Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology by John S.

Hammett Grand
Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2005. 368 pages. Reviewed by Jason M. Fletcher.

John Hammett is currently professor of systematic theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological

Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina (back cover). He received a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist

Theological Seminary. He has also published several papers on the topic of ecclesiology and regularly

teaches a Ph.D. seminar focused on ecclesiology (SEBTS Library, SEBTS website).

In his introduction the author sets out his purpose for the book. First, he intends to show the

primacy of the church in the plan and purpose of God. Second, he hopes to lay a theological foundation

for the church as opposed to one built on pragmatism. Finally, he seeks to make the case for a

distinctively Baptist ecclesiology because “it has largely been lost over the past century and is worth

recovering” (12).

The first chapter is quite helpful in dealing with the biblical data. Hammett first does a lexical

study of the Greek word, ekklēsia, showing its use in the Septuagint as well as the New Testament. He

argues that though there is some flexibility with its usage, the overall pattern is that it refers to local

churches (31).

He also deals with several images of the church used in Scripture. The first one he examines is

the church as the “people of God” (32). He admits that this image, with its usage in the Old Testament

to describe the nation of Israel, “raises the question of the relationship of the church to the Old

Testament people of God, Israel.” Though at first he seems to walk a balance between the continuity of

covenant theology and the discontinuity of dispensationalism, when he describes his personal position it

seems to speak more closely aligned with the covenantal position (32-33). He does not, however,

explicitly state that he is covenantal.

Another image he discusses which is significant is the church as the “temple of the Holy Spirit”

(43). Of note, particularly to Baptists, Hammett discusses in this section the doctrine of the priesthood

of all believers. He states how this biblical emphasis, which was lost by the end of the second century

1
 2

and not reclaimed until Martin Luther, was “especially important in Baptist ecclesiology, where it has

formed part of the basis for congregational government” (46). Hammett guides the reader in

understanding how this particular doctrine has been confused with that of soul competency. In a veiled

defense from the more theologically liberal Baptist camp, Hammett concludes that “to see it as

somehow justifying an attitude of individual self-sufficiency is to misunderstand the doctrine and to

forget our need for the church and the church’s need for each member’s ministry” (46).

I appreciate the author’s inclusion of the historical marks of the church. His discussion of the

Nicene Creed is helpful, though an examination of his footnotes shows he relies heavily on a book by

Richard D. Phillips, Philip G. Ryken, and Mark E. Dever titled, The Church: One Holy, Catholic, and

Apostolic (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004). The section I had most trouble with was the

treatment of the catholicity of the church. Hammett cites Dever’s chapter in the Church that the

“catholic church” originally meant “real or authentic” and was equated with orthodoxy (58, Dever 70).

Hammett does not point to any primary material here to substantiate this claim. He does, in the same

paragraph, quote Cyril of Jerusalem’s catechetical lectures given in c. A.D. 350 to show how the meaning

of catholicity changed from meaning orthodoxy, to referring to the church’s geographic expansion

throughout the earth (58). This progression of thought seems to be impossible based on Hammett’s

own reference to the Nicene creed in footnote 1, page 51. There he states that the formulation, “one,

holy, catholic, church”, “was not in the creed developed at Nicaea in 325, but from an addition to the

creed attributed to the Council of Constantinople in 381.” (51, footnote 1). Cyril of Jerusalem, whose

definition of catholicity predates this formulation, was living at the time of the Council of Nicaea and

present at the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381 when this formulation was adopted. Without

further evidence, though I am sympathetic, remain unconvinced that catholicity had any other earlier

meaning than geographic.

 3

He finds more benefit with the Reformation marks of the church: where the Word of God is

purely preached and the sacraments rightly administered. On the mark of the preaching of the Word,

he narrows the meaning of the Word down to the Gospel. For Hammett the non-negotiable is the

Gospel: “If it loses the gospel message, a group of people is no longer a true church. It may be a

religious society or a club, but it is not a church” (63). He is less dogmatic on the Reformation mark

concerning the sacraments. He sides against the Landmark Baptists who took this second mark and saw

others such as Methodists and Presbyterians as not true churches because of their different views on

baptism. He claims that the Landmarkers error is in their “serious failure to make a distinction between

what is essential to the church’s nature and what is important but not essential” (64).

