response to proposed changes at cherrydale baptist church

7/30/2019 Response to Proposed Changes at Cherrydale Baptist Church

1/4

The following is a response to changes proposed to theConstitutionandDoctrinal Statementof

Cherrydale Baptist Church in Arlington, Virginia.

Proposed changes documents

The church has produceda documentfor 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 sevencore values,

Biblical Authority. This means that we seek to accurately interpret the Bible and align our beliefsand 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 congregationwho 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. Doctrinal Statement (original)2. Constitution (original)3. Doctrinal Statement (proposed)4. Constitution (proposed)

The original also employs two different strategies for showing the changes. For theConstitutional 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 isstaying the same.

Admittedly, using that strategy on the Doctrinal Statement change to parse out the nuances ofeverything 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 drafteda version of this documentthat changes no content, but does give mybest 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. Constitution (original)2. Constitution (proposed)3. Doctrinal Statement (original)4. Doctrinal Statement (proposed)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/118533409/Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Constitutionhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118533409/Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Constitutionhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118533409/Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Constitutionhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118530751/Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statementhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118530751/Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statementhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118530751/Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statementhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118530508/Proposed-Changes-to-the-Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statement-and-Constitutionhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118530508/Proposed-Changes-to-the-Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statement-and-Constitutionhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118530508/Proposed-Changes-to-the-Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statement-and-Constitutionhttp://www.cherrydale.org/corevalueshttp://www.cherrydale.org/corevalueshttp://www.cherrydale.org/corevalueshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118532460/Proposed-Changes-to-the-Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statement-and-Constitution-in-full-detailhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118532460/Proposed-Changes-to-the-Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statement-and-Constitution-in-full-detailhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118532460/Proposed-Changes-to-the-Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statement-and-Constitution-in-full-detailhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118532460/Proposed-Changes-to-the-Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statement-and-Constitution-in-full-detailhttp://www.cherrydale.org/corevalueshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118530508/Proposed-Changes-to-the-Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statement-and-Constitutionhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118530751/Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statementhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118533409/Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Constitution


2/4

Constitution Change

This change is fairly simple. It simply drops the immersion requirement for clarifying the modeof 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 isnow just a requirement for new believer first-time baptisms at Cherrydale. This allows us torecognize 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 complicatedapproach. What follows here is not a comprehensive review of every change (that can be seen in

thefull 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. ForBaptists, 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

passesit's a law. Has Christ established two laws for His Church?

"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 kindof 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 thepoint. Communion wasn't something Jesus hadto do; communion, that final Passover, was

something Jesus ate with them after having been craving it "with fervent desire " (Luke 22:15).

Lawspush from behind; desirepulls one ahead. Commands from the law bring death (Romans

7:10); grace brings life (Romans 5:17).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/118532460/Proposed-Changes-to-the-Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statement-and-Constitution-in-full-detailhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118532460/Proposed-Changes-to-the-Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statement-and-Constitution-in-full-detailhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118532460/Proposed-Changes-to-the-Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statement-and-Constitution-in-full-detailhttp://timmcghee.com/k/Romans%2010:4http://timmcghee.com/k/Romans%2010:4http://timmcghee.com/k/Romans%2010:4http://timmcghee.com/k/Ephesians%202:15http://timmcghee.com/k/Ephesians%202:15http://timmcghee.com/k/Ephesians%202:15http://timmcghee.com/k/Romans%206:14http://timmcghee.com/k/Romans%206:14http://timmcghee.com/k/Romans%206:14http://timmcghee.com/k/John%2013:34http://timmcghee.com/k/John%2013:34http://timmcghee.com/k/John%2013:34http://timmcghee.com/k/1%20John%205:3http://timmcghee.com/k/1%20John%205:3http://timmcghee.com/k/1%20John%205:3http://timmcghee.com/k/Luke%2022:15http://timmcghee.com/k/Luke%2022:15http://timmcghee.com/k/Luke%2022:15http://timmcghee.com/k/Romans%207:10http://timmcghee.com/k/Romans%207:10http://timmcghee.com/k/Romans%207:10http://timmcghee.com/k/Romans%207:10http://timmcghee.com/k/Romans%205:17http://timmcghee.com/k/Romans%205:17http://timmcghee.com/k/Romans%205:17http://timmcghee.com/k/Romans%205:17http://timmcghee.com/k/Romans%207:10http://timmcghee.com/k/Romans%207:10http://timmcghee.com/k/Luke%2022:15http://timmcghee.com/k/1%20John%205:3http://timmcghee.com/k/John%2013:34http://timmcghee.com/k/Romans%206:14http://timmcghee.com/k/Ephesians%202:15http://timmcghee.com/k/Romans%2010:4http://www.scribd.com/doc/118532460/Proposed-Changes-to-the-Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statement-and-Constitution-in-full-detail


3/4

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. Aritual 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 DoctrinalStatementwith these proposed changes. (Themodified versionactually obscures the first

instance more thanthe original draft.)

"Union with Christ" is an awkward and potentially confusing blend of pictures of ourrelationship with Christ, and of baptism. "We have been unitedtogether in the likeness of Hisdeath" and will be "in the likeness of his resurrection " (Romans 6:5). Uniting, an active and non-

permanent verb, is used in this verse of two things: baptism and resurrection. (KJV says "planted

together." This is the only time the Greek wordsumphutosused 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.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/118530751/Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statementhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118530751/Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statementhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118530751/Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statementhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118530751/Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statementhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118532460/Proposed-Changes-to-the-Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statement-and-Constitution-in-full-detailhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118532460/Proposed-Changes-to-the-Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statement-and-Constitution-in-full-detailhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118532460/Proposed-Changes-to-the-Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statement-and-Constitution-in-full-detailhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118530508/Proposed-Changes-to-the-Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statement-and-Constitutionhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118530508/Proposed-Changes-to-the-Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statement-and-Constitutionhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118530508/Proposed-Changes-to-the-Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statement-and-Constitutionhttp://timmcghee.com/k/Romans%206:5http://timmcghee.com/k/Romans%206:5http://timmcghee.com/k/Romans%206:5http://timmcghee.com/g/4854http://timmcghee.com/g/4854http://timmcghee.com/g/4854http://timmcghee.com/g/4854http://timmcghee.com/k/Romans%206:5http://www.scribd.com/doc/118530508/Proposed-Changes-to-the-Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statement-and-Constitutionhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118532460/Proposed-Changes-to-the-Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statement-and-Constitution-in-full-detailhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118530751/Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statementhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118530751/Cherrydale-Baptist-Church-Doctrinal-Statement


4/4

Purpose

I agree with the stated purpose and intent of making changes based on both Scripture and thepractical 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 ofcomplications 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 thestatement. 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 toshow 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..." Bothmention 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
http://bit.ly/Z9w8mihttp://bit.ly/Z9w8mihttp://bit.ly/Z9w8mihttp://bit.ly/Z9w8mi

response to proposed changes at cherrydale baptist church

Documents