On top of this is the more ordinary conundrum of how to deal with children of cohabiting parents or children born to a woman without a father named (or, perhaps, known). We have had this phenomenon presented to pastors for many, many years. Although the issue is not new, its regularity is more recent -- the increasing normalcy of such births and the acceptance of such circumstances as ordinary within society is newer.
This is not a question of how to deal with the adults in such circumstances but the children. Bluntly, do we baptize these children or not?
Whereas the pastor was able to deal with such things more discreetly in the past, the very public nature of the lifestyles and the tolerance and acceptance of such lifestyles make it increasingly impossible for the pastor to deal with these requests discreetly. While no one in the church suggests that by baptizing the children irregularly conceived constitutes approving of the circumstances of their conception or the status of the parents, it is difficult to separate the practice toward the child from the situation of those presenting the child for baptism.
Yet discretion is exactly the urgent need when situations such as these present themselves to the pastor. The child is not to be punished for the intentional or unintentional sins of the parent. Where the parents present the child and make promise to raise the child in the faith (for Lutherans this means promising to raise the child to know and confess the Apostles Creed, to know and confess the Small Catechism, and to be prepared to receive the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood), the church must be careful about refusing baptism to the child.
Unlike some who would insist that baptism is the capstone of a progressive piety of faith, witness, decision, and promise, we acknowledge that God is the only actor in baptism and that it is purely grace at work in the water. Baptism is not an accomplishment or personal achievement. We come naked with nothing to commend us but our sin and living in the shadow of death. We are met by the gracious Lord who bore our sin, entered our death, bestowed upon us forgiveness, life, and salvation -- all apart from our worth or merit.
Nevertheless, the church and the pastor must take care not to celebrate the event in such way that it confuses our witness to the world or causes scandal and offense to the faithful. Discretion and discreet practice will be the rule of the day when such children (for lack of a better way to put it, irregularly conceived) are presented for baptism. It will also mean that each case must be treated individually. It will be impossible to establish a rule to cover every eventuality.
This will mean that pastors will not practice this discretion uniformly and we will find ourselves tempted to second guess one another and to subject the judgments of others to our own scrutiny. This will certainly test the boundaries of the faith as much as the pastoral discretion of close(d) communion does. The rampant pace of legalization of gay marriage and the prevailing approval of much of our society mean that these issues are on the fast track even for a rather stodgy, rural, and Midwestern denomination like the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. I would only suggest that while pastors in previous eras may have had difficult circumstances presented to us the challenges before us today represent an even greater burden upon those entrusted with the stewardship of the mysteries. Pray for the church, for pastors who must make such decisions, and for our faithful witness to the families involved and to the world watching what we do.
Only children of active, committed Christians should be considered as candidates for Holy Baptism. This is the only way to be most (not completely) sure that the child will be raised in the Faith. Godparents must be the same with certification from their home pastor if not members of the parish. Using the Sacrament for "church growth" purposes or to obtain for the child "eternal fire insurance" is a woeful misuse and abuse of the Sacrament. As one theologian put it, we are baptizing many children today for whom God has never given permission to baptize. I agree.
ReplyDeleteIf it is a desire to have the child baptized and not a political statement (as in a gay couple who have no ties to Lutheranism wanting to make a point by having their kid baptized LCMS - neener neener neener)... then baptize.
ReplyDeleteThe world is messed up - it's always been messed up - and quite often Pastors know how messed up those nice, committed Christian families REALLY are, even if the rest of folks don't know.
Baptize. I can't think of anywhere in the Scriptures where there is a warning against Baptism.
"The child is not to be punished for the intentional or unintentional sins of the parent."
ReplyDeleteDo these intentional or unintentional sins of the parent(s) who have voluntarily brought an infant to be baptized include ongoing (or unrepentant) sins of the parent(s)? In other words, would a child be punished and refused baptism if brought by parents who claimed to be Christian but did not believe they had to be married. This is similar to the question, when parents are excommunicated from the church for unrepentant sin, are their children, including any infants, also excommunicated?
