Embracing Infant Baptism: An Uncommon Path

Many have asked me how I became a Presbyterian, or more specifically, how I came to embrace infant baptism after years of arguing against it. So I’d like to finally present to everyone the trail of arguments that led me to baptize babies.

A Few Qualifications

Before diving in, I need to make a few things clear. First, I didn’t make this journey alone, and you shouldn’t either. The final straw that broke my Baptist back dropped after a couple of Presbyterian pastor friends left me with some challenging questions to take back to my fellow elders. Months of wrestling together as a council, after years of wrestling with the traditional arguments for and against covenantal baptism, finally resulted in us agreeing together that we had been wrong. Theological shifts like this shouldn’t be made alone for a number of reasons. For one, it’s easy to have blind spots and to be driven to new theological convictions for the wrong reasons. Friends can help us see our hidden-to-ourselves motivations and our blind spots. For another, if you’re a pastor or church member, your theology needs to be worked out with your ecclesial community and officers. These people have a responsibility to watch over you and protect you from false and dangerous doctrine. Working out our theological convictions must not be a private affair.

Second, I know this presentation will probably not convince skeptics. It’s not meant to. I’m taking a lot for granted here and not attempting to defend every piece of the argument. I’m merely seeking to show the logic of what I began to see in Scripture. I don’t have time to make an extensive and tight argument filled with exegetical arguments on every debated passage. Rather, I’m inviting you to look at the question from a different angle in the hopes that the biblical texts will begin to make new sense in a different light.

Third, the following presentation tells the story of my shift from a “Reformed” credobaptist position. For many years I held to a more Reformed understanding of salvation, of the sacraments (i.e. signs and seal of the covenant, a real means of grace rather than a simple memorial view), and of church governance/polity (plural elder rule, connected rather than autonomous churches, the regulative principle, church membership and discipline, etc.). So the insights that led to my shift may not be helpful for many credobaptists not already on board with a Reformed understanding of salvation and the church.

The Starting Point

For many credobaptists, the case that baptism should only be applied to those who are Christians and have given a credible profession of faith seems commonsensical, straightforward, and simple. There are a few simple arguments:

  1. The word baptism (baptízō) means ‘immerse,’ which should not be done to infants.
  2. The clear examples of baptism in the New Testament follow conversion, so it’s the only biblical conclusion to draw from the pattern.
  3. Jesus commands us to be baptized, and so it is the responsibility of each person to decide to obey by publicly identifying with Jesus through baptism.
  4. Baptism pictures spiritual realities brought by the Holy Spirit, so it shouldn’t be applied to those who do not possess the reality.

For my part, these arguments, although they fit with it, never grounded my credobaptism conviction. They’ve always struck me as falling prey to Biblicism, which Michael Horton defines as “the tendency to free oneself from the theology of Scripture by limiting its normativity to explicit proof-texts.” For me, credobaptism was grounded in my understanding of the nature of the New Covenant community.

  1. The New Covenant is the climactic fulfillment of the redemptive covenants of the Old Testament, making it both continuous with the older covenants while also discontinuous and distinct. [This is a relatively new but increasingly common position between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology espoused by D.A. Carson, John Piper, Russell Moore, Peter Gentry, Stephen Wellum, and others.]
  2. The New Covenant is a promise of the presence of the Holy Spirit in all covenant members who, subsequently, all know the Lord personally.
  3. The church consists of the regenerate, of Christians, and should not include anyone who is not a Christian. This differs from the older covenants which include believers and their unbelieving children. This difference exists because Israel was a nation that received earthly blessings, but the New Covenant promises spiritual blessings in Christ which can only be received by faith.
  4. Baptism, like circumcision, is the sign of entrance into the covenant community, and therefore, it should only be applied to believers.
  5. We can only consider a person a believer if he or she provides a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ, and we should be rigorous in examining a person before accepting their profession because the New Covenant is only for believers.

When you compare the two lists, you’ll notice that I was a credobaptist because of how I understood the covenants of the Bible to fit together and not because of some notion that a collection of verses made the case. In other words, I never thought this question was as simple as citing a few verses related to baptism and suggesting the proper practice was quite plain. I’ve long believed that a proper understanding of baptism must arise out of the sweep of the biblical story regarding the covenantal nature of redemption and the people of God.

The traditional Covenant Theology case runs along these lines:

  1. There is one covenant of grace running through the entire story of redemption, beginning with the proto evangelium in Genesis 3:15 and culminating in the New Covenant in Jesus Christ.
  2. Salvation comes through God’s covenant of grace confirmed and made explicit in God’s promises to Abraham. To be a child of God one must become one of Abraham’s children.
  3. Circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, marking those who were recipients of his promise and sealing his pledge to provide for those who had faith in him.
  4. The sign of the covenant was applied to believers and their children as a pledge of God’s faithfulness to bless all who believe in him.
  5. The New Testament makes clear that the Abrahamic covenant is still in effect in the New Covenant established by Jesus Christ. (See Romans 4 & Galatians 3)
  6. The New Covenant bloodless sign of baptism replaces bloody circumcision because Jesus has accomplished what the Abrahamic covenant promised.
  7. The New Testament does not revoke the idea that the covenant sign should be applied to the children of believers, so we should assume the principle continues in the New Covenant.
  8. The New Testament gives examples of baptisms of whole households in which there were almost certainly infants.

While I largely agreed with this line of arguments (and now definitely still do), here was the crux of the issue for me: the New Covenant community is different from the Old Covenant community in that the Spirit of God was poured out on all its members, so while there is continuity between Old and New in that the New fulfills all the promises of the Old, the New Covenant community is not a mixed community. I rejected infant baptism because Paedobaptists talked about admitting non-Christians (infants) to the covenant community through baptism, which seemed completely out of step with the nature of the New Covenant community as I understood it.

Covenant theology wasn’t fully convincing to me on baptism because it didn’t adequately address the idea that non-Christians were being welcomed into the church.

