Can There Be Diversity in Baptism?

The theological systems of believer’s baptism and infant baptism seem to conflict in irreconcilable ways. The theological implications of infant baptism are too much, too soon for those who favor believer’s baptism, while those who practice believer’s baptism can appear to focus too much on a person’s decision to join God’s family and not on God’s action toward the person since they were born.

Navigating the waters between the two views, as I have in both study and my own spiritual journey, has been a confusing and divisive experience: baptism is a divisive issue, and it’s a deal breaker for many churches in how they accept leaders into their community. The mutually exclusive views on baptism can cause headaches when people move from one church or denomination to another; indeed, one only has to read On Plymouth Plantation to realize that baptism has caused division within American Christianity since Europeans landed in the New World.

But I do not think this necessarily has to be so. I believe there can be diversity in baptism amongst denominations and even the local church. That may seem naive, stupid, or counter-intuitive, but in a post-Christian world, when so many local churches are made up of a rich tapestry of spiritual and theological traditions, this is not a pipe dream or wishful fancy. I believe thinking about theological diversity within the local church will become a necessity of the church in the post-Christian era.

When the local church focuses on baptism as part of the spiritual journey of Christian discipleship, and not as an isolated “event,” both systems can function within the structure of discipleship within the church. This requires the church to have mapped out the important steps in a disciple’s life:

• Ministry of Others
• Entrance into the community
• Elementary Discipleship
• Confession of Faith
• Continuing Discipleship
• Public Profession of Faith
• Advanced Discipleship

When the church focuses on discipleship, baptism becomes a part of the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations. This track for discipleship that I laid out above can be used by the local church as a path of discipleship that allows for a diversity in baptism.

For parents who choose to infant baptize or had their infant baptized prior to joining the church they fulfill the first two steps on the above path. The parents have ministered to their child through bringing them forward for baptism, which marks their entrance into the church community. Then the local church disciples the child through children’s church and Sunday School, until the child makes a confession of faith (their conversion experience). When a child begins to own their faith they continue discipleship  as he or she prepares for their profession of faith before the community. Once a child (now teenager or young adult) makes a profession of faith before the community that reaffirms the baptism they received at their infancy, he or she then joins in further discipleship as an adult member of the community. What has been laid out here is basically the model for confirmation in many churches, but I have placed the focus on discipleship so that it can be adapted to not just teenagers but adults as well.

This system works just as well with believer’s baptism, because the focus is not on confirmation or baptism but on discipleship. For parents in the church who choose believer’s baptism, they minister to their child as it grows, and mark its entrance into the community through baby dedication. The child then continues just like above through discipleship until he or she makes a confession of faith and begins to prepare for their public profession of faith when they are older. At the public profession of faith the child (now teenager or young adult) a baptism would then take place, so that the public professions of faith at the church would allow for either a reaffirmation of infant baptism or an adult baptism. What this system does eliminate is re-baptism, because in honoring the diversity of baptism within the church no re-baptism is necessary. Adult converts who had been baptized as infants, children or teenagers (or even as adults) would not be baptized again but to reaffirm their baptism as an act of God’s grace on their spiritual journey.

The below table illustrates how the the path of discipleship that allows for a diversity in baptism might work in a local church:

This system of discipleship, also easily allows the integration of adult converts through the ministry and discipleship of others, where they would then be integrated into the community in much the same manner as the children and young adults are. The only difference to an adult would be that their entrance into the community would be more informal, a sense of belonging and an interest in service and ministry, and the formal entrance would be at their public profession of faith and baptism (if they had not been baptized as an infant).

We must remember that God has called us not to baptize the nations but to make disciples of all nations. That is our first and most important goal. What this focus on discipleship allows for is the opportunity for parents to make the decision for either infant baptism or believer’s baptism based on their own convictions, knowing full well that the local church that supports this model will take their charge to disciple all persons, whether big or small, baptized or unbaptized, seriously.

This is the final post in my series exploring baptism. You can find the previous posts in the series by following the links:

“Which Baptism To Choose?: My Story”
“The Case for Adult Baptism”
“The Case for Infant Baptism”
“The Problem with Adult Baptism: Where’s the discipleship?”
“The Problem with Infant Baptism: Where’s the covenant?“

The Problem with Infant Baptism: Where’s the Covenant?

In my previous “problem” post I discussed that the problem with adult or believer’s baptism was a lack of discipleship that has led to the majority of believer’s baptisms in America to be rebaptisms. As this series on baptism (previous posts 1, 2, 3, 4) continues toward what I have formulated as a third way on baptism I want to first highlight the problem I see today in the contemporary system of infant baptism.

