The following is a response to changes proposed to the Constitution and Doctrinal Statement of Cherrydale Baptist Church in Arlington, Virginia.

Proposed changes documents The church has produced a document for the congregation that introduces the proposed changes, and then on a second page shows the current and proposed versions of those changes. The key statements that stand out to me in that introduction are, "Our motivation for proposing the change is driven by our desire to be better aligned with the first of our seven core values, Biblical Authority. This means that we seek to accurately interpret the Bible and align our beliefs and practices with its truths." Yes, being close to and correct with God's Word are good objectives. The only red flag I had in the introduction was in the concluding statement when they say, "In light of this, we are making the following proposed changes..." While that may be a typo, it may also reflect a bit of presumptive thinking about the result before the congregation had even seen the proposal. That kind of statement can undermine the thinking of people in the congregation who should be giving this a full evaluation, and not just approval. The original document as prepared by the church lists the changes in this order: 1. 2. 3. 4. Doctrinal Statement (original) Constitution (original) Doctrinal Statement (proposed) Constitution (proposed)

The original also employs two different strategies for showing the changes. For the Constitutional change, it shows subtractions and additions. For the doctrinal change, it does not show any subtractions and does not give careful attention to show what is added and what is staying the same. Admittedly, using that strategy on the Doctrinal Statement change to parse out the nuances of everything that is removed and everything that is added would make it harder to read. Also, these changes have already been through several revisions among the church leadership, a process which that revision method would have complicated. Nonetheless, I have drafted a version of this document that changes no content, but does give my best attempt at giving a more thorough look at what is changing in the doctrinal statement by specifically showing subtractions, additions, and what would stay the same in the doctrinal statement after the proposed change. I also change the order to more provide clearer contrast of the before and after of each change, and to put the bigger change at the end. Thus, my order is: 1. 2. 3. 4. Constitution (original) Constitution (proposed) Doctrinal Statement (original) Doctrinal Statement (proposed)

Constitution Change This change is fairly simple. It simply drops the immersion requirement for clarifying the mode of baptism, and then adds a requirement that first-time believer baptisms that happen at Cherrydale be by immersion for membership. The proposed changes do not completely eliminate immersion as a requirement for baptism. It is now just a requirement for new believer first-time baptisms at Cherrydale. This allows us to recognize other forms of believer baptism in a person's past for purposes of church membership, and I find that acceptable. Doctrinal Statement While the Constitutional change aims for a simple qualified dropping of the reference to immersion, the Doctrinal Statement change takes a completely different and more complicated approach. What follows here is not a comprehensive review of every change (that can be seen in the full modified version), but just some thoughts on questions these changes raise as I have them. Proposed change: "Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water" is replaced with "Jesus Christ has instituted and established two ordinances for His Church." At the risk of oversimplifying things, ordinances are the Baptist alternative to sacraments. For Baptists, nothing special happens at baptism, and sacraments are not required for salvation; they are simply symbols and matters of obedience. Yet it may be time to give second thought to this choice of term ordinance. Outside a theological context, an ordinance is typically something that a local county or city passes a law. Has Christ established two laws for His Church? it's "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" (Romans 10:4). Granted, righteousness here refers to salvation and Baptists are not saying ordinances are required for salvation. Yet, to call them ordinances is still the language of the law. Christ "abolished in his flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances" (Ephesians 2:15). Just because there are things for us to do as described in Scripture, opportunities to do things, that does not mean that every one of those constitutes a command. "Commands" is language of the law. We are "not under law but under grace " (Romans 6:14). Did Jesus call them commands? Yes, and they are a different kind of commands. They are "new commandments" (John 13:34). These are the kind that are "not burdensome " (1 John 5:3). If we approach his new commandments as laws we must follow, then I think we will miss the point. Communion wasn't something Jesus had to do; communion, that final Passover, was something Jesus ate with them after having been craving it "with fervent desire " (Luke 22:15). Laws push from behind; desire pulls one ahead. Commands from the law bring death (Romans 7:10); grace brings life (Romans 5:17).