Part 2 answers the question, “Who is the church” and argues for regenerate church membership

as well as giving suggestions for restoring regenerate church membership.

Hammett calls regenerate church membership the Baptist mark of the church (81). He briefly

examines the Scriptural arguments for regenerate church membership, but spends many pages tracing

its historical development. This section covering church history, and Baptist history in particular, is quite

detailed and very compelling in building his case. His weakest section in this chapter is his discussion of

the disappearance of church discipline. It would have been helpful to understand why church discipline

declined among Baptists, but the best Hammett offers here is a quote from Greg Wills: “No one publicly

advocated the demise of discipline. . . It simply faded away, as if Baptists had grown weary of holding

one another accountable” (113 as quoted in Wills, Democratic Religion, 9). The author is helpful to the

pastor and church leader in this area in that he does not simply tell them that they need to return to a

regenerate church membership, but he gives concrete steps to help transition a church in that direction.

First he says that church leaders must “reorganize the church around commitment to a church

covenant” (116). This process begins by the church writing and adopting a contextualized church

covenant. Second, the church should vote to dissolve their current membership and reconstitute with
 4

those who sign their names to the new church covenant. Third, each year church members would be

asked to sign their commitment to the church covenant (118-119). Though a difficult process to initially

take a church through, it does seem as though this works from the positive: adding members who want

to be a part of the church as opposed to making a motion to expel what could be hundreds of inactive

and possibly unregenerate church members.

Second, Hammett argues that churches should “reform the process of baptism and church

membership to involve some genuine examination of the candidate’s spiritual condition” (116). The first

step is separating the welcoming of a candidate for baptism or membership from the actual granting of

that membership. He rightly points out that what happens in most Baptist churches in North America is

meaningless (121). Before granting membership he suggests a new member’s class.

Third, the author suggests reinstituting the practice of redemptive church discipline (124). He

gives great advice before instituting church discipline. It should not be the first thing a pastor does when

he is called to a church (125). His discussion of how to actually practice church discipline, however, is

weak. Though Hammett talks about having a right attitude and following what is laid out in Matthew

18, he speaks of the last step as merely allowing “the issue to go before the church” (126). What

happens then? Does this mean excommunicating the rebellious member? The reader is left hanging on

this point.

Part 3 answers the question, “How is the church governed? (133)” It begins in chapter six with

his case for congregational church polity. His argument for congregational rule takes three phases. First,

he believes that it is biblical based on the discussion of church discipline in Matthew 18, as well as how

the early church chose leaders in Acts 6 (147-8). Second, he believes that the theological doctrine of the

priesthood of all believers is the strongest support for congregational government (149). Finally, he

argues that congregationalism has practical benefits (149-150). He cites Mark Dever’s position that

every church is congregational, “that is, they can continue to exist only as the people support them. The
 5

people can always vote, with their funds and feet if in no other way” (150). Though he admits several

contemporary challenges to congregational rule, he concludes this chapter by admonishing the church

to resist elder rule.

I find it interesting that on one page he argues against elder rule, but on the next argues in favor

of a plurality of elders. His treatment of pastors/elders is especially helpful, given the current

resurgence of plural elders in Baptist life. His treatment of the biblical texts, qualifications, role, and

calling is extensive and clearly written. Where he does not compromise is in how he argues from a

complementarian position for male elders. His best contribution, however, is in transitioning a church

to a plurality of elders. His first piece of advice is to ask the question, “should I begin?” He advises

those who are not fully convinced biblically, or who anticipate serving a short pastorate at a church

against the transition (183-4). His emphasis is on a process that is going to take time (2-3 years), long-

term teaching on the subject, and finally a specific plan on how to change the church’s leadership

structure (184). He tackles questions such as nomination, election, ordination, and rotation of elders

(185-189). Anyone serving in a traditional church seeking to move to a plurality of elders would be well

served to work through this chapter.

