In a recent post that landed in my inbox, Scott Brown asks how many children are parents willing to lose? He's speaking in terms of them walking away from the faith of their parents - kind of a strange notion for a Baptist to express I think.
And yet it's a valid concern and I echo his criticism of the Evangelical approach that separates children in terms of worship and fosters a youth culture that encourages prolonged adolescence and an identity apart from one's family. I say a hearty amen to all those criticisms.But this statement is baffling to me as Brown is a Baptist:
"We should fight for every one of our children — praying for their conversion, teaching them the Word, and bringing them again and again into the gathered worship of Christ’s church.
Sadly, many churches have departed from the simple pattern Scripture gives us. Instead of gathering the generations together to worship, as God designed, children are sent to children’s church and the teens to youth group."
Brown should know that unbelievers cannot worship God. The worship and prayers of the wicked are an abomination to Him as is made clear in both Proverbs 15 and 28. Unconverted people are 'the wicked', they belong to the realm of Satan and hence an excommunication takes a person from the realm of the Church and returns them to the world. If they're not Christians, they're not part of the Church and its worship, and this argument (from within a Baptist paradigm) makes little to no sense.
This is especially ironic given the fact that Baptists often charge Paedobaptists of bringing unbelievers into the Church. They mean this in 'formal' terms as the Reformed grant their infants a sign and a kind of half-way membership in baptism - but these Baptists are also routinely bringing unbelievers into the church with their own unconverted children. They just don't make them 'members', but then again even the Reformed and Lutherans don't make them 'full members' (not sure where that's at in the New Testament) until confirmation - which I contend is just a dry baptism ritual also without warrant. I guess Brown can be forgiven in part as the Protestant paedobaptist tradition has not always been very consistent either.
Brown rightly wants to raise children in the Church. Amen, but his Baptistic theology cannot sustain it. If he wants to say they are part of the Church in some capacity - then how so? The Reformed grant a sign that lacks substance, but at least the sign plays a role. For the Baptists, there is no sign until a conversion experience. There's nothing there formally or substantively that marks their children out - so his comments and expectations are incongruous with his theology.
Scholastic theologians chop up theological terms and put them in airtight boxes when the Scriptures are much more fluid when it comes to their use. Conversion, the process in which we repent and believe and live in newness of life is so often viewed as a kind of one-time event. And they often split this from regeneration - conversion being the result of regeneration.
In reality one's conversion and regeneration is ongoing and being constantly renewed. You'll find that if you read some of the older theologians (such as John Calvin) they will use terms like conversion and regeneration interchangeably. And I would push it further and say this process of mortification and vivification amounts to regeneration and sanctification being at times indistinguishable. Calvin thought so too. It's all part of the same soteriological package - one that his been obscured by the conflict with Roman Catholicism and a fear of moving too close to their doctrinal frameworks. I would contend that's not the real issue with the false church of Rome but for many, a narrow formulation of the doctrine of Sola Fide is the sine qua non regarding the gospel and the validity of the Church. Interestingly though it's not so clear cut in the Scripture, at least not the way many teach it. It's place in Protestant understanding is actually somewhat complicated and nuanced - not everyone agrees. For example the Lutherans hold to Sola Fide and yet also teach Baptismal Regeneration. For many Evangelicals and Baptists this is a contradiction which should (in theory) belie Lutheran claims to Sola Fide and for some it's enough to place their Christian status in doubt.
Additionally, for it to be the article by which the Church stands or falls is problematic given that before Luther it cannot be found. I know people try but they're reaching, sometimes absurdly so and shutting their eyes to everything else the theologians in question taught. Just because it was not explicitly denied does not mean that it was taught or accepted. Sola Fide is true enough and a wonderful truth at that, but I reject the minimalist way that many seem to frame it and teach it - excluding so much more of what the New Testament teaches.
This will shock some readers but I never prayed for the conversion of my children, not in the way an Evangelical would understand it. I raised them as Christians and whether they persevere and continue in the faith is something they will struggle with and the Church needs to mark - but this is true of all of us, me included. And so, yes of course I pray for them (and myself) that we would all continue in the faith grounded and settled and not be moved away from the hope of the gospel.
On what basis did I call them Christians? Based on the promises and commands of God, they were baptised and thus were signed and sealed - not merely in some form-only covenant (a kind of semi-sanctified status awaiting conversion and confirmation). No, as baptised people they became Christians. They received the washing of regeneration and were raised accordingly as part of the covenant people. I don't need to try and pry into their hearts to determine if I think their conversion is genuine. It can't be done. Time will tell by the fruit they bear, the lives they lead, and their perseverance. The same is true with me. If they had to look back and see themselves as undergoing a crisis and conversion - then something went amiss. Rather, they can look back and never remember a time in which they did not believe.
