DOWN IN THE RIVER TO PRAY (A Review)

Dr. John Mark Hicks, professor of theology at David Lipscomb University  and Greg Taylor, editor of New Wineskins magazine have given us "Down in the River to Pray." The subtitle of their book is "Revisioning Baptism as God's Transforming Work." The presupposition of the authors is that members of the "traditional" churches of Christ have a faulty understanding of Christian baptism.  Their mission is to correct our mis-perceptions and provide us a new view of the subject.  Their interpretation is the product of the "new hermeneutic" that is at work among our university scholars.
Their conclusion is yes, baptism is important; no it is not essential to salvation; yes immersion is what the Bible teaches but a sincere believe can be saved although sprinkled in infancy. Yes, Scripture teaches baptism for remission of sins, but no it is not necessary to understand or believe this.

The book  demonstrates how to make a clear and simple matter obscure by means of a "scholarly" approach. It is a  vivid illustration of "the language of Ashdod."  Following the Babylonian Captivity  the Jews were caught up in the pluralism and multiculturalism of their day.  Their language was a confusing hodgepodge of Hebrew and Gentile dialects  (Neh. 13:24). Hicks and Taylor are enamored with the theological language of denominational seminaries choosing it over Bible terminology.  They find it hard to communicate in clear, simple language of Scripture. They  prefer the following type of expression: "If we take this ‘narrative' perspective seriously as a narrative indicator, then ‘even when Luke does not enumerate each item of human response and salvific promise comprised in Peter's pronouncements (and he rarely does), those responses and salvific gifts are to be presumed present unless we are given explicit reason to think otherwise" (p. 58). This is classic theobabble! The book abounds in murky expressions designed not to teach the lost the way of salvation but to impress their academic peers with the author's high level of learning and expertise.  Blessed is he who can make the difficult easy to be understood. Pity him who takes the simple and makes it obscure.  Paul would rather speak five words, easy to be understood than ten thousand words in a tongue (I Cor. 14:19), but he did not have his doctorate from a seminary.

The authors operate under several faulty assumptions:

• That Alexander Campbell is the standard and authority for establishing our faith.

• That Campbell's Lunenburg Letters trump anything else said by Campbell or other restoration pioneers.

• That all brethren prior to their recent movement held a distorted, unscriptural  view of baptism.

• That only scholars such as themselves can properly ferret out the meaning of God's Word.

• They assume the right to be brotherhood critics and interpreters of the faith.

• That we are saved by grace and faith alone, before and without water baptism.

• That Christians must necessarily derive their faith and convictions from theologians and their theologies than from a simple, honest study of God's Word.

• That even when God says something in clear certain terms scholars such as themselves are not under obligation to accept and obey it.

• They assume the position of reformers without understanding the standard from which many have strayed and to which they should be called!

While the reader will find in this book some interesting and useful historical information from the early days of Christianity, the good is far outweighed by the falsity of its conclusions, the confusion it sows and the dangerous recommendations it offers.

The authors do not understand who is and who is not a Christian. Notice, "... further downstream Christians killed and have been killed over their beliefs and practices of baptism" (p. 12).  While it is historically true that many Christians were persecuted even unto death because of their obedience to Christ in baptism, I challenge the authors to name us even one "Christian" (by God's definition) who has harmed or killed anyone who differed with him on baptism! Such statements are irresponsible and misleading.

Their purpose is to convince unsuspecting readers that while baptism is something nice to do, it is not essential for salvation.  Note this example: "Thus Luke recognizes some believers as disciples (Christians) who had not experienced proper baptism.  But this would also mean that he recognized some believers as disciples (Christian) who had not yet received the Holy Spirit" (p. 64).  This is the ultimate point they are so diligently wish to implant in the minds of unsophisticated readers. Therefore all of our family, friends and neighbors who believe in Jesus are Christians and we should accept them as such.

The authors'  approach is silly and irreverent. Notice: "Jesus dives in with his people who are look for the kingdom of God" (p. 53).  Such frivolous language regarding the baptism of our Lord borders on sacrilege.

As they survey church history they admit, "one constant was a consensus understanding that baptism was for the remission of sins and that the unbaptized saved adult was a rare exception" (p. 94).  Too bad them and other change agents do not believed this. One of their cardinal points is that baptism is not essential for remission of sins.

