GENERAL ASSEMBLY 2001

Panel on Doctrine Report

Baptism

Page 7

THE PROPER SUBJECTS FOR BAPTISM

1. 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.
2. Children of parents whoarealready church members have been baptised as soon as is appropriate followingtheir birth.

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