Print this pageFruits Meet For Repentence
Elder Mark Green
"Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance" (Matthew 3:8). This is what John Baptist told those wicked Jews who came to him as he was preaching in the wilderness. The word meet here means, "fitting or appropriate." Fruits that are appropriate to repentance are evidences that a person has truly repented of his sins. Repentance is a prerequisite for baptism, along with belief. Only those who have been born again are fit subjects for the kingdom of God, and since the church cannot see into a man's heart, they are to judge by the evidences they see whether or not that person has truly been made repentant for his sins.
There are two extremes to which the church can go when someone comes before her requesting baptism. One is too lax and the other is too restrictive. If someone had required John to tell about the time when he first came to love God and righteousness, he could not have done it, for he had been born of the Spirit from his mother's womb. His experience did not and could not have contained anything similar to the experiences of Paul and the thief on the cross. Requiring a "cookie-cutter" experience is too restrictive. Also, many of God's people are so fearful that it is difficult for them to say much of anything. My own dear daughter-in-law was barely able to whisper one brief sentence, which I had to repeat so that everyone else could hear it; but her demeanor on that day and for some time previously had abundantly evidenced her love for Christ and His church. We had no doubt as to the sincerity of her profession, and so she did not need to say much. I remember an occasion years ago, however, when a couple joined a sister church on their first visit, and the congregation was not familiar with them or their situation; and so they questioned them at some length, which was appropriate given the circumstances. Every member of the church should feel comfortable with the genuineness of the repentance and intentions of the candidate for baptism, and if they desire to ask questions they should he allowed to do so. However, if such questions are necessary, they should be asked with the utmost kindness and tenderness, for I trust we all remember how unworthy we felt on that joyful and fearful occasion when we came trembling before the body to ask for a home.
The other extreme is for someone to ask to join the church and the church not give due care to examination. This is too lax. There should be an attitude of humbleness and repentance that is displayed by the one seeking baptism. If it is lacking, then the church must exercise her prerogative in denying or at least postponing baptism. If there are doubts of any sort regarding the person, then steps must be taken to relieve those doubts. The Scriptural pattern for receiving of members was really with a negative vote: "Can any forbid baptism?" By voting positively, we are showing that we know of no reason to forbid baptism. However, if true repentance and commitment to the cause of Christ are not in evidence, the church then has a valid Scriptural right and duty to forbid baptism.
Because of the plague of "nonattendance" that afflicts our churches, I personally think it is a good practice for every member, before he or she is baptized, to read the church documents (Articles of Faith, Church Covenant and Rules of Decorum) and publicly give assent to his belief in them and willingness to be governed by them. If this is done, he cannot later claim that he did not know what was required of him; the excuse of ignorance is removed entirely. I will even go so far as to say that I think it is wise to ask the candidate if he understands that if he violates these principles and rules, he is subject to the discipline of the church.
We often have members who stop attending and the church is hesitant to exclude them merely on the charge of nonattendance. (I personally have no problem with doing that, but I have known of those that did.) To this I would answer: if you do not want to exclude an absent member because of nonattendance, then exclude him on the charge of lying. When he joined he promised not to forsake the assembly of the saints, and now he has done it, so he lied to thechurch. Would you exclude someone if he were brought before the courts of the land for perjury? Of course you would. Is not his word given before the church of even more importance? Then exclude him for perjury. Again, if excluding for non-attendance makes you squeamish, then exclude because of covenant breaking. Would you exclude someone who deliberately defaulted on a business contract or covenant? You certainly should. How much more ought he to be liable to church discipline if he has broken covenant with the church.
Brethren, these are very important matters. When we allow members to trample under foot the covenant of the church, we are telling them it is all right to lie to the church. Surely we would not desire that.