I was speaking with someone struggling with how to address an issue on baptism.

The issue, to put it simply, is that they had paedobaptists looking to join their baptistic church. The church is willing to make room for them as those otherwise convinced. However, the paedobaptised guys wanted some opportunity for the public affirmation of their faith. Can we accommodate that? What are we affirming if we do?

I think that second question is the key one. Baptists, by virtue of what we think baptism is, believe baptism is the public affirmation of faith by both the church and the individual. It is here the whole issue becomes tricky.

We could say, for instance, that we will accommodate the paedobaptist into membership but they have to accommodate the fact that baptistic churches think the public affirmation of faith is credobaptism. That is, everyone must compromise in order to welcome. For many, that is a neat solution.

Unfortunately, if that is the line taken, we are not only welcoming those who haven’t been baptised but those who haven’t publicly professed their faith in the way the bible expects. In a sense, it is the worst of all positions. The paedobaptist who (at least on some level, absolutely rightly) wants some public declaration of faith doesn’t get it and nor do the Baptists who typically expect it too.

Others would simply allow the declaration of faith and make space for it. The problem then is we are effectively relegating baptism a) to nothing more than a declaration of faith on the part of the individual when most baptists do not think this and b) in effect making baptism of no significance whatsoever. We are effectively saying as long as one declares their faith publicly, they may join the church, irrespective of whether they have been baptised or not.

This position means we are either affirming paedobaptism as actually legitimate despite refusing to conduct them (suggesting we don’t find them legit) or we are saying baptism doesn’t matter at all despite Jesus making it a fairly significant matter for the church. Perhaps just as significantly, we end up bringing in extra-biblical elements in order to accommodate (what baptists consider to be) an already unbiblical practice. This strikes me as problematic and is precisely the criticism levelled at Anglican confirmation that Baptists have always rejected as legitimate or necessary.

If we think baptism is at all important and we think Jesus commands it for his people, perhaps the issue is the policy that seeks to accommodate unbiblical practices with other unbiblical practices in order to welcome in those who have not yet met Jesus’ own criteria for entry to his church?