An Open Letter to George Butterfield

Dear George,

You may not remember me, and there's no particular reason you should, but our paths have crossed during two time periods of our lives. The first was when we were both young preachers back in the Pittsburgh area in the early '70s. I was in Coraopolis, just a few miles west of where the Ohio River forms (where Three Rivers Stadium once proudly stood), but you were on the other side—east and south of the Steel City. We both attended preachers' meetings on occasion.

You will remember James Johnson at Uniontown, Bob Davison at Washington, and Ray Beggs from Indiana, Pennsylvania. I heard Ray once speak on the Freed-Hardeman lectures. I also discovered that he was in an entirely different league when it came to playing ping pong. I should have grown suspicious when we decided to play a game, and he brought out and unzipped the covering of his personal, private paddle. I averaged about five points a game. Talk about ego deflation! I had thought I was pretty good up till then. I have never, before or since, seen a ball leap after it hit the table the way his did. Today, I would probably refer to him as Doctor Spin.

Ray was the one who concocted a story using the last names of all of us preachers. He used yours by describing someone walking out into the Butterfield. The story ended with an event beginning at the sound of the Wolfgong (the last name of Elmer, who preached at New Brighton). Ray was certainly a clever and talented man in several areas. With another preacher from Washington, he put together a book with the evangelistic title, Pennsylvania Calls. He knew of the need for more preachers and more congregations in the state and tried in this way to enlist additional help.

It was truly sad that Brother Beggs contracted an aggressive form of cancer that took his life in a matter of weeks at the age of 43. Despite the hardship that the disease imposed upon him and his wonderful wife, Glenda, he remained faithful to the end. He wrote one of the most poignant articles I have ever read in which he explained that the disease had left him very little control over his emotions. I've reprinted it once or twice and may again. How blessed it is to die the death of the righteous (Num. 23:10).

By the time we next spoke to each other, about 25 years had elapsed. My children were grown and married; apparently you had received a Law degree from Pepperdine. We both lived in Denton, Texas at the time. I moved there in 1995 to work with the Pearl Street Church of Christ and noticed that you came in 1997 to work with Singing Oaks. Our two congregations were at opposite ends of the spectrum. Singing Oaks was the most liberal congregation in the area, and Pearl Street was still faithful—at that time.

We spoke on one occasion. I had been asked to review Rubel Shelly's book, I Just Want to be a Christian. The only problem was that I did not have a copy of the book. It was important to begin reading it immediately in order to begin the analysis of it. "Say," I said to myself, "I wonder if the preacher at the liberal church has it." I called you, asking if you were the same George Butterfield from Pennsylvania. You were, but did not seem to be all that eager to discuss your time there. You did have a copy of Shelly's book and were willing to loan it to me. I read it, wrote the review, and then returned it to you, along with a copy of my manuscript. You chose not to comment on the subject.

Well, that's our brief history. I did not know you had become Catholic—until a few weeks ago. One of our members phoned me and said that there was an interview on television with a former minister in the church of Christ who was now a Catholic. Imagine my surprise, George, when looking at the channel, to discover, "Thou art the man!"

The Journey Home

The Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) is a cable network that provides Catholic programing around the clock. One of those programs is dedicated to interviews with people who have left various religious groups to become Catholic. In fact, the host, Marcus Grodi (rhymes with "Lodi" by CCR) was a former Presbyterian minister. The purpose of the program is for the guest to explain his reason for making the switch. Well, George, after watching the entire program, I'm afraid I'm still mystified. Therefore, I'm taking this opportunity to write you an open letter for further clarification. I hope you'll take the time to read it. I watched you for an hour; the least you can do is give me thirty minutes.

You began by saying you were from a devout Christian family and worshiped as a youth in a one-room building in Lover, Pennsylvania, which is about 30-40 miles just a little southeast of Washington, toward the Monongahela River. How modest you are. Your family was well known in the Restoration Movement. According to Ohio Valley Restoration Research, "two brothers who became well known preachers in the Ohio Valley" were George and Tom Butterfield, Sr. Didn't you tell me one time that Tom was your uncle? At any rate, "Tom played an important role with a ministry of preaching in the Upper Ohio Valley over five decades."

Yes, you did come from a devout Christian family, all right. I wonder what they would say if they saw you now. As preachers of the gospel, they undoubtedly taught and baptized many who were raised Catholic. I remember personally baptizing four Catholics at the time you and I lived in Pennsylvania. They were all interested in what the Bible taught.

