My convoluted interactions with the doctrine of baptism
A recent conversation among us World Missions Mexico missionaries at our annual Field Council brought up the doctrine of baptism. We are members of a denomination that baptizes infants and shuns the re-baptizing of people who have been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. But we work with a Mexican Presbyterian denomination that allows re-baptism of Roman Catholics and isn’t always consistent on the issue of infant baptism. Some missionaries present felt that since we are working with this denomination we should respect their wishes: we should be willing to re-baptize new believers and dedicate infants when called upon. Others, including myself, insisted that our work with this denomination doesn’t negate the fact that we are clergy under the authority of the confessional stance of our own denomination. We should politely refrain from activities which go against our conscience and our theological commitments and allow their pastors to perform those activities we don’t agree with.
The conversation reminded me of my own convoluted personal history with regard to baptism. I thought I would briefly summarize that history, and maybe sometime soon offer my defense of the doctrine.
I converted to Christianity as a teenager, and as a response to my witness, my friend Gary converted soon after. But when it came time to join the church (the Reformed Church in America), Gary was baptized and made profession of his faith, whereas I was only allowed to make profession of faith, since I had been baptized Roman Catholic as a baby. I asked the elders to allow me to be baptized, since I didn’t consider the Roman Catholic Church a biblical church, but they quoted an argument from St. Augustine to explain why they couldn’t allow that. More on that argument in a later article. I reluctantly submitted, but I remained unconvinced that infant baptism was biblical and rebaptizing was not.
After Bible college I got married and signed up to go with a mission that baptized only believers. This was a good fit for my personal beliefs at the time. My Honduran wife was from a denomination that baptized believers too, so we fit right in. I was asked upon arriving in Ecuador if I wanted to be baptized in conformity with what I believed. But by then many years had passed since my conversion, so baptism at this point would not be an act of conversion or faith, so I didn’t see the point. At any rate I was a member of a Reformed church (having migrated to the Christian Reformed Church by then), and I felt that being baptized would be a rejection of the authority of the church I belonged to. My director said there was no rule in the mission or the local church plant requiring missionaries to be baptized, so I politely declined.
Somehow my concern to obey my church’s authority didn’t stop me from re-baptizing others, who, like myself, had converted from nominal Catholicism. And I did this as a non-ordained person, no less! (Also a no-no in my tradition). My rationalization at the time was that my home church supported us with prayers and finances and wouldn’t do so if they objected to the baptist-style mission we served with.
While on “furlough” from Ecuador I struggled with the doctrine of baptism. Doubts came up in my own mind about believer’s baptism, so I decided to read a few Reformed works on the subject. I slowly but surely became convinced that infant baptism was correct and re-baptizing people was unnecessary. I returned to Ecuador with the same mission but kept quiet about my change of doctrine. I would adhere to the practice of the local church in Ecuador rather than rock the boat.
Nevertheless, the boat insisted on being rocked. A young church member looking for ways to cause trouble for the missionaries did some Internet investigating and discovered that the churches that some of us came from were churches that baptize infants. He interrogated us and discovered that I and others had never been baptized as believers. He then took this information to a congregational meeting to (unsuccessfully) oust us all. I was urged by church leaders to undergo baptism, but at this point we were already planning to leave within a few weeks to return to the States, so the point was moot. This was a sad event for us because as a field we had suffered a great deal of stress in Ecuador on account of a divisive missionary couple, and as a result we as a family had made the difficult decision to leave and move forward my plans to study at seminary. Having some of our Ecuadorian church friends turned against us by another divisive person – when our friends knew we were about to leave and could just as easily have let us leave in peace – was very painful.
Upon leaving the mission and returning to the States, I followed through on my new beliefs and finally had our son Daniel, already four years old, baptized. But I still had a couple unresolved issues with the wording of the Christian Reformed doctrine of infant baptism. So while at seminary I eagerly took the elective course on infant baptism with Dr. Lyle Bierma, one of my all-time favorite teachers. The readings I did for that course helped me worked through my reservations. (Again, material for a future article). Finally, my doctrine was in place and I had peace.