"Discretion and discreet practice will be the rule of the day when such children (for lack of a better way to put it, irregularly conceived) are presented for baptism. It will also mean that each case must be treated individually. It will be impossible to establish a rule to cover every eventuality."
Does this discretion involved anything more than whether or not the pastor performs the baptism in public (at a woship service) or in private.? For example, does this discretion include whether or not the baptized infant is included in the records as a baptized member of the congregation?
The phrase, "Children irregularly conceived," will become even more complicated if the FDA gives its approval for a new procedure to create humans using three biological parents contributing:
ReplyDelete- a man's sperm
- a woman's egg from which the nucleus has been removed and replaced with
- a nucleus from another woman's egg
The purpose of this procedure is to avoid mitochondrial defects from being passed on through a mother's defective mitochondrial DNA in an egg's cytoplasm. It also may provide lesbian couples with a way in which both could claim to be biological parents of their child.
Of course, such a complex procedure, as with any in vitro fertilization is likely to involve the creation and destruction of one or more additional fertilized eggs.
Only children of active, committed Christians should be considered as candidates for Holy Baptism.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with this.
We in the Missouri Synod are so allergic to anything that seems like "decision theology" that we forget that baptism is predicated on an explicit renunciation of the devil and a public confession of the faith of the Church. The Church allows that renunciation and that confession to be made by the sponsors on behalf of the child in the case of infant baptism; but that allowance is made based on a credible expectation that the child will be raised in the faith, will be properly catechized, and will in due course make that confession of faith his or her own. Where that credible expectation is not possible, it is not appropriate to baptize the child.
In former times, when traditional Christianity of one form or another was central to our culture, we could perhaps afford to take less seriously the requirement that the child be raised in the faith of the Church. We could simply presume that this would take place. We certainly cannot make that presumption now.
It makes you wonder who the parents are? If they are church members who are living in persistent unrepentant sin how are they not under church discipline? If they refuse to repent how are they not excommunicated? Nine months is a minimum amount of rebellion in this circumstance. How can parents who are in open rebellion against God credibly promise to raise the child in the Christian faith?
ReplyDeleteBaptism is the only means of grace by which we are able to reach infants.
ReplyDeleteAny pastor would not baptize the child regardless of the parents' circumstance should leave the ministry NOW. He is no pastor at all.
For a LCMS pastor, does "active, committed Christians" mean "active, quia-confessional Lutherans"?
ReplyDeleteThe closed communion practice of the Lutheran Church includes the communicant having previously without reservation confessed the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, usually at the time of confirmation. That doctrine is exposited in the Book of Concord.
Similarly, does the closed baptismal practice for the LCMS pastor include the parent(s) of the child presented for baptism having previously without reservation confessed the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and listed as a member of a Missouri Synod congregation?
... does "active, committed Christians" mean "active, quia-confessional Lutherans"?
ReplyDeleteNo.
Quia subscription to the Lutheran Confessions is not required of lay persons in Missouri Synod congregations. The commitment expressed at confirmation (or when being admitted to communicant membership as an adult) is to the doctrine of the evangelical Lutheran Church as it is explained in the Small Catechism -- an important qualifier. Missouri Synod pastors and congregations are required to make a quia subscription to the full Book of Concord, but lay persons are asked to subscribe only to the Small Catechism.
A case could be made for limiting infant baptism to the children of communicant members of the congregation. But that case would have to be made on the basis of pastoral wisdom and judgment, not on the basis of a requirement of quia subscription on the part of lay members of the congregation. There is no such requirement.
"Quia subscription to the Lutheran Confessions is not required of lay persons in Missouri Synod congregations."
ReplyDeleteThat is incorrect.
The actual phrase, "as you have learned to know it from the Small Catechism," is not a qualifier to the confirmand's unconditional subscription to the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church [i.e., the 1580 Book of Concord].
The Evangelical Lutheran Church does not have two doctrines—one exposited in the 1580 Book of Concord and one exposited in the CPH publication, Luther's Small Catechism with Explanations—from which congregational members may choose to subscribe.
