If you’ve ever seen a baptism at Good News Church - that was done by someone other than Doug Davison or Mario Villella - you probably already knew that Good News doesn’t have a practice of limiting the act of baptizing only to ordained clergy.
I can think about a baptism we had one time where a woman asked her friend (who had been influential in teaching her about Jesus) to baptize her. I can also think of a fairly recent time when a young man who was raised as a Christian, turned away from God as a young adult, then truly believed in Jesus in his mid-twenties. When he came “back” to Jesus, he asked his father (the person who raised him to believe in Jesus) to baptize him. It was an emotional baptism, and it happened right here at Good News Church. I love witnessing those moments.
So, for years now, it hasn’t really ever occurred to me that I ought to do a deep dive into explaining why we do what we do in this particular area. However, recently I came across an article titled, “Why Only Pastors Can Baptize.”
That article reminded me that not every Christian agrees on this subject, and I figured it would be interesting to read an article from “the other side.” However, what I read that day had such poor reasoning, that I decided to post this article not only as a rebuttal, but as a way to explain to our church why we hold to the position that we do.
First of all, here’s my argument in short:
I can think about a baptism we had one time where a woman asked her friend (who had been influential in teaching her about Jesus) to baptize her. I can also think of a fairly recent time when a young man who was raised as a Christian, turned away from God as a young adult, then truly believed in Jesus in his mid-twenties. When he came “back” to Jesus, he asked his father (the person who raised him to believe in Jesus) to baptize him. It was an emotional baptism, and it happened right here at Good News Church. I love witnessing those moments.
So, for years now, it hasn’t really ever occurred to me that I ought to do a deep dive into explaining why we do what we do in this particular area. However, recently I came across an article titled, “Why Only Pastors Can Baptize.”
That article reminded me that not every Christian agrees on this subject, and I figured it would be interesting to read an article from “the other side.” However, what I read that day had such poor reasoning, that I decided to post this article not only as a rebuttal, but as a way to explain to our church why we hold to the position that we do.
First of all, here’s my argument in short:
- The Bible never limits baptism to pastors only.
- The Bible has examples of non-pastors baptizing.
- The Bible gives commands to baptize to the same group of people who are supposed to “make disciples” and teach people all that Jesus commanded us.
So, let’s take them one at a time, and after that, I’ll address some objections found in the original article that I’m critiquing.
1. The Bible Never Limits Baptism to Pastors Only
Even the article that I linked above (one that argues exclusively for pastor-baptisms) acknowledges this: “No passage in the New Testmant overtly states such a position.” So it’s surprising to me that the author would go on to lay down a hard and fast rule, based on something the Bible doesn’t address. After all, the title of his piece is “Why Only Pastors Can Baptize” and not something more nuanced like “Why Pastors Ought to do Most Baptisms.”
Who says only pastors can baptize? Not the Bible.
Who says only pastors can baptize? Not the Bible.
2. The Bible Has Examples of Non-Pastors Baptizing
Again, this is a fact acknowledged in the article that is arguing for the opposite position. The author brings up that baptisms were performed by both Philip (Acts 8:38) and Ananias (Acts 9:18) - although the Ananias passage doesn’t explicitly say that Ananias did the baptizing. (I do agree that that is the best guess, though.)
Similarly, there are baptisms mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:12-17 that Paul claims were specifically not performed by him when he was evangelizing Corinth. One could assume that most of those baptisms there were also done by non-pastors (or I suppose, from the other perspective, one could assume that Paul must have ordained some men to be pastors in Corinth not too long after his arrival in order to have them do most of the baptizing that needed to be done there.) Either way, that passage shows that baptisms need not be performed by the “highest ranking” Christians among us. There was an apostle present in Corinth, and he says that he did not do most of the baptizing in this young church.
The author of the article cited above doesn’t mention the 1 Corinthians passage, but he does mention the Ananias and Philip examples and he calls them “exceptions to the norm.” Ha ha ha, well, yes, they are exceptions to the norm once you’ve established that “only-pastors-baptizing” is the norm. But that hasn’t been done yet. He’d already admitted that the Bible doesn’t have a rule about this. So, I’m not sure what Bible rule these stories are exceptions to.
He also argues for Philip to be considered an “office” holder of the church based on Acts 6:5, which I suppose he believes makes Philip’s practice of “non-pastor-baptism” to be more acceptable. However, it’s clear in that passage that the office that Philip held (if any) was that of deacon. So, at this point, the article should already be retitled to “Why Only Pastors and Deacons Can Baptize” at the very least.
It is also stated that Ananias holding a church office is not something mentioned in a Bible text, and yet that does not dissuade the author from continuing to limit baptism more than Scripture does.
Similarly, there are baptisms mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:12-17 that Paul claims were specifically not performed by him when he was evangelizing Corinth. One could assume that most of those baptisms there were also done by non-pastors (or I suppose, from the other perspective, one could assume that Paul must have ordained some men to be pastors in Corinth not too long after his arrival in order to have them do most of the baptizing that needed to be done there.) Either way, that passage shows that baptisms need not be performed by the “highest ranking” Christians among us. There was an apostle present in Corinth, and he says that he did not do most of the baptizing in this young church.
The author of the article cited above doesn’t mention the 1 Corinthians passage, but he does mention the Ananias and Philip examples and he calls them “exceptions to the norm.” Ha ha ha, well, yes, they are exceptions to the norm once you’ve established that “only-pastors-baptizing” is the norm. But that hasn’t been done yet. He’d already admitted that the Bible doesn’t have a rule about this. So, I’m not sure what Bible rule these stories are exceptions to.
