historic Baptist churches longed for, especially in the Southern Baptist Convention.

What is clearly taught in Scripture is the need for church discipline. Church discipline is an issue that expands beyond the borders of Baptist churches. Even the conservative Presbyterian denominations who practice paedobaptism practice church discipline on adult members who do not live as regenerate men should. So even some of the Presbyterian denominations believe that Scripture is clear that a church should be composed of regenerate adults (and only children are excluded from this demand).

However, many in the Baptist tradition refuse to practice church discipline. They are fearful that it will cause members to feel “law” bound, which separates them from the grace of God. But it is usually the fear that church discipline that will cause people to leave that makes most Baptist not want to practice church discipline. For them, church discipline is the thing that destroys churches. They are afraid that if church discipline is practiced, people will not want to come into such a judgmental group where obedience to Christ is expected, and members who are removed from membership will never want anything to do with the church again.

Now, it could very well be true that practicing church discipline could destroy churches. Why? Because it is probably likely that many of the church in the Baptist tradition are completely dead churches, with very few or no regenerate members. The process of clearing the roles of fall converts could destroy such a church. However, if one holds to the Baptist tradition, such a “church” is not really a church at all and should be destroyed.

There is through some legitimate concern that church discipline would damage the church of God. People do not want to be pressured to live perfect lives. When church discipline is practiced, it should always be done with the hope that a person sees their sin and desire to be restored. That is not the case often times through, and so church numbers could decline when such an action is taken. What is troubling though is that when churches practice church discipline, the churches do not usually rupture as feared.

Rather than driving people away, meaningful membership could be the most attractive witness a church could offer. Greg Wills notes that from 1790 to 1860, when Baptist churches maintained high rates of discipline, they also maintained high rates of growth, growing at a rate twice that of the population, while in later years, as their discipline fell, so did their growth (115).

Hammett argues that “meaningful membership has ‘the potential for awaking literally millions of lost church members’” (115). It is true that some might leave the churches because they do not obey Christ, but it could be that many might see the depth of their own sins when confronted and result in their humility before Christ and salvation by God’s grace. What is scary is that even though this is true, millions of Baptist will not practice church discipline because it will damage the church, which is not even a true church. What they are doing by their selfishness is securing the damnation of millions who will never be informed of their weary state before a just and holy God.

Therefore, as Hammett argues, we as Baptist much repent of the sin of not practicing church disciple and fight the good fight of keeping the church pure and regenerate. It will be a long and hard endeavor, but one that we must do if we are to be faithful to the One who has called us. We much be a people who long to see Christ honored above all things and

Christ is honored when his bride is holy, but that cannot be as long as many of the members are making up that bride live like lost people. The Charleston Summary of Church Discipline says that when churches allow unconverted people to crowd into them, they “make the church of Christ a harlot.” Christ is honored when churches are composed of people whose church membership means first of all a genuine, vital commitment to Christ, and second, a commitment to the people of that local body, Christ is honored when church membership is meaningful.

Therefore, let us as regenerate men and women fight for meaningful and regenerate church membership that Christ might be honored and His body grow.

Conclusion

Hammett has written a fine work for those of the Baptist faith. He writes as a man with great insight and zeal for the church of God. Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches would prove to be a helpful resource for any pastor, but more exegetical and primary source work would be necessary. What Hammett’s work might be most helpful for is use in Sunday school classes, which would provide great opportunity for discussion of the distinctions between the Baptist tradition and others. What could stem out of that are churches compelled to live according to the Word of God and fall in love with the One it is written about as they come to understand what Christ has accomplished for His church, the saints of God and regenerated.