-
Those
Latin words,
de
facto
and
de
jure
may
not be everyday terms to you, but you will find them meaningful in
the way I am using them. They are usually used together and are
distinguished from each other in that the first means “in
actual fact” while the other means “by right or by law.”
Governments are often so described in that the ruling party may “in
actual fact” be running the country, though not “by
right or by law.” So the coup that takes over would be the
de
facto
government,
while the exiled authorities would be the
de
jure
government
in that while they are the legal rulers they are not the actual
rulers.
-
-
Sometimes
we have
de
facto
members
of the family in that they take their place alongside the
de
jure
ones.
Many a child has been “in actual fact” a member of the
family, though never a legal one.
-
-
Now
that you have the words down, I will apply them to a Church of
Christ in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area that is not only one of our
largest and fastest growing but also one of our most changing
churches. I will not name the church because I will allow them to
make these facts known in their own way and own time. When baptized
believers from other churches, whether it be Baptist, Methodist or
Roman Catholic, seek membership, they are accepted, whether
sprinkled or immersed. The unimmersed are welcomed as members,
treated as members, with no lines drawn.
-
-
While
they do not, I am calling this
de
facto
acceptance
and membership. Like the “child” in the family, the
de
facto
member
of that church may live and die in that church and never be
immersed. They are not always “preaching” to him, nor do
they limit his activities, such as to forbid his teaching a class,
until he is immersed. He is “in actual fact”,
de
facto,
a
member.
-
-
Yet
the church does make a
de
jure
distinction
(again, my term, not theirs) in that they are “captives of the
Word” and being persuaded that immersion is the proper mode of
baptism they continue to bear witness to this without compromise.
They are
de
facto
accepting
the “sprinkled” Presbyterian as a fellow Christian, but
de
jure,
by
right of Scripture, they remain true to their convictions and
continue to preach and practice baptism by immersion for the
remission of sins — always of course in a loving and accepting
way. And they often immerse folk that were long since accepted as
members.
-
-
And
the
de
jure
attitude
is strong. They direct their new members, the sprinkled and immersed
alike, into classes where the basics of the faith are taught.
-
-
While
some may think of this as “Open membership,” a term now
opprobrious among some of us, it can better be viewed as a balanced
and realistic position. Open membership advocates often take an
imbalanced view, one that lacks the
de
jure
in
that immersion is no longer taken seriously. They have no particular
commitment to immersion, or at least they see no need to lead the
unimmersed to be immersed, “a restoration of the ancient
order” being no longer important to them. The other extreme
allows only for the
de
jure
attitude,
a legalism that draws the line on all the unimmersed. Not only are
the unimmersed not allowed membership, but they are not even
recognized as Christians.
-
-
The
balanced view is both
de
facto
and
de
jure.
It
recognizes what is clearly obvious around the world: there are many
Christians beside ourselves, both immersed and unimmersed, and they
are often more devoted to Christ than we are. We should accept them
de
facto
as
such, welcoming them to our churches as fellow Christians, which
enriches our fellowship and makes us truly a catholic church. But
still we stand firm by what we believe the Bible to teach about
baptism, leaving it to each one to respond to that truth as he comes
to see it.
-
-
The
de
facto
attitude
does not presume that prospective members have to be questioned
about their baptism. They are accepted “as is” on the
basis of their loyalty to Jesus Christ. We may not even know whether
they are immersed or not, and there is no scriptural injunction that
makes it any of our business. We accept them because of their faith,
because we can see our Lord in them. I have had fellowship with
fellow believers around the world, but I never stop to make an
inquiry into their baptism before I enjoy their fellowship.
-
-
What
is our business? To be a witnessing community for Jesus Christ, to
accept all those he accepts, and to honor him as the head of the
Body rather than to presume the church is ours to preside over. But
loyalty to Christ means that we preach and teach his word, and this
includes what we believe to be the truth about baptism. This we will
never compromise, not for a moment. This is the
de
jure
attitude
that gives balance to the
de
facto.
Immersion
is
important
to us. We
do
believe
in the ancient order and in restoring it in our churches. But we do
not have to wait until other believers attain our level of
understanding and practice before we accept them,
fully,
with
no strings attached.
-
-
This
balanced view is consistent with a plea for unity, and I am certain
that we will immerse more people and come nearer being His true Body
with this position than either an exclusivism that makes us the only
Christians or an inclusivism that treats baptism as inconsequential.
It was precisely the view of Barton Stone, if not that of Alexander
Campbell, who never made immersion a test of fellowship. And yet in
defending his position Stone observed that “there is not one
in 500 among us that is not immersed.” Stone did not
preach
baptism
but Christ. And yet within an atmosphere of acceptance and
fellowship he eventually immersed more people than those with only a
de
jure
attitude.
-
-
For
this approach I am indebted to that old British pioneer scholar,
William Robinson, and to Jess Johnson, retired president of Milligan
College, for reminding me of Robinson’s essay on the subject.
While visiting with the Church of Christ in Sweet Home, Oregon, with
which Dr. Johnson labors in his retiring years, I had occasion to
present my views on baptism and fellowship. Jess told me afterwards
that my position was the same that Robinson had pled for long ago in
his
The
Shattered Cross,
in
which he made the
de
facto
and
de
jure
distinction.
-
-
In
said book Robinson observes that our forebears were neither
inclusivists nor exclusivists but that they had a balanced attitude
that embraced both unity and restoration. Here is a pertinent
paragraph from his trenchant pen:
-
Robinson
goes on to explain what restoration really meant to our pioneers: “.
. . these early teachers did not mean that the New Testament
contained a ‘blue print’ of the Church, complete in all
its details. Unfortunately men of lesser minds have too often
thought of the matter in this way.” But still the pioneers, he
notes, saw within the New Testament
objective
things,
such as the Gospel and the Church, which were given of God and have
permanent significance, which are to be distinguished from those
things that are temporary. And so Robinson speaks of “the very
essence and principles of the Gospel and the Church,” which
must not be distorted into a rule of thumb legalism.
-
-
This
says it well. There are real and objective truths and institutions
in the church of the New Covenant Scriptures, one of which is
baptism as “the washing of regeneration.” We can never
compromise the meaning of such an ordinance, and we must always
teach it faithfully and lovingly. This is the
de
jure
attitude,
which saves us from such an open view of things that nothing really
matters much.
-
-
This
is balanced by the
de
facto
attitude,
which recognizes that there are sincere differences even on baptism,
and that we will not wait until other believers see the ordinance
exactly like we do before we accept them. But in accepting them we
are no less loyal to “the very essence and principles of the
Gospel and the Church” as we understand them.
-
-
With
this balanced attitude we can share and grow in the fellowship of
the Spirit with all those who have responded to the call of Jesus,
“Come, follow me.” —the
Editor