Now I am in Mexico serving with my denomination’s mission as an ordained pastor and missionary. But the Mexican denomination I work with here baptizes converts from Roman Catholicism (something I once wanted done to me and something I myself once did for others). And while on paper this Presbyterian denomination teaches infant baptism, some of its churches have been influenced by Pentecostals and others, and practice infant dedication instead. So my headaches over the doctrine have returned!
Back to the discussion among the missionaries. My colleagues are not rebellious liberals with no concern for creeds, conscience or church order. Far from it. They are cautious, conservative individuals who have wrestled with this issue and some have simply come out favoring the other side of the issue. Some offered historical and theological justifications for their decision. One presented a justification based on Bible texts, too.
Nevertheless, I was not convinced by their arguments. For the record, my logic on the issue remains the following:
- As members of the Christian Reformed Church we are under the authority of the Reformed confessions, which explicitly teach infant baptism and reject re-baptism.
- As ministers, we have signed to the effect that we will teach and defend what the Bible and the confessions say, so we are even more responsible to the Confessions than other church members.
- The fact that we work with another denomination does not negate our commitments to our own church’s teachings and practices. Our work relationship in no way binds us to act against our doctrines, commitments and consciences. We need only politely refuse to engage in the practices of our partner when we disagree with those practices. We do not impose on them, and they do not impose on us.
- And the fact that we work in a Roman Catholic context is irrelevant. I’m no fan of the Roman Catholic Church. I can certainly empathize with a convert from Catholicism who wishes to be re-baptized – I was in that position as a new believer myself. But our confessions were also written in a largely Catholic context (Reformation era Europe) in which some Christians (the Anabaptists or Remonstrants) were insisting that new Protestant believers who had been baptized as Catholics needed to be re-baptized. And the Reformers not only did not agree, they explicitly denounced such practices at the highest level, the level of binding confessional documents. They obviously did not consider the issue a minor issue to be left to the individual’s conscience.
So in the end, the other missionaries will need to follow their consciences on the matter, but for me the issue is clear, and I would resist being obligated to re-baptize new believers or dedicate infants. The Mexican churches we work with have clergy that can perform those actitivies with which I don’t feel comfortable. And hopefully I can gently persuade some of them by my example that:
- Submission to one’s church is a principle to be valued highly, even when our emotions tilt us in another direction.
- They are not being consistent to our mutual historical heritage as Presbyterian and Reformed believers by engaging in such practices.
I imagine that by now I have written enough so that everyone can find something they disagree with! I hope to write articles outlining some of the theological issues I wrestled with along the way and the arguments I found personally convincing. But for now, let the commenting begin! Blessings, Dave Gifford
Ben Meyer Said,
October 14, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
Hi Dave,
Hey! Great article on baptism! You are awesome! I concur entirely and you have stated my position so eloquently, thanks! Very interesting to hear more about your personal history as well!
Ben
admin Said,
October 15, 2007 @ 6:03 am
Thanks for the visit and the kind words, Ben!
Baptism and the CRCNA « The Mission Link Said,
October 19, 2007 @ 6:20 am
[...] “covenant” baptism?) With that in mind, Dave explains why he is now an advocate for infant baptism. He has really thought a great deal about the topic, and I encourage you all to join in [...]
Alejandro Said,
October 21, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
In Latin America, practically all indigenous, non-Historic, Protestant denominations are “Anabaptistic” on this topic (empirical evidence). The reason is very simple, they have emerged out of the context of a Roman Catholic universe. So the discussion is not so much theological or confessional in nature, but rather emotional and “symbolic.” By symbolic I imply many thing among which the main one is a defiant element. Protestant converts must show somehow that they have crossed into the other camp. One way of doing this is emotionally rejecting things that are Roman Catholic in nature or symbol. So, I think the right approach to this whole topic is trying to understand the emotional investment a Protestant convert gives when he or she crosses that threshold. Let’s not forget that it goes the other way aroung too. I know many ex-CRCers who talk about their former faith in very deep and emotional terms. For me, theological arguments are a façade of the heart.
Now, changing the direction just a little, what do we do with recent trends in the CRC to go pro-Catholic? It is of public knowledge, even in the mission field, that many of our churches now practice several Pseudo-Roman Catholic rites, namely, Ash Wednesday and the marking of the forehead with ash, doing the Sign of the Cross, etc.
