A few weeks ago in this post I shared a short clip from the DVD teaching aid accompanying Francis Chan’s bestselling book Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God.
In the clip, Francis articulated his struggle to base his beliefs strictly on the written word, and not on what others fed him outside of it. His conclusion from reading scripture only: if you want to become a Christian, you shouldn’t walk an isle and pray a prayer, you should repent, be baptized, and be filled with the Holy Spirit.
Honestly, he is the first leader outside of Restoration Movement churches I have ever heard say or teach this, and I was quite shocked to hear him do so (so were many others as revealed in the ensuing discussion). In the Restoration Movement, we’ve been teaching this for many years, and have taken much heat and been accused of many unkind things for doing so. It’s encouraging to me to see at least one ‘mainstream’ evangelical leader in agreement with us, and, at the risk of sounding pretentious, with scripture!
One commenter (Tyler Ellis – a campus minister friend) directed me to further teaching from Francis on this subject, and that teaching is what I would like to share with you today.
I encourage you to watch this lesson, take a few notes, and share your thoughts in a comment. This is the simplest, best lesson on repentance, baptism, and the Holy Spirit I’ve heard in a long time, and would love to hear what you think about it. It’s 39 minutes long, and well worth watching.
Here’s the video (if you’re reading this in a feed reader or via email subscription, you may need to come to the actual website to see it):
Love to hear from you. What do you think about this?
Thank you to Tyler Ellis for the sharing this with me.
For more teaching materials and study aids by Francis Chan for use in your ministry, go here. To access archived sermons by Francis Chan at Cornerstone Church, go here.
The Overflow 
I saw it when Tyler recommended it. I think I’ll share it on my blog, too. Thanks, Wes.
I could not get it to work right. I may try to share it again later.
Terry to get the video to work on a wordpress blog, you have to type “
” without the quotation marks into your blog post.
I’m am not, however, sure how it works with blogspot.
I finally got it to work. Thanks, Wes!
John R.W. Stott has some good writing on baptism. His commentary on Acts (The Spirit, the Church, and the World) and a book specifically on baptism (Baptism and Fullness) reach conclusions quite similar to the restoration movement. Odd thing though: in spite of acknowledging the importance and necessity of baptism, he still supports sprinkling as being the equivalent. So close, but not quite there.
I also have a volume in my print library by a Baptist writer considered by many to be the seminal work on baptism, which supports (and even fortifies) our position. The Church of Christ and the Baptists were well aligned on baptism until political considerations caused a great schism. I can go into more detail if you would like. My printed books are all boxed up since I tend to do most of my reading electronically, but I’m planning to donate them to the country church where I grew up and I need to do an inventory before I turn them over, so I’ll try to look up that title soon. Remind me if I forget.
Interesting. I’ll bet he bases his view of sprinkling on what it says in the Didache.
I think the Baptist scholar referenced by G is G.R. Beasley-Murray. His book is “Baptism in the New Testament.”
He is an interesting discussion topic. The Didache is generally dated to the late 1st century by an unknown writer who clearly allows a sprinkling exception as baptism for those unable to be immersed due to illness, in-climate weather, and so on. Most scholars also believe the Epistles of John were written towards the late 1st century. In the Epistles, the Apostle John (not all scholars agree on his authorship) is clearly interested in preserving the sound fundamentals of the Christian faith. If then, we take the Didache as a historical document that the practice of baptism was changing by the late 1st century, why was the Apostle John not concerned to address that issue but was concerned with the doctrine of Jesus Christ, loving one another, and living (walking) according to our confession of Jesus?
I know that is a hypothetical question with a few assumptions that cannot really be answered with any certainty. However, I do find it interesting to ponder given the fact that the Restoration Movement has made the doctrine of baptism the be all, end all as a test of Christian fellowship while there has been some in our movement that have had, at best, a questionable doctrine of Christ.
And some people wonder why I am hesitant to use the doctrine of baptism as a test of Christian fellowship. On baptism you might be right and I might be right…or you and I might be wrong. I am more concerned that we share a common confession of faith in Jesus Christ as the crucified and resurrected Lord and Savior and that our confession results in a common commitment to lives as disciples of Jesus. At the end of the day, we’ll still get that messed up a bit and need God grace to sort that out in his own time.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
It is always encouraging to see others follow God’s Word over man’s teaching.