Here’s how that all changed.

An Outline of the Shift In My Thinking

My journey to infant baptism was part of a broader paradigm shift taking place in my theology from an individual salvation paradigm to a more global understanding of the work of God in Christ by the Spirit. The following is a trail of arguments I hadn’t encountered before which I will outline under various topics with related questions.

1. Rethinking the Idea of a “Credible Profession of Faith”

“What constitutes a valid or credible profession of faith?”

As I wrestled with this question, it became clear that I had stricter requirements and higher expectations that raised the bar for entrance into the visible church higher than what we see in the New Testament. There seems to be an eagerness to receive people into the church in the New Testament due to a trust that discipleship and church discipline would expose false converts.

Consider the apostles’ readiness to baptize at Pentecost in Acts 2 or Simon the Magician in Acts 8. The Apostles didn’t always get it exactly right by baptizing only genuine believers. Even fellow workers of Paul fell away (1 Tim.1:18-20 and 2 Tim. 4:10, 16). I came to believe I was too afraid to get it wrong, to baptize an unbeliever. I should be more concerned about discouraging new/young/immature believers by not admitting them to the church because they are incapable of providing an adult explanation of the gospel.

This article by Vern Poythress was helpful in distinguishing between rigorism and indifferentism (the problem at the opposite end of the spectrum).

John Starke (a Baptist) argues we should be eager to affirm evidence of faith rather than skeptically cautious, allowing the process of discipleship and church discipline to address potentially false faith.

“How do we determine whether or not a person has faith if they are incapable of providing a mature profession of faith (i.e. the mentally handicapped, the infirm, those with memory loss, infants)?”

Not all Baptists are bothered by this question because they (rightly) argue baptism is not necessary for salvation. So they see no harm in excluding people in this category from the visible church.

I wasn’t and am not comfortable with this idea because it excludes from the community of faith, the community which serves as a kingdom outpost on earth pointing people to the kingdom, those who are vital to that witness. Jesus himself points to little children to teach about the kingdom and commands us to become like them.

The standard requirement of a credible confession of faith for baptism and entrance into the visible church ends up excluding everyone who is not an adult of good health, mental ability, and rational development.

2. The Family as a Covenant Community

As I pastor, I’ve done a bit of teaching on marriage and family. For years, I sought to show congregants that the family is a covenant community, that is, a community formed through promises with specific responsibilities and blessings. Children enter this community, not by making promises, but by birth. They are responsible to live into their covenant responsibilities even though they had no choice in the matter. Furthermore, they receive the blessings of the covenant never having made a decision to join the family.

I also began to see that the New Testament had little to no teaching on parenting. That seemed odd until I realized that the apostles assume the wealth of Old Testament teachings are sufficient under the New Covenant. The picture of the family and of parenting in the Old Testament rests on the assumption that the children are part of the covenant community of God, are already on the path of the fear of the Lord, are to be instructed throughout life to continue on that path, and are warned not to depart from that path. In other words, in the Old Testament, the children of believers are considered little believers who must be encouraged, taught, and disciplined in the faith, not pagans who must be converted. Nothing in the New Testament suggests this assumption should be abandoned; in fact, the New Testament refers and alludes to the Old Testament with regard to parenting.

“So, is there, then, apart from a credible confession of faith, other evidence that can serve as a credible reason to consider a person a Christian?”

Yes, if a person is born into a believing household, it is right to assume they are already believers and should be nurtured in the faith rather than evangelized.

“Doesn’t this deny that children are born sinners, hostile to God, absent of faith?”

No. This affirms that children are born in sin, but it recognizes faith as trust that grows in understanding. As soon as a child begins to receive the love and care of his parents, he is exercising trust. And when a child trusts in his Christian parents who have been placed by God over him in the covenant of the family (or, sent to him by God, we might say), he is trusting in God himself (cf. Mt. 10:40).

This shouldn’t surprise us because the same God who redeems is the God who has created and providentially sustains. God has created the family to work this way where children come to love what parents love, believe what parents believe, and hope for what parents hope for. Notice how children usually become fans of the same sports teams as their parents, adopt many of the same hobbies, enjoy the same music and foods, and come to share the same religious beliefs. God made the world to work this way, and redemption usually runs along this same course.

Now, of course, this doesn’t always last, and there can be all sorts of sin and pain in a family that leads to hatred, fragmentation, or a low-grade distrust. In other words, not all children continue in the way of their parents. That’s good for those who are born in non-Christian families. They can believe the gospel and join God’s family. And of course, sadly, Christians don’t always see their children remain in the faith.

So there is no guarantee that a child of believers will remain in the faith, and thus, we never know for sure that a child born to Christians has faith. But that is also true of those who give a credible profession of faith as adults. They also can turn away at a later time. We cannot ever be sure, but we can try to look at credible evidence that a person is a believer.

“Doesn’t Scripture teach that faith comes from hearing the Word of God? How can a person become a believer without hearing the gospel?”

Certainly, the ordinary way people outside the covenant community develop faith is through the proclamation of the gospel, which is what I think Scripture speaks to in places like Romans 10:17. But this is not a restrictive statement about the only way faith in Jesus is brought about by the Holy Spirit.

“Does Scripture teach that Jesus will divide families and warn that being born into a God-fearing family shouldn’t create the assumption that we’re saved?”

Yes. But the very reason why Jesus teaches that his disciples must love him and hate their family is because our loyalties to our families are naturally so strong that they can jeopardize faithfulness to Jesus. He is speaking to the danger inherent in this deep sociological reality that children tend to grow into the faith (whatever it might be in) of their parents.

And yes, it’s true that we shouldn’t merely assume we are Christians just because our parents are Christians while we don’t personally trust in Jesus and while we go about doing whatever we want. But notice the person who gives a credible profession as an adult and is baptized should also not assume they are born again if they continue in unrepentance. In other words, the Bible regularly warns against presumption when a person assumes they know God because they belong to the visible covenant community but remain far from God in heart and disobedient in action. The Bible doesn’t reject the assumption that the children of believers are Christians. It does warn everyone not to presume upon God when their hearts are far from him.

