Is baptism really so insignificant of a doctrine that we should not expect our officebearers to uphold our position on it? I think we all agree that baptists are Christians, but there are significant differences that have implications on soteriology, sanctification, and especially our theology of covenant. The catechism spends three whole Lord's Days on baptism. That's a lot of volume for a doctrine that doesn't matter when deciding who is qualified to lead our churches. We don't just disagree with baptists about who, how and when to baptize someone, we disagree with them about what baptism is.
One of the qualifications of an Elder is that, "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it" (Titus 1:9). This means we're not looking for someone who is simply wise and pastoral, although those qualifications are essential as well. It seems to me that rather than lowering the bar when it comes to theological knowledge and conviction, this verse from Titus requires us to raise the bar.
And let's be honest about the dynamics here. Even conservatives are tempted to allow the Reformed Baptist into our councils because we don't doubt that person's faith whereas, conservatives draw the line when it comes to affirming same sex marriage because that is considered a "salvation issue". The potential "Reformed Baptist" is the token conservative weak spot. If we compromise on that one, then we have no way of guarding any other doctrine. There are only two ways to move forward. One would be to stand our ground against the baptist serving. The other would be to change our theology, which would be impossible given that infant baptism is built in to the fabric of our theological system.
As someone who served on Committee 8 and Committee 9 in 2023 and 2024, I can say plainly that this came up early and often in our conversations. We worded our synodical report precisely the way we did so as to encourage raising up officebearers who would affirm our theology (including our theology of baptism). At the end of the day I know our intentions better less than what is meant by the words we did use. But our intention was clear: every officebearer in the CRC should wholeheartedly agree with the confessional theology we profess, baptism included.
I am also grateful for the clarity. I think the reason the "middle ground" is shrinking is because it's not really possible to have a middle ground on the issue of SSM. I would liken it to not being sure whether to get on the Ark or not. This is why, even though the issue of baptism is similar procedurally, it's not really similar ethically. Either same sex marriage is an ethical good or it is damnable evil. Someone either needs to be assured and comforted in their chosen identity or taught to put to death their evil desires.
And even if we grant that it's possible to be genuinely not sure. In my mind, someone who is not sure on a subject that carries such gravity with respect to how we read and understand the Bible and how we minister to people who experience same sex attraction, should not be in a leadership position. Leaders need knowledge and conviction. I think Joel's framework (i.e. there being tension between intellectual assent and emotional reservations) could work with baptism but I struggle to see how that framework could work with SSM. One could navigate being an Elder in a paedobaptist church with some slight emotional hesitation on that doctrine. There would rarely if ever be a pastoral conflict. But it would be impossible to do so with any hesitation on SSM. People who experience same sex attraction need to know "thus saith the Lord". There mental health and biggest life choices hang in the balance.
Posted in: Guidance on "Affirming the Confessions"
Hey Paul,
Is baptism really so insignificant of a doctrine that we should not expect our officebearers to uphold our position on it? I think we all agree that baptists are Christians, but there are significant differences that have implications on soteriology, sanctification, and especially our theology of covenant. The catechism spends three whole Lord's Days on baptism. That's a lot of volume for a doctrine that doesn't matter when deciding who is qualified to lead our churches. We don't just disagree with baptists about who, how and when to baptize someone, we disagree with them about what baptism is.
One of the qualifications of an Elder is that, "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it" (Titus 1:9). This means we're not looking for someone who is simply wise and pastoral, although those qualifications are essential as well. It seems to me that rather than lowering the bar when it comes to theological knowledge and conviction, this verse from Titus requires us to raise the bar.
And let's be honest about the dynamics here. Even conservatives are tempted to allow the Reformed Baptist into our councils because we don't doubt that person's faith whereas, conservatives draw the line when it comes to affirming same sex marriage because that is considered a "salvation issue". The potential "Reformed Baptist" is the token conservative weak spot. If we compromise on that one, then we have no way of guarding any other doctrine. There are only two ways to move forward. One would be to stand our ground against the baptist serving. The other would be to change our theology, which would be impossible given that infant baptism is built in to the fabric of our theological system.
As someone who served on Committee 8 and Committee 9 in 2023 and 2024, I can say plainly that this came up early and often in our conversations. We worded our synodical report precisely the way we did so as to encourage raising up officebearers who would affirm our theology (including our theology of baptism). At the end of the day I know our intentions better less than what is meant by the words we did use. But our intention was clear: every officebearer in the CRC should wholeheartedly agree with the confessional theology we profess, baptism included.
Rev. Patrick Anthony
Posted in: Guidance on "Affirming the Confessions"
Hey Paul,
I am also grateful for the clarity. I think the reason the "middle ground" is shrinking is because it's not really possible to have a middle ground on the issue of SSM. I would liken it to not being sure whether to get on the Ark or not. This is why, even though the issue of baptism is similar procedurally, it's not really similar ethically. Either same sex marriage is an ethical good or it is damnable evil. Someone either needs to be assured and comforted in their chosen identity or taught to put to death their evil desires.
And even if we grant that it's possible to be genuinely not sure. In my mind, someone who is not sure on a subject that carries such gravity with respect to how we read and understand the Bible and how we minister to people who experience same sex attraction, should not be in a leadership position. Leaders need knowledge and conviction. I think Joel's framework (i.e. there being tension between intellectual assent and emotional reservations) could work with baptism but I struggle to see how that framework could work with SSM. One could navigate being an Elder in a paedobaptist church with some slight emotional hesitation on that doctrine. There would rarely if ever be a pastoral conflict. But it would be impossible to do so with any hesitation on SSM. People who experience same sex attraction need to know "thus saith the Lord". There mental health and biggest life choices hang in the balance.
Posted in: Using Only 3 Words, How Do You Currently Feel About Church?
Bride of Christ.