Thanks for the clarification Terry.
Lynn – agreed. Now if we can apply that to our own tradition across the board, that’d be great 🙂
Do you mean to hint that if we dared to place scripture above tradition, we might come to the conclusion that some of this historically held beliefs in the CoC are not as biblically based as some would like to think? You heretic :-)!
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Thanks for filling in my gaps, Terry. Yes, that is the author and book I was referring to. I could see the green cover with white type in my mind, but the name and title just wouldn’t come to me.
Regarding Rex’s hypotheses, a couple thoughts come to mind. Although the time frame would make those drifts to be contemporary, it may be that they were pocketed instances and just hadn’t reach John. That seems plausible, especially given the exile of his later years. Also, by this time the activity of the apostles had become limited, mainly because most of them had died with the exception of the “abnormally born” Paul and the Jesus-granted longevity of John. The church had pretty much been turned over to local elders at that time. And speaking of elders, Paul warned the Ephesian elders that false teachers would come up from their very midst, so it should be no surprise that his warning came true in terms of aspersion replacing baptism. Right around this same time (just a few decades later) is when infant baptism was also introduced.
That is why it is an untestable hypothesis, as it makes an assumption that John would have known about some of the changes taking place with baptism when there is no way to show with any reasonable certainty (that I know of) as to whether John would have known or not. However, John’s exile would have nothing to do with this since he seems to be aware of other issues facing churches. Also, are we not making a big assumption that any change in the form of baptismal practice is part of the false teaching Paul warned about? Some closer exegesis of 1 & 2 Timothy might hint that Paul had other issues at the forefront of his mind when warning about coming false teaching.
I am not arguing for sprinkling/pouring as a form of baptism, as I believe in immersion, but it does seem to make a big assumption to say that such a change was part of the false teaching warned about in scripture (which is also based on several hermeneutical assumption about the interpretation of scripture and just what exactly the scriptures teach about baptism).
Grace and Peace,
Rex
I doubt the teachings in the Didache would have been considered false by John. As far as I know, there’s no evidence they were ever challenged by the early church (could be wrong about that though – if someone knows otherwise please share).
Also, the instructions about sprinkling specifically state it was ONLY okay to do if there was no way to get access to enough water to immerse. This makes sense considering people in prisons were coming to Christ and weren’t able to be baptized by immersion before their deaths in Roman arenas.
And that shows that the writer of the Didache (whoever he/she was) valued Apostolic teaching about baptism without becoming a legalist that was unable to understand that any teaching must be applied and sometimes nuanced with wisdom in specific situations where the norm is impractical or impossible for reasons only germane to the unique context. Thus the way the Didache applies the baptismal situation can teach us a lot about practical hermeneutics in our own unique contexts.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Sorry for any confusion. I’m limiting my social networking these days for the sake of keeping my grad school work on a higher plane. I’ll only be here just a little while longer; I can blog and look at the book of faces plenty after that, but I can’t make up for poor performance there or go back and learn things only available in this specific environment. Still, I’m trying to maintain some spiritual interactions, and I enjoy Wes’ blog. Anyway, I wasn’t saying the diverging views on the time, place, mode, etc. of baptism were THE false teaching Paul warned against but putting it as a possibility or it accompanying what he specifically meant. Then again, he may have been nondescript on purpose… (Really, I think it was more likely the impending abuses and heresy of the Roman Catholic church. John seems to be more concerned with Gnosticism.) It’s hard to cover all the potentialities of what Paul and John meant (or the potential interpretation of my own meager attempts at using the English language) in a brief post. I was trying to throw out some food for thought w/o going into way too much detail… Forgive me if I misspoke. Now back to the grad school grind!
And food for thought it was. Deliveries always accepted here. 🙂
As I read the discussion here I think back to Chan’s question, “Why do you ask?”
That point hit home with me. Even his 7 year old got it. Maybe that’s why Jesus said we “must become like little children to enter the Kingdom of Heaven”.