Dave Gifford Said,
October 22, 2007 @ 6:29 am
Hi Alejandro,
Thanks for your comments. I agree with everything you said about the emotional and symbolic value of infant baptism. As I mentioned, I went through that myself. I’m wondering, though, if we shouldn’t look for some other process that could fill that need rather than re-baptism.(After all, the Reformers came out of an even more hostile Roman Catholic universe and still rejected re-baptism).
As for the Catholic-leaning trend in the CRCNA, that scares me. I think it’s a move in the wrong direction, a glance back at Egypt when we ought to have our eyes on the Promised Land. While at Calvin I wrote in the seminary student newspaper criticizing the trend to speak ill of evangelicals – “evangelical” was always used negatively by professors there – and coddle up to Roman Catholicism. I think the roots of this are more socioeconomic than theological – i.e., it’s more prestigious to hang around scholarly, high church Catholics than to hang around lower class, grass roots evangelicals. I think another possible cause for some is that some people still have one foot in Europe and don’t like the idea of integrating with “America” – and evangelicalism is a very American phenomenon for the most part.
The burden of these posts is that I would like to steer clear of Catholicism’s many errors while not departing from our Reformed confessions either. I think we as Christian Reformed believers offer a nice compromise – evangelical piety and activism coupled with a solid Reformed theology and worldview. I think we need both to survive in the long run, but as always, Satan is in there trying to mess things up. But one little word shall fell him! Blessings, Dave
Jan Van Ee Said,
October 22, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
Dear Dave,
I have to agree with Alejandro that one of the main reasons a person who converts to Christ would get re-baptized is that it certainly is a water shed experience. The baptism is a rejection of the past and an acceptance of the legitimacy and authority of the Presbyterian church.
With about 33 years of experience in the Mexico field working on loan to both the Reformed Presbyterian church and the National Presbyterian church, I have adopted their practice in regard to baptism. I also do dedications of babies. For me this is a simple prayer over the child and an opportunity to exhort the parents to be faithful in raising the child in the knowledge of Christ. I tell the parents that I also expect them to have the child baptized at a later date. In some cases it happens and sometimes it doesn’t.
The church environment of some people can very fluid. If they travel they have to find another church where they can attend and participate. If they haven’t officially joined a church they won’t be able to have the child baptized. A full official baptism can be expensive and involve a large party for the family.
One thing that we have to be careful with in discussing this whole matter is that we shouldn’t attach a Catholic way of thinking about baptism that affirms that the act in and of itself has some merit. What counts isn’t the ceremony or the activity but the faith of the people involved in affirming that their child is a son or daughter of the covenant.
When I grew up in the Christian Reformed church I certainly absorbed the idea that getting re-baptized was a negation of any previous baptism. In visits to the Jordan River I have seen entire bus loads of people who probably have been baptized already but see nothing wrong with going through the experience again simply because they happen to be at the Jordan river.
One of my nieces grew up in the Christian Reformed church and as such was baptized as a baby. She went to Bible school and met a young man who later became a Baptist pastor. They married and are active in the Baptist church. For her to be a member in that church she had to be re-baptized. Her parents asked me what my advice was on the baptism and what they should do about it. I said that they should go and give their blessings to the event. They didn’t have to consider the re-baptism a negation of the baptism that was done as a child. My niece and her husband are active in their church and the church doesn’t puzzle over whether she is really baptized or not. The parents are also affirming of the ministry that their daughter and son-in-law is doing in the Baptist church.
Many of the doctrines that we live with today derive from the experiences of the Reformers. But we live in a world where the challenges can be entirely different from what the 16th century reformers faced.
I’m not in favor of an ecumenical movement that would try force all of us into one super church. But I am in favor of church leaders recognizing Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit in other denominations that follow Christ but may not have the same doctrines that we have. I am not a dispensationalist pre-mil Baptist but I consider it a high honor that I have a close friend who lives by those doctrines. I’m not going to change to his doctrines and he is not going to change my doctrines but even so we highly appreciate each other’s ministries. God’s garden has many colored flowers in it and it’s about time that we come to appreciate the variety of colors.