3. Reconciling Covenant Theology with New Covenant Theology

My problem with Covenant Theology and Presbyterians was always the idea that they would let unbelievers into the covenant community. But I learned this isn’t the only way Presbyterians have understood how it works. There is a long history of the view I have laid out (See Lewis Bevens Schenck’s The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant) that existed before American Revivalism which altered the way Evangelicals thought about conversion. In the late 1700s and throughout the 1800s, Evangelicals adopted the idea that a person is not a Christian until he or she has a conscious moment when he or she experiences a radical conversion.

As I have talked with Presbyterians, I have come to see that most of them do regard their kids as little Christians. They teach them to pray, “Our Father, in heaven…,,” to repent of their sin, and to trust in God’s forgiveness through Jesus Christ. However, most Presbyterians today encourage and still look for a time where the child seems to come to a clearer understanding of grace and personally appropriate the promises of the gospel as an important marker in their spiritual journey (a sort of confirmation that usually involves starting to take communion). But even before this, Presbyterians consider their children unconfirmed Christians.

I tend to think this is overly scrupulous. As I’ve said, the kids who are baptized are not really in a different position than every other baptized adult. We’re all unconfirmed until we persevere. We’re all growing in our understanding of God and grace. I’ve personally had several “breakthrough” seasons in my life where it was as if I learned the faith anew or saw a huge breakthrough in a struggle against a particular sin. Each one would probably be considered a conversion by many Baptists, but I understand these to be dramatic moments of growth in understanding and in grace. I don’t know when this process began for me because I can’t remember a time I didn’t believe in God and in his Son.

Baptism doesn’t guarantee the baptized is born again. Nor does it mean the baptized no longer needs to be called to repentance and faith in the gospel.

“Are Covenant and New Covenant Theology different?”

Yes and no. Covenant Theology emphasizes the continuity of the biblical covenants, in particular, noting that the New Covenant is the fruition of the Abrahamic Covenant. In other words, those who are in Christ have become Abraham’s children, children of the promise that was given to him. Additionally, it emphasizes the mixed nature of the covenant community. There are both believers and unbelievers in the visible community until Christ returns.

New Covenant Theology emphasizes the way this fulfillment goes beyond the covenants of the Old Testament. For example, it emphasizes the presence of the Holy Spirit in the whole community rather than special anointed figures, and it emphasizes the global makeup of this community through the inclusion of the Gentiles. All who have faith are included in the covenant community, regardless of ethnicity or nationality, but only because of faith in Christ.

These differences seem huge, but I believe they’re really only a matter of emphasis. Covenant Theology is right to note that the visible church is a mixed community. Certainly, there are people in it that do not know God personally. New Covenant Theology is right to point to the assumption throughout the New Testament that those who have been baptized have the Spirit and are in Christ. This is, of course, speaking of the connection between the two but not guaranteeing that both are true of each person, for even Baptists acknowledge there are false converts in the visible church. The question then becomes, “But should we admit people we know aren’t Christians to the community?” Both agree the answer is no. The difference is how we regard our children. If we presume they are little Christians by God’s grace through the covenant community of the family, which is the means by which they receive the covenant of grace, then the differences between the two disappear.

“Is there a connection between circumcision and baptism and if so, does baptism replace circumcision?”

Yes. Just as circumcision served as a sign and seal of the Abrahamic Covenant which visibly marked out the covenant community, so also is baptism the sign and seal of the New Covenant which marks out those who belong to God as recipients of his promises. Circumcision signified God’s promise to bless Abraham’s seed, to remove spiritual uncleanness from God’s people, and to cut off of all those who break covenant with God. Baptism signifies our ingrafting into Christ, regeneration, the washing and forgiveness of sin, consecration for God, sonship, and new resurrection life.

Both circumcision and baptism signify the promises of God given to Abraham but finally fulfilled in Jesus. Circumcision was a shadow sign. Baptism is a sign of the reality. Both circumcision and baptism seal God’s pledge to give the blessings to all who believe. Both mark out God’s people in the world. Both signified realities that had to be appropriated by faith by the covenant community. Circumcision called for circumcised hearts; baptism calls for hearts made new by the Holy Spirit. So baptism replaces circumcision because it signifies the fulfillment of what circumcision anticipated.

Both should be applied to the children of believers, considered members of the covenant already on the path of the fear of the Lord, and both call the person to live into the reality by faith.

4. Faith and Identity Formation: Western Individualism & the Bible

Another key aspect of my shift flows from what I’d been learning from Charles Taylor, Robert Putnam, James K.A. Smith, Alastair Roberts, and Tim Keller about the Modern Western formation of personal identity. In short, I’d been raised to think of my identity as something I personally had to discover, choose, form, and authentically express. These thinkers, in various ways, have shown that this is a unique approach to identity formation differing from almost every other culture in the history of the world. Everywhere else, identity is largely determined by those that come before you (family, community, and culture). It is assigned, received, and embraced as a calling to embody. Rather than looking inward and constantly fighting to throw off the expectations of culture which threaten to prevent me from being me, most people throughout history have looked outside of themselves and sought to conform to their given roles. This makes sense at face value. People tend to believe what their family believes, love what their culture loves, and imitate the morality of their community.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that the Bible shares the latter perspective. Western Individualism cannot comprehend the way individuals are treated according to the group of which they are a part. This corporate responsibility is not absolute, for people can reject their received identity. Fortunately, those outside God’s covenant community can reject their former ways and embrace the God of Israel. Sadly, those raised in the covenant community can apostatize. But the assumption of the Bible is that children receive and live into the identity of their parents.

