THE PROPER SUBJECTS FOR BAPTISM
In Presbyterian Churches since the Reformation, and in other churches,
it has been the view that the proper subjects for baptism are believers
and their children. So far as children are concerned this has meant, in
practice, two things.
- Children have been
baptised along with parents (either one or both) following their
parents' conversion to Christ and either prior to or at the time of
their parents' reception into church membership.
- Children of parents who
are already church members have been baptised as soon as is
appropriate following their birth.
It will be seen here that for practical purposes
'the children of believers' is equated with 'the children of church
members'. That is how it should be and there are good reasons for it.
When someone becomes a
Christian he or she is united to Christ, the Head of the body (i.e. his
Church). It is quite impossible, biblically, theologically and
experientially, for a Christian united to Christ not to be a member of
his body, the Church. It is essential that those who are members of
Christ and his Church should identify with the local expression of his
Church wherever possible, as they did in the New Testament era. It is
difficult to conceive of Christians in the New Testament era living and
acting independently of other Christians outside the discipline of the
local church and its leadership appointed under Christ. There will be
exceptional circumstances that may make this practically impossible,
e.g. in locations where Christians are isolated, but the percentage of
Christians in such circumstances is small and hardly applies to this
part of the world. It is not sufficient for Christians to worship in a
local church and accept the benefits of 'belonging' to a local church
without taking on board the reciprocal responsibilities of church
membership. Non-Christians may do that, but not Christians. Christians
who are unwilling to accept the responsibilities and the discipline of
the local church and its leadership are not living in conformity to the
New Testament understanding of what it means to be Christ's people. It
is biblically correct to speak of 'the children of believers' as 'the
children of church members'.
The local church must
have some way of identifying those who are Christians and who are to
enjoy its privileges and share in its responsibilities. It must have
some way of ensuring that there is a mutual commitment of the local
church to its individual members and of the commitment of individual
members to the local church. A church without order and discipline, just
as a family without order and discipline, will not be able to organise
its affairs in a way that commends Christ. All Christians are under an
obligation to accept the discipline of those who are over them in the
Lord (Heb 13.17). At the present moment the way in which we and all
Presbyterian Churches meet these requirements is through the membership
roll. Of course, no system is perfect. Attempts to produce an
alternative system would soon be confronted with other and possibly more
difficult problems. In any case it is the system in operation at present
and which remains in operation until and unless the General Assembly
determines otherwise.
Just as it is not
acceptable biblically to foster the idea, intentionally or
unintentionally, that there are two kinds of Christians (first and
second class) so it is unacceptable biblically to foster the idea that
there are two kinds of members. If the kirk session has received people
into membership on their profession of faith in Christ those people
should and must enjoy both the privileges and responsibilities of
membership. If the conduct and the expressed beliefs of individual
members make it abundantly clear that they have departed from their
commitment to Jesus Christ or that they no longer accept the authority
of the leadership of the Church to which they belong that is a matter
for the kirk session to deal with. So long as they remain on the
membership roll, however, they should and must be regarded as members of
Christ and his Church, which necessarily includes membership of a local
church. The position of Presbyterian Churches has always been,
therefore, that the children of all church members are the proper
subjects for baptism.
There was a time, of
course, when a large percentage of Scotland's population was in
membership of a local church, the result being that most children were
baptised. That position has changed significantly. We are increasingly
moving into a missionary situation akin to that of the New Testament
era, a situation in which more and more people will not be baptised.
This has raised the question as to whether we should be less restrictive
in our practice of baptising children and open up the sacrament to the
children of parents who are not members of the church. Some would
recommend that we baptise the children of all parents who seekit, others
that we baptise the children of parents who have a close contact with
the church through a third party, e.g. a grandparent.
The only biblical warrant
within the Bible for the baptism of children is located within the
covenant relation between God and his people. Remove the covenant
relationship and there is no biblical warrant for the practice. Maintain
the covenant relationship, a foundational Jewish and Christian doctrine,
and there is not only a biblical warrant but a biblical requirement for
the baptism of children. The covenant relation does not, however, allow
for indiscriminate baptism. It allows for the baptism of believers and
for those within their households (including children).
It is increasingly being
recognised that the indiscriminate baptism of children has contributed
to a devaluation of both the practice and meaning of infant baptism. The
indiscriminate baptism of children has not only widened the gap between
paedobaptists and believer baptists it has created a growing
disillusionment among many in paedobaptist churches who are seeking a
more biblical justification for what they believe and practice.
It is not surprising that
the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches in its
report, Baptism, Eucharis tand Ministry (often referred to as the
Lima Report), states the following, "In order to overcome
their differences, believer baptists and those who practise infant
baptism should reconsider certain aspects of their practices. The first
may seek to express more visibly the fact that children are placed under
the protection of God's grace. The latter must guard themselves against
the practice of apparent indiscriminate baptism and take more seriously
their responsibility for the nurture of baptised children to mature
commitment to Christ." It is of interest that in 1991 when the
Church of Scotland's Board of World Mission and Unity made its response
to the Lima Report it listed as one of Lima's valuable contributions:
"Encouragement to avoid indiscriminate infant baptism".