He also argues for Philip to be considered an “office” holder of the church based on Acts 6:5, which I suppose he believes makes Philip’s practice of “non-pastor-baptism” to be more acceptable. However, it’s clear in that passage that the office that Philip held (if any) was that of deacon. So, at this point, the article should already be retitled to “Why Only Pastors and Deacons Can Baptize” at the very least.
It is also stated that Ananias holding a church office is not something mentioned in a Bible text, and yet that does not dissuade the author from continuing to limit baptism more than Scripture does.
3. The Bible gives commands to baptize to the same group of people who are supposed to “make disciples” and “teach” people all that Jesus commanded us.
This might be the most important passage in this entire debate. In Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus said:
“Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you.”
So, the question is, for whom was this command intended?
Yes, the people on the other side rightly point out that those commands were given to the apostles. However, I’m not sure I’ve ever met a Christian who believed that this command was limited exclusively to them. If baptism were something special that only apostles could do, then how did that power get passed on to pastors? And if it was passed on to pastors, how do we know it was only passed on to pastors? And what about the commands right before and after it? I’ve never read a Christian article titled “Only Pastors Can Make Disciples” or “Only Pastors Can Teach People.”
In these verses, Jesus gave the baptism command to the same group of people to whom he gave the disciple and teaching commands.
“Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you.”
So, the question is, for whom was this command intended?
Yes, the people on the other side rightly point out that those commands were given to the apostles. However, I’m not sure I’ve ever met a Christian who believed that this command was limited exclusively to them. If baptism were something special that only apostles could do, then how did that power get passed on to pastors? And if it was passed on to pastors, how do we know it was only passed on to pastors? And what about the commands right before and after it? I’ve never read a Christian article titled “Only Pastors Can Make Disciples” or “Only Pastors Can Teach People.”
In these verses, Jesus gave the baptism command to the same group of people to whom he gave the disciple and teaching commands.
4. Other Objections brought up in the article are similarly unhelpful.
The author quotes from Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and various confessions to point out that there have been people throughout church history who have agreed with him on this. I don’t doubt that. But that doesn’t hold water for me if the goal is to show what the Bible actually teaches on this. (If I remember right, Luther also believed we should burn down synagogues. That’s not to say he’s not an important figure within Christianity. I’m just saying that he wasn’t right about everything.)
Lastly, there is a section that says there is “a practical reason why only ministers should baptize.” That may be true. And if it is, perhaps the author should have titled his work: “There’s A Practical Reason That Only Pastors Should Baptize” but, no, he went with the more dogmatic thesis.
His practical concern seems to be that there is a connection between church discipline and the sacraments. I suppose he’s saying that the people who allow admittance into the church (ie: “baptizers”) need to be the same people who withhold Lord’s Supper and/or remove the people from the church when unrepentant sin comes to light. Therefore, the people who exercise church discipline must be the people who administer the sacraments.
Sure, that makes logical sense. However, the problem with it is assuming that “church discipline” and “Lord’s Supper” are also things that can only be done by pastors. Those are assumptions simply asserted and not proven.
The fact is Lord’s Supper is another thing that the Bible does not limit only to pastors. And the final court of appeal in church discipline is actually not “the pastors” but the whole congregation according to Jesus in Matthew 18:17.
Lastly, there is a section that says there is “a practical reason why only ministers should baptize.” That may be true. And if it is, perhaps the author should have titled his work: “There’s A Practical Reason That Only Pastors Should Baptize” but, no, he went with the more dogmatic thesis.
His practical concern seems to be that there is a connection between church discipline and the sacraments. I suppose he’s saying that the people who allow admittance into the church (ie: “baptizers”) need to be the same people who withhold Lord’s Supper and/or remove the people from the church when unrepentant sin comes to light. Therefore, the people who exercise church discipline must be the people who administer the sacraments.
Sure, that makes logical sense. However, the problem with it is assuming that “church discipline” and “Lord’s Supper” are also things that can only be done by pastors. Those are assumptions simply asserted and not proven.
The fact is Lord’s Supper is another thing that the Bible does not limit only to pastors. And the final court of appeal in church discipline is actually not “the pastors” but the whole congregation according to Jesus in Matthew 18:17.
Conclusion
I do agree that there are practical reasons that cause pastors to do more baptizing than other Christians. At Good News, I would guess that, over these last 13 years, about 70% of our baptisms have been performed by pastors.
Lord’s Supper has been similar, in fact it’s usually even more pastor-led than baptisms. However, I know that we’ve had times at Royal Family Kids Camp where communion was served (this was before the campers arrived) and the person who organized it was a non-pastor.
It is also true that the pastors and elders of Good News are the people who tackle the most difficult church discipline cases as well… but we’ve always taught that even that job is actually the work of the whole church, and not only it’s leadership.
Therefore I must admit that the article linked above, though intended to persuade me to believe only pastors should baptize, actually had the opposite effect. If possible, I am even more sure that that isn’t true. In fact, I am certain enough that I thought it worth writing all of this out for you. I hope you found it helpful to know why Good News Church doesn’t limit baptism (and Lord’s Supper and Church Discipline) in any stricter way than the Bible does.
Lord’s Supper has been similar, in fact it’s usually even more pastor-led than baptisms. However, I know that we’ve had times at Royal Family Kids Camp where communion was served (this was before the campers arrived) and the person who organized it was a non-pastor.
It is also true that the pastors and elders of Good News are the people who tackle the most difficult church discipline cases as well… but we’ve always taught that even that job is actually the work of the whole church, and not only it’s leadership.
Therefore I must admit that the article linked above, though intended to persuade me to believe only pastors should baptize, actually had the opposite effect. If possible, I am even more sure that that isn’t true. In fact, I am certain enough that I thought it worth writing all of this out for you. I hope you found it helpful to know why Good News Church doesn’t limit baptism (and Lord’s Supper and Church Discipline) in any stricter way than the Bible does.