With regard to baptism, consider how Modern Western identity formation has impacted our understanding of what it means to be a Christian. The Evangelical church has largely embraced an unbiblical understanding of identity formation by insisting that a person raised by a Christian family does not share in that Christian identity and must have a conversion experience in order to be credibly considered a Christian. While I appreciate the danger of nominalism and sinful presumption, this concern shouldn’t lead us to overturn the Biblical pattern that God works redemption through families. Salvation comes to households (Acts 16:31).

In this light, the question of household baptisms becomes clear. Credobaptists often downplay the household baptisms or remark that in a few cases, it says the whole household believed. The assumption they carry is that the household must have only included people old enough to “hear and receive the word” so that they could give a credible profession of faith. Paedobaptists often counter by arguing that this is highly unlikely and that some of the household baptisms make no mention of each person receiving the word. Therefore, there must have been infants in some of these households that were baptized. This debate faces an impasse as long as both sides assume infants cannot have faith.

But once we see that our Western Individualism has blinded us to the reality that identity formation has a huge corporate component, household baptisms make sense. Salvation comes to households because the identity of every member of the household will be linked to the head of the community. Not absolutely in every case with every individual always. But the reigning assumption of Scripture is that when Jesus comes to a household, he transforms everyone there.

The practice of naming children gives us some insight here. A father (and mother) names his son or daughter, giving the family name and assigning the identity. Then he nurtures and admonishes the child to grow up into that identity. The father doesn’t wait until the child grows up and chooses to belong to the family before giving the family name. So it is with baptism. The children of believers are washed in the Triune name, assigning the child a Christian identity into which they grow as they are nurtured and admonished along the way.

5. Other Pieces Related to the Question of Baptism

“Doesn’t the word baptism (baptízō) mean ‘to immerse’?

Yes, generally it does. But there are examples in the New Testament of the word being used for other sorts of modes of washing with water. In 1 Corinthians 10:2, Paul uses it to describe Israel’s journey through the waters during the Exodus. In Hebrews 9:10, the word is used to describe various ritual washings. So it doesn’t only mean to immerse.

“Isn’t it true that the clear examples of baptism in the New Testament follow conversion? And doesn’t that suggest it’s the only biblical conclusion to draw from the pattern.”

Yes, it’s true the clear examples of baptism in the New Testament follow conversion, but this shouldn’t surprise us for two reasons. First of all, the New Testament (especially books like Acts) tells the story of the growth of the church as it extends to people outside the covenant of faith. We don’t hear stories of the next generation, but it makes sense that these new Christians would treat their children just as the Old Testament saints treated theirs. Second, the New Testament records a time of transition from Old to New Covenant. So circumcised Jews that came to believe Jesus is the Messiah had to receive the New Covenant sign of baptism. This means there was an unusually large amount of baptisms in response to the preached word.

The examples in the New Testament are not prescribing the timing of all baptisms. They record the transition from Old to New and show us how those outside the covenant community come to join it. But this in no way replaces the Old Testament assumption that the children of believers are part of the covenant community and should receive the covenant sign of baptism.

“Isn’t Baptism supposed to be the way a person individually identifies with Jesus, proclaiming to the world that he believes in Jesus?”

No, that is not primarily what is communicated in baptism. This is a common but misguided way of thinking of baptism which emphasizes the action of the one baptized over the communication and act of God through the sign. In baptism (as in the Lord’s Table), it is primarily, first and foremost, God who speaks. He signifies and promises. The subject of baptism is passive and it is only in a derivative way that baptism identifies the person as a member of God’s family.

To return to the example above, a father names his child. The child is identified with the father’s family, but it is not the child that makes this identification. A name is given by another.

So it’s a mistake when credobaptists talk about baptism as a person’s opportunity to proclaim their faith publicly or a symbol of a person’s faith. God is the one who proclaims in baptism. He signifies and promises, which is to be met with faith by the subject of baptism and the church community as a whole.

“Since Jesus commands us to be baptized, isn’t it the responsibility of each person to decide to obey by publicly identifying with Jesus through baptism.”

Usually, when credobaptists claim that baptism is commanded by Jesus, they are referring to the Great Commission in Matthew 28. But notice, Jesus is commanding his apostles (and consequently, the elders of his church) to baptize as the means of making disciples. Strictly speaking, he didn’t command all Christians to be baptized. He commands his officers to baptize. In other words, baptism is a sign and seal given to the church to administer faithfully. To receive the church’s proclamation of the gospel is to submit to baptism, but it’s not quite right that baptism is a command that each individual must choose to undergo.

“Since baptism pictures spiritual realities brought by the Holy Spirit, it shouldn’t be applied to those who do not possess the reality.”

I’ve already addressed this argument in several ways above. First, we cannot ever be certain a person is a true believer until he or she perseveres. So the question becomes, how sure must we be? What counts as credible evidence the person is a believer? As I have explained above, membership in a household of believers gives us credible evidence the person is a believer. But this confidence cannot ever be absolute, just as in the case of an adult who gives a credible profession.

Second, circumcision also pictured spiritual realities brought about by the Holy Spirit, namely, a circumcised heart. Yet, circumcision was applied to children even though it was possible the child was not and would not be a believer as he grew up.

Summing It All Up

The authors of the New Testament regard the children of believers as recipients of God’s promises (Acts 2:39), “holy” (1 Cor. 7:14), “in the Lord” (Eph. 6:1), and “little ones who believe in [Jesus]” (Mt. 18:5-6). In short, the operating assumption of the New Testament is that the children of believers, like other members of the visible church, are Christians.

The credobaptist argument that baptism should follow faith rests, in large part, on the premise that infants cannot be considered believers. Once I began to reconsider what I had assumed about children, identity formation, households, and the covenantal nature of redemption, infant baptism began to make sense. The examples of baptism and calls to be baptized that we find in the New Testament should not be surprising since they are directed at those outside the covenant community. But these examples do not prescribe the way all people should approach baptism. Just like the saints of the Old Testament, our children should be recognized and raised as covenant members.