I happened onto this exchange while surfing Chan related items. Chan’s ‘Spirit 3’ sermon, pages 49 & 69 in ‘Forgotten God’, and his last Spring sermon at Spirit West Coast all match regarding his strong Acts 2:38 view on baptism. Imagine my shock as a non-denom and Baptist guy for 35 years. I got alone with the Word and am understanding some new things apart from tradition. Although I’ve recently made some new CoC friends I’m finding difficulty connecting with others that can break free of the traditions and follow the Word raw. Chan’s on the narrow road and I’m merging too trying not to forsake the assembly.
Hiya Smith – are you in California?
I was for about 25 years. I’m in TN now next door to where you spent some time.
I never thought living in the Bible belt buckle would leave a follower so short on like-minded friends. It’s really got me concerned about areas in the Word like ‘remnant’, ‘few are they’, and only 8 saved in the flood.
I assume you’re near Memphis? There are a lot of good churches in that area.
If you’d like to let me know closer to whereabout I may be able to give you a referral.
Feel free to turn me on to a non-denom that preaches Acts 2:38 like Chan, with the baptistry on the platform, but with a few musical instruments as well. Traditions of Men have ruined many walks and there are plenty with those types around here.
Here’s a church I’ve heard good things about in Collierville: http://gracecrossing.com/
There’s several more in Memphis, although they are acappella.
I checked out Grace Crossing thoroughly. They are non-denom and have good worship but most are ex-CoC’s that are moving away from baptism as necessity. Most of the leaders like Chan, but their newer pastor has a baptist history and likes Driscol. I’ve talked with him and he’s a good guy.
It seems unlikely in such a dense church area but I think I’ve exhausted all possibilities. Happy to hear other suggestions though.
It’s interesting that even the other Cornerstone plant pastors don’t align with Chan on Acts 2:38. I’ve emailed or spoken to most.
The way you capitalized “Traditions of Men” makes me wonder if you’re referring to a specific organization, or maybe a book or something.
If the capitalization is unintentional and you’re meaning to equate a cappella singing as a man-made tradition then I would request you look into the matter a little further. The Churches of Christ reached that conclusion from insisting on a New Testament teaching for every practice. There wasn’t one to be found to authorize instruments in worship, so they stuck with the simple instructions given to “sing and make melody in your hearts.” Other than those coming from a non-religious / unbelieving perspective, pretty much everyone who joined the Church of Christ as it was being established in America would have left a group that used instruments. If you go back into the history of most groups in the Reformation, a lot of them (almost all) began with a cappella singing as a significant part of their teaching. If you go back even further, the early church sang a cappella. The etymology of a cappella reveals it to come from Italian and literally means “according to the style of the chapel” (i.e., like how we sing at church).
Now, all of that appeals pretty much to the New Testament, but (believe it or not) a cappella singing can readily be established from the Old Testament. Orthodox Jews sing a cappella too. It’s a long discussion (well, not that long), and I’ve already typed too long of a reply as is.
I don’t know why I used caps when I meant to use quotes. I just meant that I am a product of tradition and wnat as little to do with it as possible. Whether it be the Baptists leaving baptism as an ordinance or the CoC’s leaving off what God honored from David. (God doesn’t change).
Excellent. Good that you recognize instruments as an innovation from David; you’re halfway there. It seems you’re looking at a cappella singing as a tradition of men (specifically Church of Christ men [and women]), but if you’ll look at little further you’ll find it just as I stated. You state that God honored David’s instruments, but I don’t see that. If you have a specific Scripture in mind, I would be glad to consider it. I may be mistaken, but I can’t recall a verse that reads as you say — specifically honoring David and his instruments. Instead, I see a clear indication from the Old Testament that David added these instruments. And Amos (6:5) in condemning the prideful attitudes in Israel specifically references strumming on harps like David as evidence of complacency. (And like you said, God doesn’t change. So how did He honor David’s instruments in one instance and condemn them in another? Maybe he didn’t honor them in the first place.) Again, more I could say, but if you can present a verse (or some verses) that states things like you have asserted I would be glad to look at it. In that search, also look into what is specifically commanded when God gave the law to Moses and see what you find.