Proposed change: "to show forth in a solemn and beautiful emblem" becomes "the initiatory rite of baptism and the ongoing rite of the Lord's Supper..." Rite? That has the same root as "ritual." To me, that is the very opposite of a relationship. A ritual is repetitive; a relationship is unpredictable. That word rite seems foreign to Baptists and the New Testament. It's not defined here either, and initial reviews of dictionary definitions tie it to sacraments. Even within the original proposed change as drafted now, rite is now competing with ordinance for describing what we're talking about here and is used twice vs. ordinance which is used once. Proposed change: Baptism shows "our faith in the crucified, buried and risen Savior" becomes "Baptism is an act of obedience that proclaims the believer's faith in and union with Christ..." This is the first of three times the "union with Christ" phrase is introduced into the Doctrinal Statement with these proposed changes. (The modified version actually obscures the first instance more than the original draft.) "Union with Christ" is an awkward and potentially confusing blend of pictures of our relationship with Christ, and of baptism. "We have been united together in the likeness of His death" and will be "in the likeness of his resurrection " (Romans 6:5). Uniting, an active and nonpermanent verb, is used in this verse of two things: baptism and resurrection. (KJV says "planted together." This is the only time the Greek word sumphutos used in the New Testament.) Union, while from the same root word, implies a more permanent and fixed change, and not an event. Wouldn't "union " be appropriate for comparisons with marriage? Baptism symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection more than it does marriage. Given that the proposed changes also use this phrase later with reference to communion, or the Lord's Supper, it begs the question, How many unions with Christ are there? I can see several times for uniting and coming together (baptism, communion, resurrection), but several unions? Proposed addition: "Baptism also symbolizes the believers baptism of the Holy Spirit..." Two questions: 1. What is meant by "baptism of the Holy Spirit"? 2. How does baptism symbolize that? To say that baptism symbolizes baptism seems to be a very awkward phrase to be putting into a core statement of faith document.

Purpose I agree with the stated purpose and intent of making changes based on both Scripture and the practical reasons described earlier. The Constitutional proposal cleanly and simply accomplishes this objective. The Doctrinal Statement proposal is neither clean nor simple. It adds several layers of complications and is raising more questions than it is answering for me. Unintended Consequences The unanswered questions that arise from these proposed changes, raise questions about the effect of these changes. That is, would these changes only increase who joins Cherrydale, or could they also drive current and other new members away? At the very least, the ambiguities created by these changes could drive existing and new members to create their own private interpretations of unclear phrases so they can accept the statement. The purpose of a doctrinal statement is to centralize key points of theological agreement. These proposed changes could have the opposite effect of that. Alternative Approach Wouldn't a simpler way to modify the doctrinal statement be to take the same simple approach as used in the Constitutional change? For instance, "We believe that the Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water to show forth in a solemn and beautiful emblem our faith in the crucified, buried and risen Savior..." could simply become, "We believe that Christian baptism with water shows forth in a solemn and beautiful emblem our faith in the crucified, buried and risen Savior..." Or with the alternate formatting: "We believe that the Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in with water to shows forth in a solemn and beautiful emblem our faith in the crucified, buried and risen Savior..." Contrasting this alternative approach to the current proposal also highlights a subtle shift in focus from "our faith in the crucified, buried and risen Savior," to "an act of obedience that proclaims the believer's faith in and union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection..." Both mention the believer and both mention Christ, yet the grammar of one focuses on the Savior while the grammar of the other focuses on the believer. Yes, that difference is important. Church Vote As best I can tell, the plan is for a single vote on both changes at once. I suggest this could be improved upon by (1) splitting the vote into separate votes on the Constitutional change and on the Doctrinal Statement change, and (2) simplifying the proposal for the Doctrinal Statement change to match the approach of the Constitutional change. Tim McGhee An expanded version of this document can be found at: http://bit.ly/Z9w8mi