In the end, I think “Reformed” Baptists who hold to New Covenant Theology differ from Covenant Theology far less than it appears at first glance. Both traditions emphasize different considerations and settle at an impasse because they both tend to assume the children of believers cannot presumably be Christians. However, a more consistent reading of the Old Covenant and a closer look at the Reformed tradition shows that covenant children should be treated like little baby Christians.

Interestingly, this solves another long debated theological conundrum. What happens to the children of believers who die in infancy? Almost all Christians want to say they are with the Lord, but few have a defensible reason why they can say that. Now we can see it’s appropriate to assume they are with the Lord like other believers who die. That’s not a reason to adopt paedobaptism, but it’s a wonderful consequence of the position.

As I said above, I haven’t sought to make a thorough argument here, so I welcome pushback, challenge, questions, and comments.

Additional Related Reading:

Alastair Robert’s excellent post about his journey to adopting infant baptism.

The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism edited by Gregg Strawbridge




On the Question of Baptists Rejecting Paedobaptism but Accepting Paedobaptists to Membership – Part 2

The Twitter discussion started in December 2018 regarding catholicity and the practice of Baptists rejecting those baptized as infants from membership has gone several rounds. Gavin Ortlund (1 & 2), Jonathan Leeman (1 & 2), and Joe Rigney have all made important contributions. Andrew Wilson added his thoughts this morning, making a distinction between rejecting someone from membership and refusing to admit someone to the Table. My last post and brief interaction with Leeman in the comments pressed into the inconsistency of ecclesial judgments by a Baptist church allowing a person to preach but not to eat at the Table.

Here’s a survey of the issues involved as I see it.

What is baptism?

I’ve argued, along with Joe Rigney and Gavin Ortlund, that baptism, in its essence, is the washing with water in the Triune name by a lawfully ordained minister.

Leeman argues that baptism includes, in its essence, subjective faith on the part of the baptized. In other words, unless a person has faith before being washed with water in the Triune name, it isn’t baptism at all.

If Baptists make a distinction between the essence of baptism and what they consider to be the proper timing (and possibly mode) of baptism, then they can admit those baptized as infants to membership on the grounds that their baptism is valid though improper.

What is church membership?

I’ve argued that church membership publicly recognizes Christians to the world, and so all Christians should be admitted to membership in any church. In other words, churches must not construct obstacles to membership based on their theological distinctives, vision, or values. A church may carry out a ministry in theologically and practically distinct ways, but any Christian should be accepted into membership since excluding them from membership would be declaring them outside the kingdom.

Leeman, along with Wilson, has argued that excluding a person from membership who cannot accept the theological convictions of the church is necessary for local cohesion and theological integrity. In other words, Leeman’s church recognizes there are other Christians out there, but not all of them would be able to join his church because they don’t share his theology, vision, and values. Joining a church should, in his opinion, involve adopting the theology and submitting to the authority of the local church.

Is rebaptism ever acceptable?

I’ve argued that rebaptism is never acceptable. To rebaptize is to delegitimize the church that previously baptized the person which is inherently destructive to catholicity. In rebaptizing a person, a church declares that the individual never entered the visible church and was not publicly identified as a Christian up until the point of the rebaptism.

Rigney has argued for accepting those baptized as infants into membership without needing to be rebaptized (since the paedobaptism is valid though improper), but he added that he would perform a baptism that would serve as a  “proper fulfillment of the previous improper baptism.”

Leeman would rebaptize someone who was previously washed as an infant (considered an invalid baptism) and also the person who was baptized upon a profession of faith but later came to think he wasn’t really a believer at the time.

Is there a difference between receiving a person to the Table and receiving a person into church membership?

I’ve argued that the two are inseparable. To admit a person to the Table is to recognize the person as a Christian. To admit a person to membership is to recognize the person as a Christian, which means that excluding them from membership or the Table declares the judgment that the person is not a Christian.

Wilson argues Baptists should admit someone “baptized” as an infant to the Table (since the person is truly a Christian) but not to membership (since the person doesn’t agree with the theology, vision, and values of the local church).

Leeman argues Baptists should not admit someone “baptized” as an infant to the Table (because he isn’t validly baptized at all), nor should they admit the person to membership (again, because he isn’t validly baptized at all).

Conclusion: What’s the significance of these disagreements, and why do we have these divisions?

Leeman made his take clear:

In response to your word “discordant,” yes, I acknowledge the tension. And that tension exists as a result of my trying to accommodate the theological and moral error of infant baptism.

In other words, from Leeman’s perspective, this whole mess rests solely on the shoulders of those of us who baptize babies. If we’d get baptism right, then there’d be no problems surrounding membership, Table fellowship, and catholicity among churches.

But that gets to the heart of the issue. Catholicity is something we have in Christ and then must seek to live out amidst our inevitable disagreements. We can’t fall back on theological unity as the solution to catholicity. We must ask, how do we live unified as Christians recognizing different branches of the church even though we have real differences. The sacrament/ordinance of baptism is an enormous symbol of Christian unity, and it strikes me as highly problematic that Baptists like Leeman are unwilling to recognize a distinction between a valid baptism and an improper baptism.

The significance of the disagreement is huge. Baptists that rebaptize undercut the very meaning of baptism and the validity of other churches. Baptists that exclude from membership everyone who does not line up with the theology, values, and vision of the local church erect barriers to Christian fellowship, the assurance of salvation church membership offers, and ongoing access to the means of grace. This may not seem like a big deal in the US where there are plenty of churches to join, but imagine a church that excluded a paedobaptized Christian in a place where there was only one church. Consider the implications of that. Leeman’s position (and Wilson’s too) only “works” in contexts where there is an abundance of churches. But it would be downright cruel to hold that position in other parts of the world.