I applaud you in seeking to eliminate human traditions from your life. We all need to do that and guard against new ones creeping in. I don’t want to speak too broadly, but most everyone I know among the people who follow Wes’ blog are ones who would readily part with CoC traditions whenever necessary. But some traditions are actually good. I grew up being taught to insist on “book, chapter, and verse” for any teaching, and challenging the preacher (respectfully of course, you could be wrong yourself) was welcomed.
Godspeed!
Check out Cordova Community Church… (www.cordovachurch.org) …one of their preachers is also a Professor of Theology at Harding University Graduate School of Religion and their cell group minister is also on staff with HUGSR.
Might also check out the Sycamore View Church of Christ, White Station Church of Christ, or Highland Church of Christ. All are acappella, but great churches.
I would second Wes’s recommendations. I was a member at Highland Church of Christ and I know people who are members of both Sycamore View and White Station. All three are great churches.
Interesting that you blame the CoC for “leaving off what God honored from David” (as you put it.) The churches of the first centry also left it off. You say, “God doesn’t change”, but He did change the way of worship from the Old Test time. No more killing bulls or priest worship or robes or incense or…well you get my point. It’s also interesting that you say you want “as little to do” with tradition as possible and yet the use of instruments is a “tradition”.
What I enjoy about Chan is his stance to return to the Bible.
I encourage you to leave your traditions aside and search for a church in Memphis that is really trying to follow God’s way. There are some there.
The prohibition against instrumental music in Christian worship is a tradition of man based in a very questionable hermeneutical approach (Regulative) to reading scripture that restricts the very freedom from regulations we were set free from through the death of Jesus (Col 2.13-22). One would think that if a cappella only worship was so important to God, that God would have made it more clear in scripture rather than requiring some clever thinkers to come up with a hermeneutic that makes the NT only as regulative (when the NT itself claims that all scripture, which includes the OT, is for training in righteousness – 2 Tim 3.16-17) through a maze of direct commands, approved examples, and necessary inferences (noting that those adjectives – direct, approved, and necessary – make the entire enterprise a subjective effort) that is then filtered through a so-called law of silence that is added to scripture since that law is never stated in scripture (although those who use it will make very bad use of OT proof-texts to try and substantiate its use).
Bottom line is, while it is well documented that the earliest Christians continued the tradition of a cappella singing that had came to be the Jewish tradition of the day, there is no way to make this practice as being a mandate of biblical Christianity in the same way that a teaching such as teaching like abstinence from sexual immorality. It is, at best, a matter of conscience. But to force the matter upon others is to make a rule where one does not exist. And I am of the opinion that though many leaders in the CoC have accused those adding instruments of causing division, I think it has been a 2-way street…and this was a conclusion I came to after serving in an a cappella congregation which had several families who came from a Christian Church.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Rex your talking about how some in the CoC view the use of instruments in worship. Many others simply view it from the point of view that since the first church did not use it, they don’t. They don’t view it as a “prohibition” (as you put it.
I like to put it this way; I’m not against instruments in worship, I’m for Acappella worship.
I won’t judge you for using them, but I won’t stand still and allow you to judge us for not. I just choose to work with those who are doing what they did in the first church without adding instruments. Seems they were ok with it.
I do wonder when it becomes “self-will” worship. When I do something just because “I” like it better I feel it begins to cross a line into self.
How have I judged those who, like myself, worship by choice in a cappella singing congregation? I was only deconstructing the traditional argument that has been put forth in Churches of Christ for a cappella worship. I have no problem with a cappella worship and actually prefer a cappella…perhaps because I was raised in an a cappella congregation but also because as an amateur musician who has played in a few bands, most of the time when I visit an instrumental congregation I find the praise band to be poorly mixed (often the trap-drum set is too loud).
But back to the issue… Does your church literally greet one another with a holy kiss which is commanded in a passage (Rom 16.16) that most CoC’s like to take literally as the reason why their congregation is called “Church of Christ” rather than something like “Community Church”? Does your church have widows who show hospitality by washing feet since Paul mentioned that practice (1 Tim 5.10) which was also commanded by Jesus as well as modeled by him as one of the approved examples (cf. John 13)?