Chapter eight discusses the function and role of deacons. Hammett is helpful in advocating that

a church not set a specific number or ratio of deacons, but instead to focus on selecting qualified

deacons according to Scripture (197). He also has a considerable section on deaconesses. While he

presents both sides of the debate, he delicately lands on the side that 1 Timothy 3 describes deacons

and their wives as opposed to deacons and deaconesses (201).

Part 4 answers the question, “What does the church do? (217)” In this section Hammett looks

at what he calls the five essential ministries of the church, as well as the ordinances of baptism and the

Lord’s supper. Hammett explains that his five essential ministries are close to Rick Warren’s five

purposes, however, in his paradigm, teaching, fellowship, worship, service, and evangelism are
 6

performed to “serve the overall purpose of glorifying God” (220). He discusses each ministry well, but is

most helpful in using them to as marks of the church (222).

In describing baptism, Hammett argues for the traditional Baptist position of believer’s baptism

by immersion. He gives freedom to churches to decide who is allowed to perform them (261). He gives

freedom to delay baptism for young children(269-73) and allows for sprinkling in cases of those that are

terminally ill, “pathologically afraid of water or someone so ill that immersion would be dangerous” (275

note 54).

Hammett’s contribution to the discussion of the Lord’s Supper is his section on open or closed

communion. This answers the question as to who is allowed to participate in communion. What is not

up for debate is that one must be a believer (283). While Hammett comes down on the side of closed-

communion, that is, its observance is only for members of that particular church, he makes freedom for

allowing “members of other churches associated with the local church” (287). He is not clear here.

Does he mean members from other churches in the association, state-convention, or SBC should be

allowed to participate? Many rural Southern Baptist Churches participate in associations that cross

denominational lines, are they allowed to participate as well?

Part 5 is the shortest section and seeks to look toward the future and where the church is going.

He answers it in a nutshell: “in all directions” (299). This section is well-written, but dated. Not much is

being written about the seeker movement, but his criticism of a consumer-approach to church is still

applicable. He writes of the movement to mega-churches while at the same time the growth of the

micro-church. He addresses the post-modern church, while the use of the term “emerging church” is

probably a better description. I wish Hammett would have addressed deeper the implications of the

multi-site church.

The chapter on the global future of the church is a great introduction to trends outside of North

America. The data is encouraging that the church is growing and that we are seeing church planting
 7

movements take place (338). The statement showing the tremendous growth of the Pentecostal

movement in Latin America(340-1) is quite interesting. It is Surprising to think that the majority of

believers in the next century will live south of the equator (342).

I believe that Hammett rightly fulfills the purpose that he set out to do. Part 1 sufficiently

showed the primacy of the church in plan and purpose of God. His work was thoroughly theological

throughout, resisting pragmatism. Finally, he was significantly Baptist in his conclusions, specifically in

relation to regenerate church membership.

This book adds to recent works on ecclesiology, and particularly Baptist ecclesiology. He writes

in the conclusion that his heart is for pastors and that is the perfect audience for this work. Those who

are pastors or are studying for the ministry would be well served to work through the principles in this

book. Even if one does not agree with him on every point or application, it is still well worth reading.

The major strength of this book is that it is well-organized and thorough. A thorough book that

is well-organized makes reading and comprehending the material much easier. Hammett systematically

takes the reader through the material without being overwhelming. It is in-depth to the point where it

can stand alone as a true Baptist ecclesiology. Hammett does a fine job of not only documenting his

sources using footnotes, but each chapter includes an annotated bibliography. Finally, there were many

points where he takes the time to not only tell you what to do, but how to go about doing it. This makes

his work not only important theologically, but practically as well.

As far as weaknesses, Hammett seems to lean on Mark Dever throughout the book-quoting him

more than any other author. Also, there were a few inconsistencies including the discussion of the

Nicene Creed as well as the tension between elder rule and plurality of elders. At the end of the day,

however, I don’t believe these discount what the author was trying to do or minimize my enthusiastic

recommendation of this book.