Baptism

George, you seem to be confused about baptism, and I could really use some clarification on your current views. Perhaps you have forgotten the interview, which aired first on June 13, 2016; so, I will remind you either with summaries or direct quotes from you. You began by giving a brief religious background and discussing your baptism. I almost cheered when you said of the churches of Christ, "We didn't baptize infants; you had to be of an age to say, 'I believe in Jesus'"—until I realized why you were on the program.

Apparently, you now repudiate this sentiment since you have joined a church which baptizes infants. The churches of Christ have not changed what the Bible teaches on this subject, and the Catholic Church has not changed their doctrine on the matter. Are you implying, therefore, that it is wrong to expect someone to express their faith before being baptized, as Timothy did in the presence of many witnesses (1 Tim. 6:12)? If that is your new thinking on the matter, can you explain what in the Scriptures changed your mind?

Then, you enigmatically stated of us, "All the churches had a baptismal font." Really? Is that what you called it in Pennsylvania? Unless we used a lake, river, or pond, we never called it anything but a baptistery. It's strange the way your vocabulary has changed. When the host, Marcus Groti, asked if you had been ordained, you answered, "Right." Can you explain more about that? We would all like to hear about it. When Groti said of your spouse, "She was a pastor's wife all those years," you answered, "Absolutely." George, who in the churches of Christ speaks this way? Do you actually need to be reminded that we are preachers or evangelists or ministers and that elders are the pastors or bishops?

But to return to the subject of baptism, you mentioned that the preacher who immersed you first told you, "George, now this is for the remission of sins." Well, that is the purpose, isn't it? The host then asked for a clarification. He wondered if your baptism was an outward sign of salvation or if you believed in baptismal regeneration. You answered that we believe in "baptismal regeneration." Now, of course, brethren never use that phrase. Who has ever offered the invitation by encouraging people to come forward and be baptismally regenerated?

Most brethren would not even know what the expression refers to. A few websites agree with gotquestions.org, which states: "Baptismal regeneration is the belief that baptism is necessary for salvation, or, more precisely, that regeneration does not occur until a person is water baptized." In other words, water baptism is involved in being born again (John 3:5). In this connection, you also said, "You couldn't be a minister in the church of Christ if you didn't know Acts 2:38." Since you brought it up, it does speak of baptism "for the remission of one's sins," doesn't it? Has someone altered this verse? Is it not still accurate?

However, you also added to this initial conversation later in the program. You were talking about that time in your life when you were thinking of leaving the Lord's church to become a Catholic. You were conflicted because you were being paid by the Singing Oaks Church of Christ, yet you leaned toward becoming a Catholic. You said to yourself, "If someone comes for baptism who was baptized as a child, I cannot. That's re-baptism. I don't believe in that. I believe what the Catholic Church teaches." Really? So, what does the Catholic Church teach? Let's read it from their own 1994 catechism, which you heartily endorsed at the end of the program.

The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the "reverse side" of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation, and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ (109-10).

Many sources could then be cited to connect this error of "original sin" with baptism, but this quote by Fulton J. Sheen says it efficiently: "The first effect of Baptism is the restoration of friendship with God which was lost by original sin" ("These are the Sacraments"). We see, then, that infants come into the world with "original sin," and babies are baptized to get rid of it. However, the Catholic Church does not immerse babies; they sprinkle water on them, don't they, George? Can you tell us what persuaded you to depart from the New Testament teaching of baptism only for those who can confess their faith to baptism of infants who cannot confess anything?

And while you're at it, you must have preached some sermons (perhaps early in your career) where you demonstrated that sprinkling and pouring are not baptism because they are not immersion. Did you suddenly discover Scriptures where infants were baptized or that sprinkling is just as valid as immersion? If so, we would all like to know what the evidence for those two things is. They may be in a Catholic catechism, but where can they be found in the New Testament?

Is it really re-baptism if one is sprinkled and later is immersed to obey the gospel? If sprinkling is not baptism (and it is not), then the earlier sprinkling must be discounted. The immersion of a sinner into Christ is the only baptism taking place—therefore, it is not re-baptism; it is baptism, period. Apparently, George, you have also given up on the idea that babies come into the world untainted by sin. If you write a book on your conversion, be sure to include that chapter.

But, wait. You have left us in a state of confusion. After affirming vociferously that you do not believe in re-baptism, you tell us, "I was conditionally baptized" and went through confirmation. You were baptized (in a sense other than the New Testament uses) by the Catholic Church after having been immersed as a teenager, but you don't believe in re-baptism? George, I'd really like to hear you explain that one.