It is not irrelevant at
this point, though neither should it be determinative, to consider the
present position of our sister Church, the Church of Scotland. From 1953
to 1963 that Church engaged in what has been described as "the most
extensive investigation of baptism that topic has ever received from a
church". Recovering Baptism for a New Age of Mission,
article in 'Doing Theology for the People of God"(Eds. D Lewis
& A McGrath), Apollos 1996, pp 51f. The conclusions of the
Special Commission were embodied in an Overture sent down under the
Barrier Act to Presbyteries, and finally became the 1963 Act anent
the Administration of Baptism to Infants. Our conclusions with
respect to the indiscriminate baptism of children, as outlined above,
are similar to those presented to and approved by the General Assembly
of the Church of Scotland. They were summarised in a recent report by
the Church of Scotland's Board of Mission as follows: "The emphasis
is to ensure the Christian upbringing for the child. One or both parents
must be members of the Church and undertake the Christian upbringing of
their child; or else the Kirk Session agrees to the baptism on the
grounds that one or other parent is in a relationship to the Church akin
to membership, or else is desiring to become a communicant member."
Several attempts have been made in recent years to amend that position,
one of which sought to assert the right of a child to baptism.
None of the attempts have been successful. More significant is the
Report of the Board of Mission referred to above and presented to the
1999 General Assembly after two years work. The Report was compiled by a
sub-committee, the Committee on Mission and Evangelism Resources, and is
especially significant because of where it is coming from and because of
its remit "to research the effect of the working of the church's
policy on Baptism on mission and evangelism in the last 34 years"
While the bulk of the report is taken up with the findings of its
research during which it records a variety of conflicting views it does
incorporate into the report its own views on a number of issues.
Particularly relevant to the indiscriminate baptism of infants is the
decision not to recommend legislative changes to the 1963 Act. It
is noteworthy that this decision was reached by a body of people
committed to the mission of the church. The Board did, however, comment
on the widespread dissatisfaction at the inconsistent way in which
policy is implemented at a local level, and on the particular
difficulties experienced at the frontiers of mission. It also made the
following highly relevant statement, "Policy and doctrine place
great weight on the Christian upbringing of children subsequent to
Baptism. Our research left us dubious as to whether adequate attention
is given to this by congregations and Kirk Sessions." It also
suggested that "the case for the Baptism of infants be made in this
generation by sustained teaching, consistent practice and the
involvement of the whole people of God." One final illuminating
comment may be noted, "On the whole, the Church’s experience of
the policy behind the 1963 Act is positive. The larger part of
Ministers, Kirk Sessions and congregational groups agree on this. The
doctrinal basis underlying current policy is affirmed by contemporary
ecumenical theology."
While the Presbyterian
Churches in Scotland have never been able to justify indiscriminate
baptism biblically or theologically some flexibility has always been
necessary to cater for exceptional circumstances. We may consider, for
example, in the missionary situation we face increasingly in Scotland,
the parent who converts to Christ and whose conversion is not welcome by
his or her partner. The newly converted parent may be actively involved
in the life and worship of the local congregation but unable to enter
formerly into the membership of that congregation because of strong
opposition from within the home. It is possible that such opposition
does not extend to the involvement of or even the baptism of children.
Domestic circumstances can be exceedingly difficult and complex for some
Christians and our inflexibility should not make them more difficult
than they need be. Here is a circumstance in which one parent is in a
relationship to the local congregation akin to membership. There will be
other circumstances. In all exceptional circumstances it is of the
utmost importance that Kirk sessions play their role in deciding whether
a baptism should take place. The Church has obviously allowed for
circumstances where children are brought up by those other than natural
parents who are effectively acting as parents and, alternatively, where
parents have a desire to enter into membership.
The question then arises
whether "exceptional circumstances" might be extended to
include a grandparent or other close relative who is in membership of
the Church. It is the case that many grandparents are increasingly
shouldering a responsibility for children while parents are at work. We
warmly commend those grandparents who are bringing to bear upon children
a Christian influence which would otherwise be absent. It has to be
said, however, that this kind of circumstance as a basis for the baptism
of children has no parallel in either Old or New Testaments. In the
large households of both Testaments it may be that the head of the
household was a grandfather or, possibly, a grandmother (Lydia?). But
the head of the household was responsible under God for the regulation
of family life. Grandparents have often had a considerable influence on
their grandchildren and it may well be that that influence has increased
because of the nature of our changing society, but very few grandparents
bear the final responsibility for their grandchildren.
Not only must those who present their children for
baptism be in a position to bring up the children concerned in the
nurture and admonition
Other Sections
of the Report an be reached by clicking on the following Chapter
headings:
Institution of Baptism
Origins of Water Baptism
The
Baptism of Children: Old Testament Evidence
The
Baptism of Children: New Testament Evidence
The
Baptism of Children: Extra-Biblical Evidence
The
Mode of Baptism
The
Way Forward