This is not the same as Presumptive Regeneration which appears in the teachings of Abraham Kuyper. Under the aegis of that doctrine, the infant in presumed regenerate and baptized accordingly - it's like projecting a Baptist understanding on to a infant. With the Kuyperians the regeneration is there and thus they (on that basis) baptize. Even some Lutheran understandings of infant faith seem to do this, but more often it's a case of the Spirit working through baptism to create faith at that moment. I appreciate this to some extent but I just don't think we're told how this works and don't need to speculate.
Contrary to the Reformed and the Baptists, I'm arguing for actual sacramental efficacy. If we want to speak of presumptive regeneration, it's not on the basis of election, but rather on the basis of baptism. This is in keeping with Early Church teaching. It was corrupted by Rome and Constantinople over the centuries (and mixed with the theology of Christendom) and yet positively reiterated (at least in part) once again by the Lutherans - and a few Reformed-leaning thinkers.
During the medieval period, the many dissenting groups represent a wide array of views - some of which are highly problematic. Responding to abuses of the sacraments and in particular the way in which they were tied to the Constantinian order, many rejected the sacraments altogether. Others such as the Waldenses and Lollards represent a spectrum, some retaining the high doctrines of the New Testament and Early Church, with others digressing and putting the sole emphasis on faith and life, failing to grasp how the Spirit utilizes means. Some retained infant baptism and a high regard for the Eucharist but seemed to struggle to understand why, others became more radical.
Regarding
regeneration in baptism, it does not mean that for some Christian
children there will come a time in which a greater understanding
develops - a time wherein they 'own' the faith passed down to them.
And yet I would push that further and say this too is a process and
something that develops and (for many) comes in waves, wherein ones
faith deepens. Baptism does not operate in isolation, in an ex
opere operato fashion despite the kind of life one leads or in
the absence of a living faith. I would even be willing to grant a
certain validity to the concept of ex opere operato if it's
not absolutized. The faith can be cast aside, abandoned, or negated
by the presence of rotten fruit indicative of a disobedient heart.
Church discipline is essential and yet this (historically) was lost
under the aegis of Christendom and Christian society wherein the bar
had to be lowered to keep people in the fold. Christendom won't work
if half the population is excommunicated for conduct. Modern
Evangelicalism functions this way too - apart from any notion of
sacraments. So instead the churches that embrace this thinking create
loopholes and find ways to accommodate un-Christian conduct. The
problem isn't infant baptism but a completely corrupted understanding
of what the Church is, or in many cases cheap grace. The Church is a
covenant community for those walking with Christ, not a divine stamp
of ratification on a cultural and political polity.
For my part,
I did have a Damascus Road-type conversion experience. I had been
raised in Evangelical circles and after years of frustration due to
its gospel of cheap grace, the altar call system, and my father's
utter failure to model a Christian life, family, and home - I went
through a period during my teen years in which I actively turned away
from the faith and wanted nothing to do with it. It haunted me, but I
was godless and gave myself over to do evil. I was running away,
blaspheming, sinning with abandon, and yet looking over my shoulder
as I did it. I was never at peace with the life I was living.
The crisis came later and after about four months of wrestling and seriously reading the Bible for the first time in my life, I did repent and believe and was finally baptised. I had rejected baptism as a teenager - but then again, it was never properly explained to me either. I was pressured to be baptised but in my anger I refused. I had been right to do so and though my father professed to be a Christian, it was not a Christian home and I don't expect to be greeted by him in heaven when I die.
But since that time I can point to several episodes in my walk that were transformative wherein my faith was renewed and deepened. This is not to say that I was 'backslid' or not walking with God. Not for a moment, but there are times and season in which we seem to stagnate, in which we believe, but our zeal is lacking, where sin becomes comfortable and we become complacent. We read the Scriptures but it's not transforming us in the same way. It's like we're going through the motions. I can think of times when I came to new understandings, when my grasp of doctrine expanded and it was like I got a new Bible again. I would think (and maybe hope?) that this experience is common. I suppose there are some people who are more steady and just keep plodding along through the years and decades. There's nothing wrong with that, but our faith should be alive.
The one-time conversion experience framework of salvation tends to dismiss this dynamism. You're simply 'saved' and thus you just shrug your shoulders at the notion of struggle. You're either saved or not saved - end of discussion. I'm amazed that they come away from reading the New Testament with that kind of absolute and over-simplified understanding. It's like they think grace is somehow being demeaned otherwise. And when this attitude is combined with the more elaborate and yet false paradigm of Eternal Security it can become quite dangerous.
Will the elect be saved? Of course, and ultimately people are saved or not saved, but the Scriptures don't teach Eternal Security or Once Saved Always Saved. They teach perseverance and while God's sovereignty is a comfort to us and we know the plan of salvation will save (John 10.28) - as individuals we must persevere in the faith and the New Testament is filled with exhortations and warnings by the score, cautioning us to keep our faith, grow, bear fruit, press forward, etc., and there are eternal consequences should we fail to do so. Faith can be lost and people can be removed from the Book of Life. Make your calling and election sure. Those who treat these passages as hypothetical or written to unregenerate people masquerading as Christians, or merely deal with rewards, are not taking the text seriously and frankly are in danger. They've let theological assumptions and an elevated logic run roughshod over the text. The fact that my finite and fallen mind cannot comprehend divine truths (or revealed mysteries) in a coherent manner is not a cause for concern. The fact that I can only (at best) apprehend these truths and understand them in part is humbling. We're given what we need to know and can understand it at a sufficient level by means of the Spirit. The desire to create grand systematic theologies and 'iron out' all the seeming discrepancies by means of the scholastic's tool-kit is a great mistake and undermines the authority and application of the text.