It’s not the theological error of paedobaptism that causes all these problems but foregrounding a narrow definition of baptism above all other theological concerns. The inconsistencies (like a church inviting a Presbyterian to preach but who cannot take communion or join that church) and sectarian implications (the vast majority of Christians throughout history have not, on their view, entered the visible church) should press on Baptists like Leeman to conclude that there must be a mistake in their priorities, pressing for consistency in the wrong area while accepting the wrong tensions.


On the Question of Baptists Rejecting Paedobaptism but Accepting Paedobaptists to Membership

Over the last few weeks, I’ve been in a debate on Twitter with Jonathan Leeman of 9Marks (and many others) that arose out of a discussion about Baptists and catholicity. The debate centered on the question of whether or not Baptists should require those baptized (washed) as infants to be (re)baptized in order to join Baptist churches.

I’ve been arguing that, even though Baptists believe credobaptism is correct, they should consider infant baptisms valid. This would make Baptists churches more fully catholic in that 1) they’d recognize the vast majority of Christians throughout history have, in fact, entered the visible church through baptism, and 2) they’d recognize in their practice that churches who baptize infants are proper churches.

Two Baptists, Joe Rigney and Gavin Ortlund, have both chimed in and argued this same way: infant baptism is valid yet improper. A Twitter conversation moved to the blogosphere at Mere Orthodoxy: Ortlund, Round 1, Leeman’s Response, and Ortlund, Round 2.

I am late to responding to Leeman’s response and Ortlund already posted his latest (Round 2) this morning, with which I largely agree. Leeman is wrong to suggest he represents the true and single Baptist position (faith is of the essence of baptism), and his argument opens the door to multiple rebaptisms and to Donatism.

I am a Presbyterian who baptizes babies, but being a former Baptist, this question has long held my attention because I have, for a long time, tried to work out a consistent view and practice of ecclesiology, church membership, sacraments, and catholicity (I was strongly influenced by 9Marks before finally becoming a convinced paedobaptist), and because I am surrounded by Baptists in my city and in my friendships.

I think there is a lot more to be said about the line of argument examining the “essence/accident” or “valid by not proper” distinction. Leeman himself thinks this should be the focus of the debate. I don’t think the verses Leeman cited prove his case. At best, they show baptism should follow faith, but they certainly don’t prove faith is of the essence of baptism. That argument is for another post.

However, I want to make one observation I think Ortlund only touched on in his post this morning. It won’t settle the issue, but I think playing out the implications of Leeman’s argument in this direction may cause him to look back further upstream at how he is piecing together his convictions.

The Unity Objection

Leeman admits he may not be taking church membership seriously enough. I don’t think he is because he excludes from church membership people he considers to be Christians. Excluding Christians from church membership is a serious problem because doing so is how a church communicates publicly that a person is not a Christian.

In short, he is saying in practice (by excluding them from membership), “This person is not a Christian” while saying verbally, “This person is a Christian.”

For example, Leeman says, “I am absolutely happy to affirm that many of my friends who were baptized as babies are Christians. Frankly, I might have more confidence in some of their conversions than my own!” This is good and right and perhaps even a picture of humble charity. However, he goes on to say that baptism is a command of Jesus and that the person who refuses to be baptized upon a profession of faith is refusing to obey Jesus. If it’s true that the person is “disobeying Jesus,” then to be consistent, he must conclude that the person should not be considered a Christian. Yet Leeman does not want to say this. He’ll deny that they can join his church (which communicates the person isn’t a Christian) but still claim they are Christians.

Leeman values consistency very highly, but this appears to be a blind spot.

If we were discussing any other sin, Leeman would consider ongoing refusal to obey as evidence that a person is not a Christian (read his book on Church discipline). For instance, a person who continues in adultery would not just be prohibited from joining Leeman’s church but would also not be considered a Christian.

Now Leeman tried to give himself an out here by raising the category of unintentional sin. But as Ortlund pointed out this morning, it is hard to see how a person can be refusing to do something they are unintentionally failing to do. Additionally, many paedobaptists are not refusing credobaptism unintentionally or ignorantly. They are intentionally, cognizantly, and willfully refusing to be (re)baptized.

If Leeman is correct that faith is of the essence of baptism, then the Christian identity of the person who refuses to be baptized as a professed believer should be up for grabs.

Leeman has suggested we Presbyterians also refuse to let Christians join our churches if they are unbaptized. But now we can see that isn’t true and that the Baptist is in a unique position. A person who refuses baptism would not be considered a Christian by a Presbyterian. However, Leeman wants to say a Christian can go on being unbaptized but cannot join his church.

Is Leeman willing to be consistent on this point both in practice and in what he says? I don’t think so. Thankfully, he wants to stop short of saying that all profession Christians baptized as infants are not really Christians.

The only option for him then is to accept what many other Baptists have acknowledged. Faith is not of the essence of baptism. Christians baptized as infants have been validly baptized, and they should, therefore, be welcomed as members in Baptist churches.





Recent Reading Recs – 2017/08/09

I’ve started posting a weekly collection of blog posts, articles, podcasts, and books that I have found interesting, helpful, challenging, important, or funny. I don’t endorse everything I post, but I only post content I think is worth taking the time to consider. We all have to make choices about what content we “consume” each week, so I hope I can point you in directions that are worth your time.

Blog Posts & Online Journals

Online Newspapers & Magazines

  • WSJ, “Could Football Ever End?” – Jason Gay reports on a new study leading many to quit the sport, and he suggests that if football were ever to end, it will be from an internal collapse of the sport as parents and players move to other sports.
  • The Atlantic, “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation” – Psychology Professor Jean Twenge of San Diego State University suggests that the Millennial generation she calls “iGen” faces a mental health crisis due, in large part, to smart phones.
  • The Christian Science Monitor, “The Coming Evangelical Collapse” – Michael Spencer’s 2009 article has proven prescient, predicting that Evangelicalism’s identification with right wing politics, its failure to pass on the orthodox faith, and its rampant consumerism will dramatically alter the religious landscape of our nation.
  • NYT, “Google’s War Over the Sexes” – Ross Douthat weighs in on the controversy at Google over James Damore’s manifesto that got him fired.

