Mule Meanness Versus Baptist Membership
The old sectarian objection to Scriptural baptism has often been repeated and heard. In order to set aside plain Bible statements that tell us that baptism is essential to salvation, as Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21, sectarian preachers have often asked: "What about the man who is on the way to the creek to be baptized but is killed by a falling limb or a kicking mule before he gets there?" They seem to think that God would have to save a fellow like this and thus deny his own word that says otherwise. Often in public debate I have had my opponents ask me that question. Invariably I have answered: "The man who is killed on his way to be baptized is in the same condition as the man who smothers to death at the mourner's bench before he gets through." Sectarian debaters do not relish this answer, but it shows the fallacy of their claim and objection. Why would God have to save the man who is killed on a mule before baptism any more than he would the man who smothers to death before he gets through?
Recently Ben M. Bogard shot this gun again in the Orthodox Baptist Searchlight, of which he is editor. He aimed it in the following manner:
"But what about a man on his way to the creek to be baptized and a bolt of lightning strikes him or an auto wrecks or a mule kicks him to death and he for that reason is not baptized. Exactly. That makes salvation depend on the freakish lightning, or the carelessness of the auto driver or the meanness of a mule. These Campbellite preachers ought to say to their prospective members, If you will come and give me your hand and go to the creek and be baptized, you will be saved provided a mule does not kick you before you get there."'
Now, it seems to me that a man who has had as many debates as Bogard and who has engaged in as much controversy as he should be able to see the consequence of his arguments. But no one seems as blind as denominational preachers. It is a well known fact that membership in the Baptist Church depends on being baptized according to Baptist usage. No man can become a member of the Baptist Church without submitting to baptism at the hands of a Baptist preacher. Baptist Church membership, therefore, depends on being baptized according to Baptist doctrine. Let us, then, load Bogard's gun with "Baptist Church membership" instead of "salvation" and "Baptist preachers" instead of "Campbellite preachers" and point it back at him. When the explosion occurs the report sounds like this: "But what about a man on his way to the creek to be baptized and a bolt of lightning strikes him or an auto wrecks or a mule kicks him to death, and he for that reason is not baptized? That makes Baptist Church membership depend on the freakish lightning, or the carelessness of the auto driver, or the meanness of a mule. These Baptist preachers ought to say to their prospective members, If you will come and give me your hand and go to the creek and be baptized, you will become a member of the Baptist Church provided a mule does not kick you before you get there.'" Thus it becomes evident that a man may be thrown out of Baptist membership by a reckless driver, struck out by a bolt of lightning, or kicked out by a stubborn mule. So Bogard's argument against baptism as being essential to salvation returns with all of its power (if it has any) upon his own position that baptism is essential to church membership.
According to Baptist doctrine, would a man suffer any serious loss if he were prevented from becoming a member of the Baptist Church? They claim baptism is a Christian duty, and while it is not necessary to salvation, every Christian ought to be baptized as a matter of obedience to God. I see. Then a reckless driver, a bolt of lightning or a kicking mule might keep a Christian from doing his duty and obeying God; and the performance of Christian duty, therefore, is made to depend on the meanness of a mule. But Baptists also say that the Lord's Supper can be had only in the Baptist Church. You must be baptized into the Baptist Church to be eligible for this privilege. But a man on his way to the creek to be baptized is killed by one of the afore-mentioned powers and is prevented from sharing in this privilege. And so the privilege of eating the Lord's Supper is made to "depend on the freakish lightning, the carelessness of an auto driver or the meanness of a mule."
Furthermore, the importance of church membership, as viewed by Bogard, is shown in a number of statements made by him in another issue of the Orthodox Baptist Searchlight. In the issue of April 10, 1941, he printed one of his radio sermons on "The Great Wedding Day." From this sermon the following statements are taken:
"What greater honor could come to a child of God than to become a part of the bride of the Lamb's wife'?"
"Those who are not a part of the bride will be permitted to work for the Lord and to invite sinners to Jesus for salvation and to be guests at the royal wedding, but the honor of being the bride of Christ will be for the church only."
"The church question therefore becomes very important. You cannot be a part of the bride of Christ if you are not a member of the church."
"The most important thing is to be sure we are saved and next to it in importance is to be sure we are in the church our Lord himself established so as to be a part of the bride of Christ."
From these statements we see that Bogard believes the church to be the bride of Christ. Of course he thinks the ceremony has not taken place yet, and will not until Jesus comes, but he thinks only members of the church will constitute the bride of that day. And it is evident that he thinks the Baptist Church is the one "our Lord himself established," even though no mention of the Baptist Church was ever made by him in all his Holy Book. But this does not keep Bogard from thinking that the Baptist Church will constitute the bride of Christ in "the great wedding day." In view of these statements by Bogard, what can his kicking mule cheat a man out of? Bogard reasons that the greatest honor that "could come to a child of God" is "to become a part of the bride" of Christ. Yet he says this honor "will be for the church only." So the greatest honor that could come to a child of God will depend on being a member of the Baptist Church, according to Bogard. But a man cannot become a member of the Baptist Church without baptism. Hence, the greatest honor possible for a child of God depends on baptism. A man may be on his way to the creek to be baptized, thus preparing himself for the greatest honor "that could come to a child of God," but he contacts a kicking mule that kills him before he gets to the creek. We would have to conclude, therefore, according to Bogard's way of reasoning, that "the greatest honor" that "can come to a child of God" depends on the meanness of a mule. "The most important thing" is salvation, but he thinks that "next to it in importance" is church membership. He does not believe that a kicking mule can cheat a man out of "the most important thing" but he does believe that a mule's meanness may interfere with the next thing to it in importance. The sum of this whole matter is this: If the fact that a man, who is on his way to the creek to be baptized for the remission of his sins, may be killed by a bolt of lightning, a reckless driver or a kicking mule proves that baptism is not necessary to salvation, then the fact that the same man, if following Baptist doctrine, may be killed by the same bolt of lightning, the same reckless driver or the same kicking mule while he is on his way to the creek to be baptized into the Baptist Church would prove that baptism is not necessary to church membership. If not, why not? Perhaps Bogard could tell us why. I should like to see him try it sometime.