There are not two versions of Lutherans—some Lutherans holding an unconditional (quia) subscription to the Book of Concord and other Lutherans holding a limited (quatenus) subscription to only some parts of the Lutheran Symbols. Such quatenus subscribers are what can be called "Lufauxrans."
Moreover, when new confirmands or other Lutherans join a LCMS congregation as a communicant member, as required by that congregation's constitution, they agree to the confessional standard of that congregation, which is the confessional standard of the Synod, which is the 1580 Book of Concord.
This has all be explained previously on Pastoral Meanderings posts here and here.
I would like to lay out two different scenarios here and would welcome any comments from either Pastor Peters or the other commenters. In each case, would it be appropriate or inappropriate to baptize the children?
ReplyDelete1) A family from a mixed religious background (LCMS and Roman Catholic) has their third child and wishes to have him baptized at the LCMS church. The grandparents attend regularly, the father was baptized there, and their previous two children were baptized there, but they only attend on holidays (they have no other church home and live some distance from the church). Should the child be baptized?
2) A family sends their children to the church's parochial school. The parents have been living together for years and have no intention of getting married, as they see nothing wrong with their current arrangement. Due to the influence of the school, their older (3rd grade) child has been asking for several years to be baptized. The parents don't mind if he and his brother are baptized, but they won't take the children to church. Should the children be baptized?
I'm especially curious about the second situation - for those of you who have said that only children of committed Christians should be baptized, what do you think?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for the first commenter, who said "Only children of active, committed Christians should be considered ...", but in agreeing with this statement I had in mind only infant baptism, in which the baptismal confession is made by the sponsors.
The case where the child is old enough to speak for himself and make his own confession of faith is entirely different. My opinion is that if the child is mature enough to make a serious commitment to the Christian faith (in most cases, at the customary age for confirmation), he or she should be baptized if the parents do not actively oppose it.
Dr Strickert,
ReplyDeleteThis has all be explained previously on Pastoral Meanderings posts ...
What has been "explained" on that thread is your particular opinion (which you expressed very clearly). It remains, however, only your opinion.
Lay persons are not members of the Missouri Synod, and are not bound by the doctrinal subscription which is imposed on Synod members (clergy and congregations). Nothing in the language of the confirmands' profession of faith changes that.
"Lay persons are not members of the Missouri Synod,"
ReplyDeleteNo one here has claimed they were. This is a red herring.
"and are not bound by the doctrinal subscription which is imposed on Synod members (clergy and congregations)."
Lay persons are not bound directly by what is imposed on Synod members.
However lay persons who voluntarily becoming communicant members of a Missouri Synod Lutheran congregation do indeed affirm and agree to be bound by a quia confession to the Book of Concord (whether they have read it in the orignal German or some translation or not!).
This is imposed by the congegation's constitution which must be approved by the Synod when the congregation becomes a member of Synod. The congregation's constitution states, in words to the effect:
"Communicant members are those baptized members who have been instructed and are familiar with the contents of Luther’s Small Catechism, have been confirmed in the Lutheran faith, and accept the confessional standard of this Constitution". [Emphasis added]
When the communicant member accepts that confessional standard of the congregation’s constitution, they have accepted that unconditional standard of the Synod, which is the unconditional subscription of the Book of Concord of 1580.
>>That is incorrect.
ReplyDeleteNo, it is entirely correct. The question you are asked when being received into membership only requires assent to the Small Catechism. I know, I just answered that question two weeks ago.
I looked at that question very closely and also discussed it with my pastor, a man who confessional credentials are beyond questioning by a reasonable man. He confirmed my understanding that one is assenting to what is taught in the Small Catechism.
What you may personally wish or desire should not be confused with the clear English words which are used in questioning new members.
"The question you are asked when being received into membership only requires assent to the Small Catechism."
ReplyDeleteNo. In rather plain English the confirmand is asked, "Do you hold all the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God and confess the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, drawn from them, as you have learned to know it from the Small Catechism, to be faithful and true?"
The confirmand is NOT asked, "Do you hold all the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God and confess just the Small Catechism to be faithful and true?"