I was baptized as an infant, and I think it is a beautiful and sacred act. It’s a sign of God’s providence and work in a persons life, since no infant can be active in their own baptism but must rely on God’s action of grace in their life.

Infant baptism, generally speaking, signifies the new covenant that Christ has confirmed with his death and resurrection. Just as circumcision is an outward sign of God’s covenant with the Jewish people, so to is infant baptism an outward sign of God’s new covenant with the church, his kingdom.

The problem with infant baptism is that the covenant is being misunderstood. Covenant is far too often misinterpreted as an agreement, like a legal contract. It is far more encompassing than that. Covenant means story. When an infant is baptized they are not just being initiated into a future faith agreement with Christ. They are being invited into the very narrative of God. That’s a powerful sign.

Unfortunately, it’s a sign that has lost its significance. The traditional trajectory of discipleship in churches that practice infant baptism is that the children grow in faith and then are confirmed into the church as adult members. This a proper and holistic view of discipleship, but one doesn’t need to go to statistics to realize that in most churches this does not happen. Instead, confirmation, just like believer’s baptism, is treated like a spiritual plateau. It’s a graduation of sorts, giving young people a certificate that they have arrived. There’s often not a message present in the local church that confirmation is just a step on the spiritual journey. Confirmation is too often treated as the end point for a journey started at baptism.

When an infant is baptized they are invited to participate in God’s story, first through the leading of their parents and the church community, and later through taking ownership of their faith and becoming an integral part of the church community. There is a disconnect between beginning in God’s story and taking ownership for your place in God’s story, and it is akin to the discipleship problem experienced in churches that practice adult-only baptism.

The problem of infant baptism will only begin to be renewed when the family and church communities take a long-view of the spiritual journey, and not just see the journey stop at confirmation. Infant baptism is an invitation into a lifetime journey within God’s story and participation in the kingdom of God. That is a high call, first placed on the parents and then transferred to children as they gradually take ownership of their faith, a faith that lasts a lifetime, not just until confirmation.

The Problem with Adult Baptism: Where’s the Discipleship?

It is important when discussing the problem with adult baptism or infant baptism to first and foremost realize that baptism does not happen in a vacuum. Whether a church practices adult or infant baptism, the baptismal event is one part of a larger system of discipleship that a church community follows. Churches that practice adult baptism in a general take a believe and belong approach. Before you are baptized you make a statement of faith that testifies to your belief, and only then are you a member of the body of Christ. The problem inherent in this way of doing things, especially within our American context, is that churches that have the tradition of adult baptism have become lackadaisical in their discipleship of new believers. Its very easy to have someone stand before a community and profess faith—it becomes much harder to bring that person to a point where they belong to the community and contribute to other’s discipleship. This is a symptom of the dichotomy that is infused into the modern practice of adult baptism: there are non-believers, then believers. In effect, when a person is baptized we are implicitly telling them that they have plateaued in their spiritual journey. They have arrived at the top, and the only place to go is down.

And down they go. There is no greater evidence of the problem with our modern version of adult baptism than the number of people who are re-baptized under the believer’s baptism model. This is a hard pill to swallow for churches that hold dear to believer’s baptism, but the problem has become too large to ignore. To use the Southern Baptist Convention as an example of the typical believer’s baptism church or denomination, 60% of believer’s baptisms today are not initial baptisms, they are rebaptisms (also here), and the vast majority of those rebaptisms, 36%, are of adults who were previously baptized as adults (not infants or children). The whole system of believer’s baptism hinges on the argument that infants or young children are not capable of testifying to their faith in Christ, yet the number one reason cited for rebaptism is “because the candidates feels they “had not been regenerate believers when they were first baptized.” The act of rebaptism should never, ever be taken lightly, because this is not a baptism of man (like John the Baptist) but the baptism of Christ and the sealing of the Holy Spirit we are dealing with here. The vast majority of believer’s baptism churches now practice rebaptism (for sin, for backsliding, for re-affirmation, for overt spiritual growth, etc.) more than they baptize new believers as a testimony to the power of Christ’s gospel. This is a very bad, and spiritually dark situation we find ourselves in.

I am of the opinion that the system of believer’s baptism works within communities that practice it well, as is written about Baptist churches in other countries. What needs to happen within the American context of adult baptism is a renewal of holistic discipleship which views the sacrament/ordinance of baptism as the commencement of a lifelong journey of faith. Somewhat ironically, I think the person who writes best about this concept is the Anglican N.T. Wright, when he implores us to understand that “the ‘good news’ of the Christian gospel is that…this new creation, has already begun: it began when Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead on Easter morning, having faced and beaten the double enemy, sin and death, that has corrupted and defaced God’s lovely creation.” In order to recapture the intent of believer’s baptism, churches have to remember that the core of the gospel is not just the cause but also the effect. When we give testimony at our baptism and say “Jesus is Lord” we are not just submitting a fact for review, we are testifying to a paradigm shift in our entire life and in the entire cosmos; in other words, we are saying Christ has begun the new creation and we are now baptized into it.

