|
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
2001
Panel on Doctrine
Report
Baptism
Page 7
THE PROPER SUBJECTS FOR BAPTISM
InPresbyterian Churches since the Reformation, and in other churches, it
hasbeen 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
alongwith parents (either one or both) following their parents' conversion
toChristand either prior to or at the time of their parents' reception intochurch
membership.
- Children of parents
whoarealready church members have been baptised as soon as is appropriate
followingtheir 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
heorshe is united to Christ, the Head of the body (i.e. his Church). It isquite
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 withthe
local expression of his Church wherever possible, as they did in theNew Testament
era. It is difficult to conceive of Christians in the New Testamentera living
and acting independently of other Christians outside the disciplineof the
local church and its leadership appointed under Christ. There willbe exceptional
circumstances that may make this practically impossible, e.g.in locations
where Christians are isolated, but the percentage of Christiansin 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 acceptthe benefits of 'belonging'
to a local church without taking on board thereciprocal responsibilitiesof
church membership. Non-Christians may do that,but not Christians. Christians
who are unwilling to accept the responsibilitiesand the discipline of the
local church and its leadership are not livingin conformity to the New Testament
understanding of what it means to be Christ'speople. It is biblically correct
to speak of 'the children of believers'as 'the children of church members'.
The local church must have some
wayofidentifying those who are Christians and who are to enjoy its privilegesand
share in its responsibilities. It must have some way of ensuring thatthere
is a mutual commitment of the local church to its individual membersand of
the commitment of individual members to the local church. A churchwithout
order and discipline, just as a family without order and discipline,willnot
be able to organise its affairs in a way that commends Christ. AllChristians
are under an obligation to accept the discipline of those whoare over them
in the Lord (Heb 13.17). At the present moment the way in whichwe and all
Presbyterian Churches meet these requirements is through the membershiproll.
Of course, no system is perfect. Attempts to produce an alternativesystem
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 twokinds
of Christians (first and second class) so it is unacceptable biblicallyto
foster the idea that there are two kinds of members. If the kirk sessionhas
received people into membership on their profession of faith in Christthose
people should and must enjoy both the privileges and responsibilitiesof membership.
If the conduct and the expressed beliefs of individual membersmake it abundantly
clear that they have departed from their commitment toJesus Christ or that
they no longer accept the authority of the leadershipof the Church to which
they belong that is a matter for the kirk sessionto deal with. So long as
they remain on the membership roll, however, theyshould and must be regarded
as members of Christ and his Church, which necessarilyincludes membership
of a local church. The position of Presbyterian Churcheshas always been,therefore,
that the children of all church membersare the proper subjectsfor
baptism.
There was a time, of course, when
alargepercentage of Scotland's population was in membership of a local church,the
result being that most children were baptised. That position has changedsignificantly.
We are increasingly moving into a missionary situation akinto that of the
New Testament era, a situation in which more
and more people will not be baptised. This has raised the question asto whether
we should be less restrictive in our practice of baptising childrenand open
up the sacrament to the children of parents who are not membersof the church.
Some would recommend that we baptise the children of all parentswho seekit,
others that we baptise the children of parents who have a closecontactwith
the church through a third party, e.g. a grandparent.
The only biblical warrant within the Bible
forthe baptism of children is located within the covenant relation between
Godand 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
theindiscriminatebaptism of children has contributed to a devaluation of
boththe practiceand meaning of infant baptism. The indiscriminate baptism
ofchildren hasnot only widened the gap between paedobaptists and believerbaptists
it hascreated a growing disillusionment among many in paedobaptistchurches
whoare seeking a more biblical justification for what they believeand practice.
It is not surprising that the Faith and
OrderCommission of the World Council of Churches in its report, Baptism,
Eucharistand Ministry (often referred to as the Lima Report),
states thefollowing, "In order to overcome their differences, believer baptists
andthose who practise infant baptism should reconsider certain aspects of
theirpractices. The first may seek to express more visibly the fact that
childrenare placed under the protection of God's grace. The latter must guard
themselvesagainst the practice of apparent indiscriminate baptism and take
more seriouslytheir responsibility for the nurture of baptised children to
mature commitmentto Christ." It is of interest that in 1991 when the Church
of Scotland'sBoardof World Mission and Unity made its response to the Lima
Report itlistedas one of Lima's valuable contributions: "Encouragement to
avoid indiscriminateinfant baptism".