Podcast Episodes

Newbigin and the Cruciform Church

Over the last month, I have been slowly reading through Lesslie Newbigin’s famous book The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. It’s a treasure, and I regret not having read this book earlier in my education and ministry.

For years now, I have been reflecting on and wrestling with the nature and mission of the church. I have been thrilled to see the emergence of a gospel-centered movement, a recapturing of the gospel for the whole of the Christian life and not just for conversion. However, as the movement has grown, I have been disappointed that this has not produced cruciform churches. In other words, gospel-centered preaching has not, in large part, changed the form or shape of ministry in the American Church. Churches that identify with the gospel-centered movement still tend to be triumphalistic churches of “glory” rather than churches in the shadow of the cross.

I thought this passage from Newbigin (chapter 9, point 7) rightly explains what the character of the church’s ministry should look like:

I have said that it is clear from the New Testament that early the Church saw itself as living in the time between the times, the time when Jesus, having exposed and disarmed the powers of darkness (Col. 2:15), is seated at the right hand of God until the time when his reign shall be unveiled in all its glory among all the nations. The character of this time is given to it by the character of the earthly ministry of Jesus. It is marked by suffering, and by the presence of signs of the kingdom. That is why the Fourth Gospel, in its portrayal of the missionary commission, says that when Jesus said, “As the Father sent me, so I send you,” he showed them his hands and his side—the scars of his passion—and he breathed into them the Spirit who is the foretaste of the kingdom (John 20:19-23). The Church in its journey through history will therefore have this double character insofar as it is faithful to its commission. On the one hand it will be a suffering church, because the powers of darkness, though disarmed and robbed of final authority, are still powerful. As Jesus in his earthly ministry unmasked the powers and so drew their hostility on himself, so the Spirit working through the life and witness of the missionary Church will overturn the world’s most fundamental beliefs, proving the world wrong in respect of sin, of righteousness, of judgment (John 16:8). Consequently the world will hate the Church as it hated its Lord. But, on the other hand, just as the ministry of Jesus was marked by mighty works, which for those with eyes to see and ears to hear, were signs of the presence of the kingdom of God in power, so in the life of the Church there will be mighty works which have the same function. They are not—so to say—steps on the way to the kingdom, but unveilings of, glimpses of that kingdom which is already a reality, but a reality known only to those who have been converted, have been turned from false gods to the living God. These negative and positive elements in the life of the Church will be related to each other in the ministry of Jesus (cf. 2 Cor. 4:10). The cross was a public execution visible to all—believers and unbelievers alike. The resurrection was as much a fact of history as the crucifixion, but it was made known only to the chosen few who were called to be the witnesses of the hidden kingdom.

When the church fails to unmask the powers of the age overturning its most fundamental beliefs (i.e. consumerism, nationalism, etc.) and chooses instead to utilize the powers of the age in order to attract crowds of congregants, it fails to live into its own identity and actually acts in cooperation with the same powers that crucified the Lord whom the Church claims to serve and proclaim! Furthermore, when a church’s “mighty works” serve to point to the glory and importance of itself, or when the “mighty works” are thought to be steps toward transforming the world into the kingdom, she participates in the worship of false gods and shows herself not to have turned to the living God at all.

I long for a gospel-centered movement that produces gospel-shaped (cruciform) churches.

Moore Election Problems

Yesterday, the President of the Ethics and Religious Leadership Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Russell Moore, wrote a blog post in which he offered an apology of sorts for criticizing anyone who voted for Donald Trump:

But there were also pastors and friends who told me when they read my comments they thought I was criticizing anyone who voted for Donald Trump. I told them then, and I would tell anyone now: if that’s what you heard me say, that was not at all my intention, and I apologize.

While Moore maintained that his criticism of Trump was and is valid and right (and I agree with his criticisms), he never intended to criticize those who planned on voting for him.

This post—written as an olive branch to evangelicals and Southern Baptists who voted for Trump—gives advice on how the Christian family can get along after the heated disagreement over the past election. He clearly wrote this in response to the growing backlash against his leadership. Those who supported Trump (i.e. Jerry Fallwell Jr., Mike Huckabee, Robert Jeffress) have threatened to eliminate their giving to the Cooperative Program (the fund that effectively makes a church belong to the SBC) because they do not believe Moore represents the views of Southern Baptists. Statistics on who Southern Baptists voted for seem to suggest they are correct.

As a response to the criticism, Moore received an outpouring of support on Twitter under the hash tag #IStandWithMoore.

Since I am not a Southern Baptist and I didn’t vote for Trump (I am concerned about him and his policies), I don’t have a dog in this fight. Moore doesn’t represent me, though I do often agree with him on many things and generally appreciate his voice in the public square. Because Moore is a prominent Christian voice in the public square and because the response to Moore on both sides has clouded the real issues involved, I want to make four brief observations that I think are being overlooked.

First, Moore’s post yesterday suggests he believes voting for Donald Trump was allowable for Christians if a person’s conscience bound them to that decision while holding their nose because no other good option existed. In other words, voting for Donald Trump was morally allowable for Christians. Whether you agree or disagree, Moore seems to be changing his position. In a New York Times Op-Ed where he opposed Trump, he famously pondered “whether evangelicals will be on the right side of Jesus.” And earlier in the campaign, Moore said that evangelicals shouldn’t support Trump for president, and “to back Mr. Trump, these voters must repudiate everything they believe,” [Update: See also this and this]. What Moore said in the past and what he is saying now seems contradictory.

Second, Moore didn’t really apologize. [UPDATE 3/20/2017: Moore has now given an actual apology here.] It’s a classic “non-apology.” He said “if that’s what you heard me say, that was not at all my intention, and I apologize.” The blame is on those who heard him say something he now says he was not ever saying. In other words, his arguments during the campaign were always at Donald Trump and not toward his Christian supporters. His “apology” didn’t acknowledge this sort of misunderstanding to be his fault. He didn’t say, “I am sorry that I wasn’t clear. That miscommunication was on me.”