The believe then belong approach must take discipleship seriously, or it will continue to be a place of perpetual belief with no belonging: an endless cycle of rebaptisms where no discipleship takes place between spiritual epiphanies. Believer’s baptism can be a beautiful event, especially within a church that takes discipleship seriously. Let our hope and prayer be that our churches that practice believer’s baptism re-discover the purpose and intent of baptism and the spiritual weight of Christ’s new creation: that baptism is a one time entrance into the new creation.

The Case for Infant Baptism

In my previous post I summarized the main points in the case for adult baptism. Now that I have laid those out, I would like to sketch out the case for infant baptism, as understanding both sides will help us navigate the question: how should the Church practice baptism in a post-Christian context?

Infant baptism is the mode of baptism that is practiced in Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant traditions, with only those that consider themselves Baptist, Evangelical, Pentecostal or Charismatic rejecting this mode of baptism. Those who argue for “believer’s baptism” view baptism as a personal proclamation of their faith in Jesus Christ.  Most of the time this is viewing baptism as non-sacramental, meaning nothing divine happens at baptism, it is just something to do, which they would call an ordinance. Infant baptism is a sacramental view. The difference between these two views is the focus of the baptismal event: is baptism centered on the action of the person, as in believer’s baptism, or on God, as in infant baptism.

The case for infant baptism begins with the covenant of God. Without wading into a theological quagmire of Reformed versus Dispensational theology, it is best to view infant and adult baptism in terms of God’s relationship to the believer before the act of baptism. The theological underpinnings of infant baptism, as will be shown, make the strongest case for the baptism of infants.

First though, let us look to the Scriptures. There is no directive for adult or believer’s baptism only in the Scriptures. The same goes for infant baptism. What can be read from the silence is an openness to baptism as a communal act though, and not just a personal proclamation, as adult baptism proponents would argue.  At Pentecost, Peter issued a call to repentance that included the children of those who would repent and be baptized:

Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call. (Acts 2:38-39, TNIV)

Next, both Luke and Paul infer the baptism of infants and children when they speak of the baptism of entire households once the heads of house have come to faith:

At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. (Acts 16:33, TNIV)

Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else. (1 Corinthians 1:16, TNIV)

The early church also considers infant baptism to be an apostolic teaching passed down from them to their disciples, as evidenced in the writings of Augustine and Hippolytus:

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (St. Augustine. On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (St. Augustine. The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

Thus, the apostolic teaching of infant baptism was a view of baptism as consecration, making it akin to circumcision. Instead of being an event centered on the personal proclamation of a believer, the understanding of infant baptism is that it is a consecration of a child as a member of God’s kingdom. This is the literal understanding of Paul’s reflection in his letter to the Colossians:

“In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your sinful nature was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.”

The metaphor Paul invokes of circumcision as a precursor to baptism makes sense in terms of the old covenant versus the new covenant. As Christ brought the new covenant by his blood and has written his word on our hearts, so too has he called us, through the teaching of his Word, to perform baptism as a sign of the new covenant. The perspective of infant baptism is from God’s point of view, namely that God has opened his kingdom to all, even this child. This does not, from my perspective at least, place any connotations of salvation onto the child. Baptism is a sealing of the Holy Spirit and a sign of membership in God’s kingdom. Paul elaborates on this in Romans, when he writes:

Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.  (Romans 4: 10-12, TNIV)

Following this logic, infant baptism does not place salvation onto a child, but invites them into the kingdom of God. In this mode, baptism acts is the sign of  God imparting his grace onto a child. This is how both the Presbyterian and Methodist denominations have worked out there understandings of this imparting of grace:

Baptism, whether administered to those who profess their faith or to those presented for Baptism as children, is one and the same Sacrament. The Baptism of children witnesses to the truth that God’s love claims people before they are able to respond in faith. (PCUSA)

In all forms of Christian baptism, God claims those being baptized, whatever their age or ability to profess their faith, with divine grace. Clearly an infant can do nothing to save himself or herself, but is totally dependent on God’s grace, as we all are — whatever our age. (UMC)

In my next two posts I will outline the contemporary problems surrounding adult baptism and infant baptism as they relate to discipleship within the church. My final post will be about how to rectify the situation of different modes of baptism in a post-Christian context.

