One Final Concern- The Critical Need for Intentionality on the Part of Church Leadership in Encouraging and Facilitating “Profession of Faiths” from Non-Communicant Members:
Karl Barth wrote one of the most important works on baptism in the last century. In it, he gave a scathing critique of infant baptism (yet, interestingly, he was not in favor of abandoning the practice). Two of his arguments are important for all who would defend the practice of infant baptism to keep before them:
- “The practice of infant baptism has led to the disastrous assumption that individuals are Christians as a result of their birth. Barth argues, in terms which remind many of Bonhoeffer’s idea of ‘cheap grace,’ that infant baptism devalues the grace of God, and reduces Christianity to a purely social phenomenon.
- The practice of infant baptism weakens the central link between baptism and Christian discipleship. Baptism is a witness to the grace of God, and marks the beginning of the human response to this grace. In that infants cannot meaningfully make this response, the theological meaning of baptism is obscured.”[1]
The answer to Barth’s critique and warnings require intentionality and vigilance on the part of all Presbyterian and other paedobaptist pastors, elders, and parents. Certainly one can be sympathetic with the practical and critical concern behind many “Baptist” convictions; that is, in preserving the purity of the church and having only regenerate church membership. Baptist theologian, Al Mohler, says on this point, “If there is one defining mark of Baptists, it is the understanding that membership in the church comes by a personal profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”[2] So how do Presbyterians or other paedobaptists take these concerns seriously and avoid distorting 1) what it means to be a Christian and 2) a serious call to discipleship?
Mike Schuelke, Pastor of Fairfield Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Fairton, NJ speaks well to Barth’s first argument and I will propose a solution to Barth’s second critique in my concluding comments to this series. To Barth’s point on the danger of the “disastrous assumption that individuals are Christians as a result of their birth,” Schuelke says:
“There is a safeguard. It is called making a public profession of faith. Children of believers are considered part of the Covenant Community; children of unbelievers are not. Children of believers are ‘sanctified’ by even the faith of one believing parent (1 Corinthians 7:14). This means they see (or should see) the work of the Spirit in their parent(s) lives. In this way, they are set apart (sanctified) in the Covenant community and are treated as believers until they clearly demonstrate that they are not believers.”
“Until they make their own public profession of faith, however, they are considered non-communicant members—not permitted to take communion. Then in professing their faith publicly they are invited to the Lord’s Supper as communicant members. Some Reformed pastors do not forbid communion (not PCA) as it is the continuation of the Passover Feast, but we understand with Paul’s corrective (1 Cor. 10-11) that true faith is requisite in order to partake of the Lord’s Supper.[3]
“As in the Old Covenant, children of believers are considered set apart and a part of the community of faith until proven otherwise and become covenant breakers. We make it clear that full membership entails a public profession of faith [emphasis mine]. In Roman Catholic churches and the more liberal mainline denominations, baptized children are funneled into a ‘confirmation class,’ after which they join the church and become full members. Indeed a public profession of faith is a confirmation of the Spirit’s work, but in these confirmation classes all the young teens are a part of the class and all join the church. Responsible PCA churches hold a membership class only for those seeking to join the church and not for each and every teenager 13-15 years-of-age. Those taking the class, then, are interviewed by the Session who make a determination as to the genuineness of the faith professed. A good confession consists of true understanding of the Gospel and the responsibilities thereof along with some evidence of rebirth (i.e. progress made in the use of the means of grace—prayer, Scripture reading, service, etc.).”
In conclusion and in answer to Barth’s second critique (i.e, “infant baptism weakens the central link between baptism and Christian discipleship”), the phrase highlighted in bold in the paragraph above is critical for those who embrace a paedo-baptist view. Some may criticize Roman Catholics for their external and automated confirmation system that may not give adequate attention to individual heart change; however, at least there is some intentionality, consistency, and a concern for the well-being of all children in their ritual. Many evangelical Protestant churches’ (Baptist and paedo-baptist alike) process for facilitating professions of faith is poorly thought through, inconsistent, and/or lacking intention.
How do we correct this? A process and non-legalistic system must be put in place that makes clear to children and their parents that full membership in Christ’s church entails a public profession of faith. This is central to the Great Commission’s call to “make disciples” and is a key area where intentionality is called for on the part of the Senior Pastor and Elders. It must be determined not only who will have the responsibility to make this clear but how it will be done. Certainly, the church is to support parents in their responsibility of raising children. The church, however, not the parents, must take the primary lead and responsibility for requiring and facilitating professions of faith. For example, it may be wise to have a designated Sunday School teacher(s) or youth leader do one-on-one meetings/ interviews with all sixth-graders every summer to discern their understanding of the gospel, what it means to be a Christian, and their readiness to become full communicant members. Of course, where possible, this should be done in full cooperation with parental authority.[4] Those who evidence readiness then go through a warm, personal, and practical membership class with the pastor or an elder that Fall (after the summer interviews).
It will also be important for those who don’t evidence desire or readiness as sixth-graders to be led (though not forced) along towards a public profession of faith and full communicant membership. This might be thought of as “no child left behind” in the spiritual sense! This intentional focus on facilitating professions of faith at an age-appropriate time would address Barth’s second important critique (again, see above). And perhaps the profession of faith is best associated with an official ceremony of “first communion.” As Rev. Terry Johnson, Senior Pastor of Independent Presbyterian Church wrote, “I wonder if more ought to be made of this crucial step in a young person’s life of ratifying the covenant with Christ.”[5]
Having an intentional process in place, especially if it is attached to a “first communion” ceremony would strengthen, rather than weaken, the “central link between baptism and Christian discipleship.” Parents and church family together would be building on the child’s baptism as “a witness to the grace of God,” and the mark of “the beginning of the human response to this grace.” Indeed, this intentional focus on discipleship and “teaching them to obey all things” (Matthew 28:20) would ensure that the “theological meaning of baptism” (and all its rich meaning that this series has explored) will be treasured and brought into focus rather than obscured.
What do you think? I’d love to have your feedback. Please write me at gregausten7@gmail.com. Thanks and have a great week!
[1] Alister McGrath. Christian Theology: An Introduction. (Oxford: Blackwell) 2001, 529.
[2] Fall 2005, Southern Seminary Magazine
[3] “Interestingly, Reformed Baptists claim the same for baptism; yet, the formula for the New Covenant sign, baptism, is given in the same manner as circumcision: ‘the promise is for you and your children. . .’ (Acts 2)”
[4] Certainly exceptions need to be made and support given where there is no involved, responsible, or committed parent, or in situations where one or both parents are hostile to the gospel.
[5] Tabletalk magazine, November 2006, 55.