They tell us, "Ultimately, Alexander Campbell merged the Calvinian meaning of baptism as a means of grace with the Anabaptist practice of believers baptism" (p. 133).  They ignore or impugn the historical and biographical record that Campbell went back to the Bible and found his understanding there.  Since they derive their faith from theologians, they assume all other Christians must have done the same.  They appeal to Campbell's Lunenburg Letters to establish their doctrine that baptism is not essential to forgiveness and therefore there are Christians among the sects (p. 140-141).  These letters are the perennial appeal of all who wish to abandon the Restoration plea.  The authors are truly Campbellites.

"Those of us in the Stone-Campbell tradition who hold a high view of baptism are passionate about our understand.  We believe it is biblical and we resist any deflation of baptism's significance (p. 191).  We dispute their claim to a high view of baptism.  This book belies their claim.  They hold the same view as the Baptist church and deny the essentiality of baptism  for a person's salvation. Throughout the book they generally refer to "the Stone-Campbell Movement" rather than to churches of Christ.  One can't help but wonder if they are ashamed of the name church of Christ and the  Christians who are members thereof?  Allegedly they are members of the church of Christ!

Their kind of religious practice: Taylor describes a baptismal scene in Uganda, "With the baptismal plunge and lift of every person, the crowd surrounding the grave erupted in wild laughter, slapping their knees and smiling.  They delighted in watching each person exit the water, spitting and spewing" (p. 222) Is this the kind of emotion-packed, entertaining baptismal services they recommend for their changing churches?  Already they have the applauding and the entertainment setting. "For example, at a church camp in the hills of Northeast Oklahoma we would sing Galatians 2:20 over and over, faster and faster they words are burned into our minds..." (p. 232).  This type of activity is the wave of the future for churches pursuing the change program.

What they really believe: They tell us,

• "Baptism is a normative means through which God mediates his grace to us, but God is not limited by this means" (p. 238). I ask, how would we know since in their view there is no way for a church or an individual to know who is and who is not saved, since there is no single discernable way of salvation.  This is their bottom line.  It is nice to be baptized if your want to, but its not really necessary for a loving God will extend mercy to those who fail to do so.

• "The efficacy of baptism does not depend upon what we believe about baptism but whether we believe in Christ.  The object of faith is Christ, not baptism" (251).  Thus if one believes in Christ and becomes comatose or insane, we could immerse him acceptably because it doesn't matter what one knows of or about baptism?

• "...we reject rebaptism of those who were baptized as believers... Every immersion that expresses faith in Christ is effectively the grace of God...." (253) What then of those baptized as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Roman Catholic,  Greek Orthodox?

• "But the first concrete encounter with God is through baptism which is the gospel in water" (p. 254).  It is much better to say our first encounter is when we come to faith.  The Baptist preacher Jarrell likewise misunderstood the Bible's message on baptism and charged us with preach "the gospel in water" and so titled his book.

• With approval, they cite Jack Cottrell, Christian Church preacher and professor, "we should acknowledge that faith is the sole means of receiving salvation and in this sense agree that people are justified by (that is, by means of ) faith alone" (p. 157).  No matter what they say about baptism, this is their salvation message!

• "We see no reason why women should not baptize those they led to faith in Christ" (p. 254).  Moving women into church leadership roles is another key goal of our change agents!

"We believe it's time for a revival in the camps and another preaching down in the river" (p. 255).  What would they preach? What would they revive?  They are not absolutely sure sinners must be baptized! Poor change agents live such sheltered, cloistered lives.  They don't know what is going on in churches of Christ.  The theology department of a religious school is not a reflection of congregational life.

They ask, "Is there any unity to be had at the river, where Catholics, Baptists, Methodists and ‘Campbellites' had trod? (p. 256).  Here they manifest disrespect for the Lord's people by calling us Campbellites.  For 200 years enemies have hurled  this epithet of contempt at the church.  It has always been rejected forthrightly by those who love Christ and his church!  Do they use this as a hateful hiss or as a cute expression to show their ignorance.  I can understand them thinking they themselves are Campbellites for they believe Alexander Campbell founded their denomination. These authors, like Esau, readily exchange their biblical heritage for the pottage of denominational theology.

Christian leaders need to read this book, not for information about the biblical teaching on baptism. That is it weakest point. Read it to know what the promoters of change really believe; what their ultimate goal for your congregation is.  Those who follow them will be led away from the Word of God and into the swamp of human speculation and opinion. Congregations that embrace their agenda will cease to be churches of Christ, being transformed into yet another denomination. Mark well the names of the authors. You don't want to invite them to speak for your congregation.