It is not irrelevant at this point, though
neithershould it be determinative, to consider the present position of our
sisterChurch, the Church of Scotland. From 1953 to 1963 that Church engaged
inwhathas been described as "the most extensive investigation of baptism
thattopichas ever received from a church".Recovering Baptism for
a NewAgeof Mission, article in 'Doing Theology for the Peopleof
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 ofScotland.
They were summarised in a recent report by the Church of Scotland'sBoardof
Mission as follows: "The emphasis is to ensure the Christian upbringingfor
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 agreesto
the baptism on the grounds that one or other parent is in a relationshipto
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 thatthis
decision was reached by a body of people committed to the mission ofthe church.
The Board did, however, comment on the widespread dissatisfactionat 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 doctrineplace great weight on theChristian
upbringing of children subsequent toBaptism. Our research leftus dubious
as to whether adequate attention isgiven to this by congregationsand Kirk
Sessions." It also suggested that"the case for the Baptism of infantsbe made
in this generation by sustainedteaching, consistent practice andthe involvement
of the whole people ofGod." One final illuminating commentmay be noted, "On
the whole, the Church'sexperience of the policy behindthe 1963 Act is positive.
The larger partof Ministers, Kirk Sessions andcongregational groups agree
on this. Thedoctrinal basis underlying currentpolicy is affirmed by contemporary
ecumenicaltheology."
While the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland
havenever 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 toenter
formerly into the membership of that congregation because of strongopposition
from within the home. It is possible that such opposition doesnot extendto
the involvement of or even the baptism of children. Domesticcircumstances
can be exceedingly difficult and complex for some Christiansand our inflexibility
should not make them more difficult than they needbe. Here is a circumstance
in which one parent is in a relationship to thelocal congregation akin to
membership. There will be other circumstances.In all exceptional circumstances
it is of the utmost importance that kirksessions play their role in deciding
whether a baptism should take place.The Church has obviously allowed forcircumstances
where children are broughtup by those other than natural parentswho are effectively
acting as parentsand, alternatively, where parents havea desire to enter
into membership.
The question then arises whether "exceptional
circumstances" might be extended to include a grandparent or other closerelative
who is in membership of the Church. It is the case that many grandparents
are increasingly shouldering a responsibility for children while parentsare
at work. We warmly commend those grandparents who are bringing to bearupon
children a Christian influence which would otherwise be absent. It hastobe
said, however, that this kind of circumstance as a basis for the baptismof
children has no parallel in either Old or New Testaments. In the largehouseholds
of both Testaments it may be that the head of the household wasa grandfather
or, possibly, a grandmother (Lydia?). But the head of the householdwas responsible
under God for the regulation of family life. Grandparentshave often had a
considerable influence on their grandchildren and it maywell be that that
influence has increased because of the nature of our changingsociety, but
very few grandparents bear the final responsibility for theirgrandchildren.
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 of the Lord, the Church also must have access to those same
children in order to fulfil its responsibilities. There is a real difficulty
here, not merely a perceived difficulty. The Lima document not only urges
paedobaptists to guard against indiscriminate baptism (see above), it also
urges that they "take more seriously their responsibility for the nurture
of baptised children to mature commitment to Christ".Baptism, Eucharist
& Ministry (the 'Lima Report'), section on 'Baptism',paragraph
16, Faith and Order Commission of the WCC 1982. The two mattersdealt
with here are closely related.
1. Introduction
2. Institution of Baptism
3. Origins of Water Baptism
4. The Baptism of Children: Old Testament Evidence
5. The Baptism of Children: New Testament Evidence
6. The Baptism of Children: Extra Biblical Evidence
7. The Proper Subjects of Baptism
8. The Mode of Baptism
9. The Way Forward
|