The Case for Adult Baptism

To continue the conversation around baptism I started off with the story of my baptismal journey, I wanted to present the case for adult baptism first, followed by the case for infant baptism.

Adult baptism is hard to argue against, certainly from the biblical evidence and the testimony of the church throughout its long history. It helps that proponents of infant baptism are not against adult baptism, for in their Christian practice they baptize both infants and adults.  The mainline Protestant denominations, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox all have established liturgy for adult baptisms. Basically, when it comes down to it, adult baptism is accepted practice in all denominations and sects of Christianity.

So, the case for adult baptism is not to prove its worth as much as it is to prove its exclusivity, namely that it should be the only accepted practice of baptism in the various streams of Christianity. Certainly, the arguments for adult baptism have their foundation in the teachings of Christ and the Acts of the Apostles:

The Great Commission—Jesus clearly teaches adult baptism when he commands the apostles to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey all he has taught them.

Pentecost—After preaching, Peter asks that those who believe in Christ repent and be baptized.

Simon the Magician—After coming to belief, the magician Simon is baptized and then follows Phillip as a disciple.

The Ethiopian Eunuch—Phillip baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch after he believes in Christ.

This evidence from the Scriptures establishes adult baptism as a faithful Christian practice, and Christian history attests to this.

The case for adult baptism then rests with why it should be the only valid mode of baptism. The reasons for these, in a nutshell, are:

• infants cannot testify to their faith.
• infants cannot believe.
• infants or children are not truly part of the church or God’s kingdom.
• a person is not part of God’s kingdom until they have proclaimed faith and been baptized.
• the system of infant baptism followed by discipleship (confirmation) does not follow the order in the Great Commission of make disciples, then baptize.

Those are just some of the many arguments that make the case for adult baptism. Many of them are valid, and certainly make sense in our Western understanding of the age of accountability, sin, and community. In the next post, I will be making the case for infant baptism.

Which Baptism to Choose?: My Story

With a child on the way, I have had to start confronting some of the realities of raising a child in the church. I already have some ground rules: no lame Christian music, no WWJD bracelets, and no corny Christian t-shirts.

Beyond that, I have been wrestling with the concern of baptism. I lean toward infant baptism (I’d say I’m 60% for infant baptism and 40% for believer’s baptism), but have a more open stance on the issue (which I’ll get to in a later post). For now, as an introduction to this series on Which Baptism to Choose?, I wanted to share my baptismal stories, because I think that has had a lot of influence on my own thinking.

I was recently asked by a friend about my thoughts on baptism, and to really explain my stance on baptism I have to start with my baptismal stories. I say stories because I have more than one: I was double dipped.

I grew up in the Lutheran church (both LCMS and ELCA), and so was baptized as an infant, which is customary in the Lutheran tradition. “The understanding of baptism in the Lutheran church is: Baptism begins a life throughout which we grow in faith and service through instruction, reminders of God’s love, and the support and example of the Christian community” (Baptism: Lutheran View, ELCA). This is basically how I grew up in the faith—I didn’t have a major salvation event or pray the sinners prayer, I just continued to grow in faith and service through participating in the church, and made the decision gradually to own my faith.

In high school though we began attending a non-denominational church where believer’s baptism was taught. I felt some pressure to be baptized again when I heard the testimonies of those who were being baptized again “for real” this time, but I never felt any pressure from the church or the pulpit itself. Part stubbornness and part confusion, I decided to not be rebaptized—even in high school I had a theological understanding that baptism was baptism no matter what denomination and should be mutually respected (I was adamant about church unity from a young age, I think).

Then came college. I started helping out at a baptist church as a youth leader and immediately felt pressure to be rebaptized. I was told on numerous occasions that my infant baptism didn’t count, and that I needed to be baptized again. I kind of balked at the beginning, but the guilt and confusion grew until I decided to be baptized again just to make sure I covered all the baptismal bases.

Getting baptized again didn’t lead to a peace of mind, it just made me a little bitter. I began to think I should have taken it back, because I was baptized for the wrong reasons, even though so many had said it was the right thing to do! In a supreme case of irony, I had turned what those eager baptists said was an act of faith and turned it into a personal work toward my salvation.

This remorse for my second baptism led me to retrace my roots through theology, and I came to terms that I preferred infant baptism to believer’s baptism, especially since I had begun to reclaim a higher view of the sacraments. I have had to revisit these views all over again recently though, because I don’t want my child to have to go through this same baptismal tug-of-war that I went through. Have any of you had a similar baptismal experience to me?

In the next post, I’ll dialogue about my understanding of believer’s baptism today.