The confirmand is confessing the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (i.e., the Book of Concord of 1580), not exclusively the Small Catechism. This is congruent with what a LCMS congregation's constitution states regarding its confessional standard and the requirement of its communicant members to accept that congregation's confessional standard.
>>"Do you hold all the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God and confess the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, drawn from them, as you have learned to know it from the Small Catechism, to be faithful and true?"
ReplyDeleteWhich obviously means that portion of the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church which is presented in the Small Catechism. How could one confess something from the Book of Concord which is not contained in the Small Catechism given the phraseology? You are only confessing what you have learned through the Small Catechism?
"...as you have learned to know it from the Small Catechism..."
If what you seek to assert was true all that the confirmand would need to be asked would be "do you confess the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church." There would be no need to mention the Small Catechism as under your rather idiosyncratic understanding of the question the Small Catechism has no relevance.
"Which obviously means that portion of the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church which is presented in the Small Catechism."
ReplyDeleteNo. Then the confirmand would have been asked, "Do you... confess to those articles of faith you have learned to know from the Small Catechism?" Furthermore, the Lutheran Symbol actually being referred to is the German text of the Small Catechism in the Book of Concord of 1580. Has the confirmand studied that German text in catechism class so that he can confess to it?
"How could one confess something from the Book of Concord which is not contained in the Small Catechism given the phraseology?"
How can the confirmand confess to the Lutheran Symbol of the Small Catechism when he has only studied some translated text, along with the text of the Explanations, written by H.C. Schwan and other LCMS theologians? How could a confirmand confess to hold all the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God when he has not read or studied the original Hebrew or Greek autographs?
You are only confessing what you have learned through the Small Catechism?"
No. This is not what the question asks the confirmand to do. The confirmand is asked if he confesses the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church to be faithful and true. That doctrine is additionally described "as you have learned to know it [the doctrine] from the Small Catechism." It is not "only those limited articles of doctrine from the Small Catechism you have learned to know."
If what you seek to assert was true all that the confirmand would need to be asked would be "do you confess the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church."
Actually, the confirmand is asked, "Do you confess the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, drawn from [all the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures]?"
I guess someone decided "drawn" would be easier for 8th grade confirmands to understand than "exposited."
Again, the descriptive phrase, "as you have learned to know it from the Small Catechism" is not prescriptive of some limited articles of doctrine which the confirmand (or any communicant member of a LCMS congregation) is asked to confess without reservation.
Why would someone advocate that a communicant in a Lutheran congregation does not need to hold the Lutheran confession of that congregation? This is simply an advocacy for open communion, just as with those who advocate paedocommunion or early communion (i.e., before the communicant makes public confession of his Lutheran faith). All of these advocates are nothing more than Lufauxrans (phony Lutherans)!
ReplyDelete>>Why would someone advocate that a communicant in a Lutheran congregation does not need to hold the Lutheran confession of that congregation?
ReplyDeleteBecause they obviously decided that conformity to the Small Catechism was sufficient for common worship whereas clergy are clearly held to a different level of conformity.
>>This is simply an advocacy for open communion
That is a bizarre assertion. How many people or Christians in the United States could honestly affirm what the Small Catechism teaches?
Ultimately your argument is with the synod. Ask them to change the text to conform to your desires.
"Because they obviously decided that conformity to the Small Catechism was sufficient for common worship whereas clergy are clearly held to a different level of conformity."
ReplyDeleteThose who decide such a notion are not in agreement with the Missouri Synod or the Lutheran Confessions. From "Admission to the Lord's Supper, Basics of Biblical and Confessional Teaching," (CTCR, November, 1999, pp. 44-45):
"Is it possible in such a context to maintain the idea that individual Christians represent and “confess” the doctrine of their church body?
"It is not only possible; it is necessary. If the church ceases to insist that individuals represent the public confession of their church body, at least five dangers immediately present themselves....