Third, while Moore has received an outpouring of support on Twitter and in the press today, one cannot help but notice his supporters come primarily and overwhelming from those outside the SBC (See Jonathan Merritt’s article today, for instance). Those within the SBC that support him are relatively small compared to the denomination as a whole. For the last 5-8 years, Southern Baptists have been wrestling with an increasing theological divide between the younger and older generations. While both sides insist they can work together and remain united despite their theological differences, Moore’s polarizing leadership of the ERLC and the backlash could be the first step toward an unraveling of that union as the old guard seeks to replace denominational leaders and seminary presidents with those who align with the views of the vast majority of Southern Baptists. While most seem to lament this possible division and insist they oppose it, I see no reason why this would necessarily be a bad thing. If done with humility and peace, the two groups could break into different associations that partner in some Great Commission ventures and not others. This would allow churches aligning with the old guard and new guard, respectively, to plant churches and fund missionaries more aligned with their convictions. However, both sides seem to reject this option, and it seems to me that the reason for this boils down to their mutual desire to control all of the resources and institutions connected to the SBC. In other words, both sides fear losing the institutional power that currently belongs to the united denomination.

Finally, despite the traditional emphasis of the importance of the individual conscience in Baptist tradition, Southern Baptists continue to show a remarkable inability to handle matters of conscience. A matter of conscience refers to a moral question where there is no clear biblical command or where one cannot be inferred by good and necessary consequence. Issues such as what movies to watch, alcohol consumption, and voting are all matters of conscience, and yet Southern Baptists have for a long time tried to lay down requirements on all Christians on these matters. Both Moore and his critics have erred here.

A few months ago, I wrote:

In my opinion, one of the biggest mistakes Christians are making in this election season involves dismissing, insulting, and questioning the Christian identity of those who support the other candidate. This is especially true when we seek to signal to others our virtue by expressing how appalled and outraged we are that any Christian would vote for the other person. This is happening on the conservative right (i.e. Eric Metaxas), the #NeverTrump middle (i.e. Russell Moore), and the progressive left (i.e Rachel Held Evans). This is a mistake because there are dozens of pragmatic judgments about the political process, the political system, the culture, and the leaders themselves that one must make, few of which can be clearly demonstrated from Scripture. That doesn’t mean we cannot support a candidate and seek to persuade others, but it should mean we cannot be certain we have the corner on the true Christian vote.

Leading up to the election, Christians of all varieties were casting each other out of the kingdom left and right over the election. In doing so, we actually parrot or participate in the polarizing rhetoric and behavior of the culture around us rather than pointing to and embodying an alternative kingdom reality in how we handle our disagreements. We wrongly divide the body of Christ. That was true then, and it will continue to be true going forward. There may come a time when we must oppose a political figure as a moral imperative, but it’s not at all clear we must do that now. If we continue to speak this way, we won’t be heard if that time comes.

Moralistic, Therapeutic Deism

In their book Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers (2005), sociologists Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton coined the term “moralistic, therapeutic deism” (MTD) to describe the spiritual lives of American teenagers. Based on a research project called the “National Study of Youth and Religion,” Smith and Denton observed a set of beliefs (doctrines, if you will) commonly held by teenagers today:

  1. A God exists who created and orders the world and watches over human life on earth.
  2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
  3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
  4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when he is needed to resolve a problem.
  5. Good people go to heaven when they die.

Since the publication of this book, MTD has become a familiar summarizing term that captures the general religious outlook of our youth. Many have argued that this description fits the wider population’s spirituality as well. Some even think this is a good thing! Any Christian who has been catechized in sound doctrine will recognize this (unconscious) creed conflicts with orthodox Christian faith. In MTD, there’s no need for Trinity (≠deism), incarnation (≠therapy), or redemption (≠moralism).

An Easy Target

I’ve read and heard numerous Christians lament this creed as fundamentally unchristian, and it is. But in Evangelical circles, MTD has become a bit of an easy target to attack because it so obviously diverges from orthodoxy. Everyone knows it’s wrong, and we all shake our heads at those other people who so misguidedly fail to grasp the truth.

But Smith and Denton have put their finger on something that runs much deeper than this anemic creed, something of which all of us, including my Evangelical brothers and sisters, are guilty. MTD isn’t just a bad creed. It’s a fundamentally upside-down orientation to life, and it’s an orientation that all of us, secular or not, naturally share. And that means it’s not enough to simply look at the creed and shake our heads in disagreement. In fact, Smith and Denton created this creed as a summarizing term not because people actually walk around with those doctrines in their heads but because they were trying to put their finger on this orientation.

In short, MTD is an orientation in the making since the Enlightenment that sees God in obligation to us and not the other way around. MTD describes our deeply felt convictions that God must be about our well-being and happiness (hence therapeutic). It’s not us who must be justified before God, rather, God must justify Godself to us.

Seeing Ourselves

That’s why the problem of evil is such a pressing question for Westerners whereas in Ancient times it was not the most troubling question with which people wrestled. If we are owed happiness and circumstances that please us, then God better do some explaining as to why my life isn’t going the way I want. If I cannot see any good reason why God would allow suffering in my life, then God must either not exist or be a moral monster.

The MTD orientation also explains why churches have become highly focused on relevance, being positive and encouraging, and meeting people’s perceived needs and preferences regarding corporate worship and programming. We moderns don’t come to God needing to be justified. We come demanding God work for us. I can reject the creed of MTD but still involve myself with a Christian community that “pursues God in a way that works for me.”

This insight is reason #2,567 why I am convinced we have to return to biblical and historic church practices (both in worship and community) that reorient us properly to God. The form of worship and ministry in most Evangelical churches shares rather than repels the orientation of MTD, and so while we can see the errors of the creed, we can’t see our own reflection in it.