No. The issue that this amendment is considering is the “mode” of baptism, or how baptism can, in theory, be practiced and still be considered valid.

The Church Venture NW Identity Document states this about the meaning and purpose of baptism: “Baptism is a visible, public, declaration of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection and is symbolized by immersion. Only regenerated believers are proper candidates for baptism. “

This sentence describes our basic belief about the meaning of baptism as well as how we practice baptism.

No. The Church Venture NW Identity document states this about baptism: “Baptism is a visible, public, declaration of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection and is symbolized by immersion. Only regenerated believers are proper candidates for baptism.”

We believe that a proper baptism is performed by immersion under water, symbolizing our sharing in the death and resurrection of Christ. We will continue to perform baptisms in this way.

This amendment is only concerned with potential church members who have previously been baptized as members by another mode (pouring, sprinkling).

This is a scenario that comes up a lot in this discussion. Imagine a terminal hospital patient who comes to faith and Christ and wants to be baptized. They will likely not be leaving the hospital. Is it ok to baptize them by pouring water on their heads?

Currently, our bylaws would consider this baptism to be invalid. However, this amendment would allow for the possibility for this unusual and improper mode of baptism to be considered valid by our church.