The Associated Press broke a story ab0ut presidential candidate John McCain’s statement this past weekend that he is in fact a Baptist, despite his past comments that he is an Episcopalian. The news hook is that McCain made these comments while he was in South Carolina, which happens to have a lot of Baptist voters.
The AP did its due diligence and found comments the senator made to McClatchy Newspapers:
In a June interview with McClatchy Newspapers, the senator said his wife and two of their children have been baptized in [North Phoenix Baptist Church], but he had not. “I didn’t find it necessary to do so for my spiritual needs,” he said.
He told McClatchy he found the Baptist church more fulfilling than the Episcopalian church, but still referred to himself as an Episcopalian.
Does this matter? On the campaign trail it seems to matter to the self-described straight-talker:
The Associated Press asked McCain on Saturday how his Episcopal faith plays a role in his campaign and life. McCain grew up Episcopalian and attended an Episcopal high school in Alexandria, Va.
“It plays a role in my life. By the way, I’m not Episcopalian. I’m Baptist,” McCain said. “Do I advertise my faith? Do I talk about it all the time? No.”
McCain does discuss faith on the campaign trail. He regularly tells crowds about a North Vietnamese POW guard who would loosen his bindings while he was a prisoner. One Christmas, the man surreptitiously signaled his Christian faith, McCain says, by making the sign of a cross with his toe in the dirt.
McCain said Sunday he doesn’t know how his Baptist faith might affect his showing in South Carolina.
The bigger story here is that McCain is actually talking about his religion. McCain is known for criticizing others for talking about their faith. But back to the particulars of McCain’s statements. There is a simple way of proving one is a Baptist: Has McCain undergone a full-immersion baptism?
As the AP noted, McCain had not been baptized into the Baptist church as of June. The first question a reporter should ask a person claiming to be Baptist is whether they have been baptized into the church. Anyone know the answer to this? Unfortunately, the AP found the politics of McCain’s statement more interesting than what most Baptists in South Carolina are probably wondering.
 | Posted at 10:56 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (11) |
September 17, 2007, at 11:15 am
If McCain attends a Baptist church regularly, then he knows the difference between being an attendee and being a member. It was clear in the June interview with McClatchy Newspapers that he understands the distinction. As a result, I wonder if we can trust the “By the way…” quote in the AP article. Maybe it’s a case of the reporter not getting it and making the “quote” fit the reporter’s poor understanding.
September 17, 2007, at 2:00 pm
BTW, note the AP mistake on the adjective form of Episcopal.
Episcopalian is the noun.
Episcopal is the adjective.
That first reference is wrong, the second one is right. It’s the “Episcopal church,” not “Episcopalian church.” It would, however, be a “church full of Episcopalians.”
September 17, 2007, at 4:46 pm
The question is whether you can join a Baptist church without being baptized in one. Consensus seems to be that as long as you were baptized 1) by immersion 2) as a believer 3) in a church of like doctrine and practice, you’re OK. I’m not sure that the Episcopal church meets all three of those requirements (at least from a Baptist perspective). Some Baptist churches hold to open membership — limiting church membership only to those who profess faith in Christ, rather than requiring baptism too. The more Baptist neighborhoods of the Christian blogosphere have been arguing about that lately, thanks to John Piper, Wayne Grudem and some others. It’s not a new question in Baptist circles — no less a figure than John Bunyan held to open membership and open communion at a time when it wasn’t expedient to do either in Baptist circles.
September 17, 2007, at 5:38 pm
Welll, isn’t the hidden theological issue here that McCain, as an Episcopalian, was likely baptized as an infant, and therefore by Baptist standards wasn’t properly baptized? I mean, last I checked the Baptists generally held to beleiver’s baptism.
September 17, 2007, at 6:01 pm
There’s the conflict. There are some folks (usually within Reformed Baptist circles) who are willing to accept infant baptism — John Piper is one of them. BIG controversy over this about a year or so ago, when his church was looking at amending its constitution to allow people baptized as infants to join the church without being ‘rebaptized.’
I would say that the church he’s been attending doesn’t require baptism for membership. That, or he’s not actually a full member, though his kids are. I couldn’t tell anything from the church’s web site.
September 17, 2007, at 7:17 pm
Most Southern Baptist churches re-baptize, especially in the conservative wing.
Also, baptists LOVE baptism statistics.
September 17, 2007, at 11:58 pm
I’ve been told that North Phoenix requires “believer’s baptism by immersion” as a prerequisite to membership. That position is consistent with both the Baptist Faith & Message of 1963 and 2000.
Most Southern Baptist churches take that position. A majority of moderate Baptist churches aligned with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship still require immersion as well.
September 18, 2007, at 12:20 am
[…] What is the difference between Episcopal and Baptist? First, I would note that most of the sites I found were written by Baptists, so Baptists must care more about the differences than Episcopalians. According to an essay by Richard Laribee, Baptists are more Bible-centric and focused on individual salvation, while Episcopalians are less Bible-centric (relatively) and focused more on the spirituality of the community. The Episcol, or Anglican Church is run top-down, while Baptist churches are run very bottoms-up. Finally, many consider baptism into the Baptist Church a necessary prerequisite. […]
September 18, 2007, at 10:39 am
I’m a Baptist, who came to be one via the Episcopal Church. And, while I was re-baptized by full immersion, it wasn’t necessary for my salvation.
Christ took care of that part of it, and I’d like to think that when I became an adult believer, the Holy Spirit sealed the deal without the use of water.
Too much is made of the mechanics of our faith. I would prefer to rely on St. Paul, Ephesians 4:5 — one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
September 18, 2007, at 9:20 pm
Which means that some do not. So doesn’t it depend on which local church you’re talking about? I have a Methodist friend who joined one Southern Baptist church that would take him without re-baptism, so he could move a few months later “by letter” to the main “First Baptist” in town.
So McCain could presumably come in by the “back way.” Not that it really matters.
September 30, 2007, at 7:28 pm
You have to remember that Baptists denounce the Nicene Creed.
The Creed is what differentiates the older septs of Christianity from the new-fangled ones, and one of the prime statements in the creed (which was composed about 300AD in response to the Arian and other heresies) is that only one baptism is needed. Not two, or three, or four…
Infant baptism is a correct path, from both the standpoint of Jesus (“let the children come unto me”) and the tradition of the earliest Christians, in which entire families (children included) were baptised. Such a position is also correct under the strictest reading of Mark 16:15-18.
Indeed, if Mark 16 is correct, baptism is necessary for salvation — which is why it marks the central sacrament (gift from God) of all Christians. If so, then what happens to unbaptized children who die? By the very nature of Baptist belief as to the correct place of the sacrament, they are condemning those children to never experience everlasting life with the Lord! Given the high level of importance Baptists place in this sacrament, I find it rather strange that they choose to deny it to children, in contraposition to Jesus’ own command.