"In the third place, if individual church members are not seen as “confessors” of their church body’s doctrine, then the concept of church membership is watered down to the point of meaninglessness. The rationale for any catechesis in the traditional sense of the term vanishes, and there emerges a resounding contradiction between our own confirmation process and the attitude with which we view members of other denominations. Indeed, there would be no theological rejoinder possible to a member of an adult membership
class in one of our churches who publicly rejected (for example) the Lutheran doctrine of baptism and still wanted to join the congregation."
The CTCR report concludes (p. 53):
"The LCMS, therefore, also teaches in accordance with the Scriptures, the Confessions, and the historic tradition of the church when it asks that fellow-Christians who are confessors of a different doctrine not participate in the Lord’s Supper at our altars. The Lutheran Confessions are especially clear that those who adhere to the Augsburg Confession should not practice altar fellowship with those who hold to unscriptural confessions, and so the LCMS has preserved this historic practice."
I have no argument with the Missouri Synod on their position regarding a common confession by communicants or the practice of having confirmands and other communicant members give their unconditional (quia) subscription to the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, which is contained in the Book of Concord of 1580. It is the Lufauxrans who would need to change the confirmation text to meet their notion of unionistically different levels of confessional conformity.
"... children born to a woman without a father ..."
ReplyDeleteThe Church has had no problem with then since the beginning. It is called the Virgin Birth.
Or did Pastor Peters mean that the woman had no father? Well, it is much the same either way.
Fr. D+
Anglican Priest
"... children born to a woman without a father ..."
ReplyDeleteThe full phrase is "... children born to a woman without a father named (or, perhaps, known)."
The Church has had no problem with then since the beginning. It is called the Virgin Birth.
In this case, Jesus identified His Father.
We should obey our Lord's command in Matt. 28:19, and celebrate each child brought into the community of believers - a community of saints and sinners.
ReplyDelete>>I have no argument with the Missouri Synod on their position regarding a common confession by communicants or the practice of having confirmands and other communicant members give their unconditional (quia) subscription to the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church
ReplyDeleteI think better of the Missouri Synod than to think they mean to trick people into committing themselves to an unconditional subscription without ever actually asking them to.
I think better of the Missouri Synod than to think they mean to trick people into committing themselves to an unconditional subscription without ever actually asking them to.
ReplyDeleteThere is no reason for one to think the Missouri Synod means to trick people into committing themselves to an unconditional subscription.
An unconditional subscription to the Lutheran confessional standard is clearly asked of confirmands in the question, "Do you hold all the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God and confess the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, drawn from them, as you have learned to know it from the Small Catechism, to be faithful and true?"
Moreover an unconditional subscription to the doctrinal standard of the LCMS is also required for communicant membership in LCMS congregations, as specified in the congregation's constitution.
And a public confession of the doctrine of the Lutheran Church is, as a LCMS document claims, is "not only possible, but necessary."
If there are attempts at trickery it is by those who twist statements and phrases trying to squeeze in at the communion rail a Lufauxran level of confessional conformity different from a quia subscription of Lutherans to the Book of Concord of 1580.
The bickering above is pointless. When becoming a member of a congregation you are bound by its Scriptural and Confessional Standards.
ReplyDeleteJust as previously stated:
ReplyDelete"Moreover, when new confirmands or other Lutherans join a LCMS congregation as a communicant member, as required by that congregation's constitution, they agree to the confessional standard of that congregation, which is the confessional standard of the Synod, which is the 1580 Book of Concord.
"However lay persons who voluntarily becoming communicant members of a Missouri Synod Lutheran congregation do indeed affirm and agree to be bound by a quia confession to the Book of Concord."
"This is congruent with what a LCMS congregation's constitution states regarding its confessional standard and the requirement of its communicant members to accept that congregation's confessional standard."
"Why would someone advocate that a communicant in a Lutheran congregation does not need to hold the Lutheran confession of that congregation?"
"Is it possible in such a context to maintain the idea that individual Christians represent and 'confess' the doctrine of their church body? It is not only possible; it is necessary."
"Moreover an unconditional subscription to the doctrinal standard of the LCMS is also required for communicant membership in LCMS congregations."
Mr. Strickert,
ReplyDeleteYou may repeat a fiction innumerable times but it remains a fiction.