I am just asking to try and see how this hermeneutic of doing what the first church did actually works. It’s not that I have a problem with doing something that the first church did. My problem is that I believe scripture teaches us to be followers of Jesus (cf. Mk 1.17) which is not the same thing as being following some historical period of the church. I am thoroughly convinced that if we are going to faithfully engage in the mission of God in an incarnational, contextualized manner that it is going to mean doing somethings in a different manner than the first church (or any other historical period of the church) did. In short, I believe the church is to be Jesus Christ in the 21st century and not the first century church. That means that I am striving to defend my practice as a Christian not based on whether or not it was done by any other historical period of the church (all though the way I live as a Christian does have many things in common with the way other Christians have lived within history) but whether my practice faithfully embodies the life Jesus Christ lived…and as an obvious, I still fall short in many ways.
Any ways…I am only critical of the traditional hermeneutic employed in the CoC because it, IMHO, has shackled churches/Christians from living out the mission of God. At its worst, it led to arguments over how a church can support orphans rather than just supporting orphans…and that led to a good many divisions. What good is a hermeneutic that enables Christians to miss doing justice for the orphans of this world because they are hung up on the issue of “how” or “what form” is biblically legitimate for helping orphans.
I hope that explains a little more of where I am coming from. Blessings upon your college ministry. May you teach many students to be followers of Jesus!
Grace and Peace,
Rex
P.S., Sorry for the long comment Wes.
With my understanding of reading and study of Gods word..we are not to go beyond what is authorized. Under who’s authority do we have the right to ADD instruments in worship…when it is not inspired in the NT.. God did not authorize it through the apostels teaching.. under what authority do we have that right? What authority do we have to TAKE AWAY the importance of baptism for our salvation? If it’s written in the Word..it is set in stone! Is it not man that adds or takes away, and aren’t we told to not add or take away! I will not ever say that anyone is dammed for their beliefs..that is for God to judge..but we must remember that we are going to be judged according to His will..and His will is brought to us by His Word. Why do we not have the fear of losing our souls over our wants and desires, instead of what God wants? Let us remember, Jesus is the Word, and He is the only way to our eternal salvation.
Regarding the last from ‘G’ and ‘Tulsa’ 1 Chronicles 23:5 in light of Acts 13:22 are enough for me, but the response is appreciated.
Right-on Rex.
Thanks for the assembly suggestions guys. As mentioned I am on a search for like-minders in my area and have learned that those that follow Jesus and the preponderance of Biblical evidence combined with John 7:38 are the associations I would like. I’ve seen a rare example of that in Chan. I’m looking for what I’ve seen at his church which are to keep it simple with a few instruments, practicing Acts 2:38, 50% of all offerings to missions and helping those in the most need, small home groups for deeper spiritual interaction, and open edification during assembly.
On another note, I find it interesting how almost every time I read a discussion on Repentance and Baptism it seems to turn to Instruments in worship.
Is this because those who follow the Bibical teaching on Repentence and Baptism also seem to be the ones who don’t use instruments in worship?
Just an observation.
I will start my comment with full disclosure: I haven’t (yet) read Mr. Chan’s book, nor viewed the video you reference (my iPhone won’t play Vimeos), nor have I seen or heard any other discussion on his articulations (yet) so I can only comment based on your blog post above and my own understanding/beliefs. I spent the first 34 years of my life attending mainline Church of Christ congregations (including short-term missions trips and missionary/ministry training and a short stint as an interim elder).
I’ve spent the last 5&1/2 years attending a charismatic/word-of-faith church (Victory Churches International) including short-term missions and am currently a “deacon”-board member.
I agree 100% with your summary of Mr. Chan’s conclusion. The only complaint(s) I have with it is, if your belief holds true to what I was taught growing up, the assertion/assumption that you ate not saved UNTIL you come up out of the water and what it means to be “filled with the Holy Spirit”.