I suppose we all mellow somewhat as we age. I hope that I’m never so ardent for propositional truth that I end up negating the unity of the body of Christ. I’ve had the opportunity of preaching at Baptist and Methodist churches. I’ve even preached at a chapel service held in the ruins of a Byzantine church at Mamsit, Israel. Those are not places to affirm our differences but rather we should affirm what brings us together.
Shalom Jan Van Ee
Dave Gifford Said,
October 23, 2007 @ 5:53 am
Thanks for your comments, Jan. I am provoking some good discussion and some excellent points. Yay!
I agree with you totally about affirming our unity with other evangelicals. My posts on infant baptism are not meant to burn bridges with people from other churches, or to tell the RPC and NPC churches that we work with how they ought to do church. If others want to re-baptize or dedicate, that is up to them. If my kids end up joining other churches when they grow up, I will be affirming of them and their churches, and give them my blessing, whether I agree with all the particulars on not. Even though I won’t officiate a re-baptism as you would, I certainly won’t boycott a re-baptism if there is one. I’ll attend and say congratulations and wish them well.
My point is that we need to stick to and affirm and defend our own identity and beliefs. I think there has been some confusion of roles and identity, since we are ministers of one church yet work primarily in the context of another.
Like I mentioned, just because we work with churches who do things a different way doesn’t obligate us to follow along. They have pastors who can officiate over re-baptisms and infant dedications. We have to respect their way of doing things and not necessarily get them to change their ways. But by the same token they have to respect our commitments and recognize that there are certain things that we cannot and should not do for them. And I would say that infant dedication and re-baptism are two of those things.
Blessings and thanks again for your comments. Dave
Carla Said,
March 24, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
I was raised in a RCA church but since age 18 I have pretty much always been in churches that practice Believers’ baptism. I am now 40 and several times I have been confronted with the decision of whether or not to be rebaptized. Each time I have decided not to after some prayer and sometimes some reading on the subject matter. Many of the issues you bring up are ones I am dealing with. My church is having a baptism service this Sunday and once again I am in prayer over this matter. Just poking around the internet looking for discussions of such matters and came across your articles. I haven’t yet decided, but found that I can relate very much to your story and I appreciate that!
Lynn Said,
January 26, 2009 @ 4:58 am
Reading in the Banner led me to the Calvin Sem forum where I read your article on the challenges of re-baptism on the mission field. We’re on the other side of the world where similar challenges are often faced (though we are with an interdenominational group that doesn’t do church planting or baptisms). I understand your dilemma completely and applaud your decision to remain true to your beliefs. One friend here who has encountered the re-baptism challenge came up with what I consider a “worth thinking about” solution. When some teen-age boys whom he had discipled wanted to be re-baptized he encouraged them to instead “re-enact” their baptism. Listening to their testimonies a couple of months later I was in awe of the impact that this made on those young men. For each of them, God used that event to draw them closer to Himself. It was a deeply spiritual event. I’ve not sorted through all of the theology and implications of this, but it’s definitely given me something to think about.
Dr. Painter Said,
July 15, 2009 @ 2:13 am
Interesting thread. My wife (who grew up Presbyterian and was infant baptized) and I attend a Presbyterian church in Virginia with our two children, aged 8 and 9. They have never been baptized because I grew up a Baptist and firmly believe that baptism is something you do after you are a believer and reach the age of understanding. I would like to get my two children baptized, but the Presbyterian minister will not do it, as they only do infant baptism. This is going to drive my family out of this church and to another church, because I am not going to attend and give tithe money to a church that will not baptize my two children. We have otherwise been happy with this church for two years ( although I find the whole predestination thing a little bizarre). I guess the old saying is true, that you can take the boy out of the Baptist church but you can’t take the Baptist church out of the boy!
Dave Gifford Said,
July 15, 2009 @ 10:15 am
Thanks, Dr. Painter. Hope you got to see my other 3 or 4 articles on the subject of infant baptism.
I’m not sure on what basis your Presbyterian church could deny baptism to unbaptized children of believers. It’s not that Presbyterians ONLY do infant baptisms. I can see them refusing to do infant dedications and insisting on doing baptisms instead. But any good Presbyterian church should be willing to do one of two things with your kids: baptize them now, and have them do profession of faith later when they have gone through the catechism system, or have them baptized along with a profession of faith now. Tell ‘em I told ‘em so. Hope everything works out. And blessings to you!