Election is used in different ways in the New Testament. Yes, it does sometimes refer to predestination but it's not always used that way. Further John 6.37-40 shows us how grace can be framed in decretal terms but also in universal hypothetical terms. If there is a contradiction in both election and a free offer, the problem is with the limitations of human logic, not the doctrines God has revealed. John 6 is also helpful here with regarding to feeding on Christ and its connection to the Eucharist.
Many Reformed readers at this point (if they've made it this far) will say I'm an Arminian and probably a heretic too. So be it. I would have said the same thing thirty years ago. For the most part I reject the whole Calvinist-Arminian debate. It's largely based on false assumptions. Both camps cater to rationalism and both lose their way. I spent years as a rabid card-carrying Calvinist, but I kept reading my Bible and realized there was something more being said. And then finally I grasped that the problem wasn't a battle over lists of texts, syllogisms, and creating a coherent ordo salutis. The dilemma (for both camps) is born of errors made at the stage of theological prolegomena. It's an epistemological problem that actually (in the end) undermines Scriptural authority. Once you let the Bible and in particular the New Testament define the terms, the debate becomes moot.
Rather, I would align with Augustine (at least on these issues) who was able to grasp how Divine Sovereignty can function alongside things like Sacramental Efficacy, and the real possibility of apostasy. I'm not speaking of a false or counterfeit faith that is exposed, but of a true believer losing the gift of faith and falling away.
With my children as baptised believers (a term that applies to them while newborn infants) they are part of the Church and participate in its life. We cultivate that, feed them (including the Eucharist if one can find a non-CREC church to do so), and nurture their growth. May the gospel grip their hearts every Sunday, for the rest of their lives.
But Baptistic theology which treats children of believers as unregenerate and outside the Church makes neither logical sense (by their own set of theological criteria), nor can it be made to conform with the way the Scriptures speak about the children of believers. They are reckoned part of the Church and exhorted accordingly. The oikos-family language regarding baptism, the promise that you and your family will be saved is incompatible with Baptist categories. It's reduced to an empty hypothetical. I would argue infant baptism is referenced on the pages of the New Testament - the apostles baptized infants. But even for those who reject it, they cannot reconcile the language and exhortations with their theology.
Here's another irony, the whole children's church/youth culture movement are actually the result of Baptistic theology. It creates a church situation in which people don't really know what to do with their young people - and all the more as they get older. And, in many cases because Evangelicalism follows the culture at every turn, it makes sense that as Youth Culture emerged in the affluent and increasingly decadent post-war period, and then it follows that Evangelical churches would find a way to emulate it.
I agree with Brown - the children of believers should be in worship and these gimmicks need to be dispensed with. They are without Biblical warrant.
But children belong in worship because they are part of the Church. Baptism isn't the first step of obedience. It is to be brought into union with Christ. It is to be a Christian. The unbaptised Christian is an anomaly, an aberration that needs to be corrected. The exceptions (such as thief on the cross) are not the rule. The exceptions do not define doctrine nor can they be used to explain away revealed truths. The thief should not define the nature of baptism or the Church. The thief was an exception, a testimony to God's grace, not a norming norm.
Brown may indeed be an inconsistent baptist. He seems so to me. It seems that his intuitions are more paedobaptistic. So what difference does it make? Well, it depends on whether or not you think the sacraments are efficacious. If they are (which the New Testament testifies to this) their neglect and abuse will result in a spiritual confusion and the bearing of bad fruit. God is still gracious despite our errors, but there is a danger. The means of grace are given for a reason and we (as individuals and congregations) are foolish to neglect them or (functionally) despise them. I'm afraid many churches (both Baptist and even Confessional Reformed) are guilty of the latter.
I share his concern with regard to children but the answer is found in the Scripture, not in simply resisting Evangelical's pop culture and psychology-influenced fads and trends. They too must be resisted but these are just side-shows, distractions from the real issue. Brown intuitively knows that his children cannot be separate from the core driving motivator of his life - his faith, and he knows (in some capacity it would seem) to think beyond mere individualism. The family is a unit, a body in itself. And yet as a Western post-Enlightenment Evangelical, he can't let go of cultural norms and the individualistic rationalist patterns of thinking they produce. The Scriptures are too radical for him - too supernaturalistic, too extreme in their call to faith and how it will transform our lives, and how this faith calls us to bear witness against the world and its sword and coin values - the latter of which Brown has baptized. It's a set of values that will ultimately undermine everything he's trying to do and teach.