While the New Testament seems clear that God intends that a typical believer’s conversion story includes immersive water baptism, it is not so clearly laid out that a person who reports to love God with all his heart (etc.) but is not immersively water baptized will surely be sent to hell.
I’m not saying baptism is an optional “way to express your faith to others -IF you want to”. I’m just saying that ALL types of Christians tend to conclude that the way they understand the scriptures is, if not the ONLY way to correctly understand scripture, then certainly the most accurate possible way to understand it.
No-one person or group has cornered the market on complete accuracy when it comes to interpreting scripture.
Two scriptures in particular indicate baptism is not a benchmark for successful entry into heaven: “If you believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord and you confess with your mouth, you will be saved.” Also, in Jesus’ parable about the sheep and goats, he never referenced baptism as a deciding factor. He said those who lived/behaved a certain way would get in. Those who didn’t (but mistakenly thought they were living the right way) would be rejected.
For this reason, I’m not critical of my pastor or church for using the sinner’s prayer (especially since my pastor encourages those who say it to get baptized.) I’m also not quick to judge pro athletes, entertainers, etc. who thank God for their win/success.
Everyone who does believe in God and is trying to please Him is on a journey somewhere between living with the pigs and the prodigal father’s welcome home party. As long as they’re moving along that road I thank God they publicly acknowledge Him and bring positive attention to Him.
(I don’t hear complaints about these people being hypocrites. It’s the local members/church leadership and national leaders who fall -ie: televangelists, etc. – that draw complaints from “fringe” Christians and church/God-haters.)
Now, regarding what it means to be “filled with the Holy Spirit”: I will bet you dollars to donuts without even reading Mr Chan’s book that what he means by that statement is not what you think that statement means (if you agree with the mainline Church of Christ teaching that I was taught).
Just as the New Testament is clear that (immersive water) baptism is intended to be part of the Christian “experience”, so too is it clear that to be filled with the Holy Spirit is to be “filled with power” (from on high). Being filled with the Holy Spirit wasn’t (just) about feeling warm and fuzzy about God, being saved from my sins or that I’ve got a ticket to Heaven.
And those who say the gifts of the Holy Spirit ended with the Apostles (or with those whom they laid hands on personally) are not reading scripture with both eyes open. They will (usually) readily agree that gifts of hospitality, generosity, administration and teaching are gifts of God (the Bible says so in as many words) and in the same or next sentence deny that prophecy, speaking in tongues, gifts of healing, etc. are also gifts from God. They proudly recall 1 Cor 13 as “proof” that Spiritual Gifts have ended (“We have the (perfect) Bible now. We don’t need Spiritual gifts!”) but they ignore the first half of 1 Cor 12:31 and the second half of 1 Cor 14:1 that we should “eagerly/earnestly” desire spiritual gifts (especially those) that build up the church.
It’s not an either/or! It’s a both/and! It’s not a choice between love OR Spiritual gifts! It’s love AND Spiritual gifts! Desire AND use Spiritual gifts IN love. Out of your love for God and others – use your Spiritual gifts that God gave you to build up others the church. Laying down your own life for others, considering their needs as well as your own. This is love! And this is impossible unless one has been filled with the Holy Spirit.
I have a great friend who is a preacher in the Memphis area. Terry Francis preaches at the East Shelby church of Christ. Mr. Smith, you should definitely give them a try.
http://www.eastshelby.org/lEvangelist.php
He askes where the prayer comes from. Easy, romans 10:9. Although I agree with baptism it states in scripture it is for the recieval of the Holy Spirit. By confessing Jesus Christ as Lord saves you. Why the problem with the prayer. Surely there can still be baptism and filling of the Holy Spirit after the prayer, or would you say walking down the aisl, confessing and believing that Jesus Christ is Lord would not save you?
Why is it we have to decide between Confession and baptism when the Scriptures clearly say both?
does Bro chan believe baptizm must be in Jesus Name
Regarding G and Smith on David and instruments of music, the clearest expression of God sanctioning David’s instruments is 2 Chronicles 29:25-26 … “for the commandment was from the Lord through the prophets.”
Dinkum Downunderwriter David