CHILDREN AND CHURCH MEMBERSHIP

by David W. Merck

Introduction. The subject of children and church membership is one with which the church of Christ has wrestled since its earliest days. Part of the difficulty which has led to struggles over this issue is the fact that it is a fairly complex matter, and is also one with which the Scriptures do not deal as directly as with others. Adding to the challenge of dealing with this matter is that it has to do with the precious children of believers, and therefore our great love for our children can at times emotionally cloud our minds and make it difficult to address it objectively.

However, this subject is also a vitally important one, for it impacts directly and mightily upon the welfare of our children and of the church of Jesus Christ in general. Furthermore, as with any matter having to do with the church of Christ, we are here facing the serious need and obligation to know and follow the marching orders of the Head of the church. We cannot, therefore, lightly pass by the subject of children and church membership.

A. There are at least three major issues which we encounter when we come to this subject:

1. The best known and most hotly-debated issue is the question of whether or not infant children of believers should be baptized and to some degree become church members in addition to the baptism of new believers who were not previously baptized as infants. This issue which is worthy of further attention is not the focus of this present study. I will be pursuing our theme as one already committed to the baptism of believers only as the biblical position, and therefore will not be focusing upon the various approaches of paedo-baptist brethren to the subject of children and church membership.

2. Another, perhaps less familiar issue related to our theme is the question of whether or not baptism should always be connected with becoming a member of a particular local church. Some evangelical churches baptize younger children who profess to be believers, but wait to receive these baptized children into the membership of the local church until they are older because of their immaturity.

We reject such a separation of baptism from church membership for what I believe are biblical reasons:

a. Christ's direct commandment implied a close linkage of baptism and church membership:

In our Lord's Great Commission, baptism is to be followed by teaching the newly baptized ones all that Christ has commanded -- a function which is clearly linked with local churches elsewhere in our New Testaments. In fact, part of what Christ taught which is to be taught to the baptized new disciples is his instruction regarding behavior in a local church (Matthew 18:15-20) -- a fact which assumed that those receiving that teaching would be members of a local church.

But there is more definite evidence, for the New Testament tells us how the Apostles of Christ proceeded to carry out their marching orders found in the Great Commission. So notice how that:

b. Early apostolic practice closely-linked baptism and church membership:

Here the addition of individuals to the recognized number who made up the local church at Jerusalem immediately followed their baptisms. And after this addition, there was instruction in the Apostle's doctrine. I.e., here we find the same order commanded in Christ's Great Commission.

c. There are no clearly-explicit New Testament examples where baptism and church membership were very long separated. In the New Testament there is the underlying assumption that adult Christians were local church members. They are repeatedly found attached to local churches.

Now some will point to the Ethiopian eunuch as an exception. He does indeed present a unique and abnormal case in that he was baptized by Philip in the desert of South Palestine on his way back to Ethiopia. This baptism may very well have occurred as it did because there was at that time no church in Ethiopia where this new believer could be baptized. However, we do not know that for certain, and even if there was no church, we do not know how long it was after he returned before he was able to become part of a church being raised up there. He may have been instrumental as a prominent person in beginning a new local church. We do know that local churches were planted quite early in Ethiopia.

Whatever the case, we simply do not know for sure that the Ethiopian eunuch's local church membership was long separated from his baptism. And even if it was, he as certainly a unique case.

The rest of the New Testament declares that the normal situation was a close connection between baptism and local church membership which would stand to reason. For both are open declarations of attachment to Christ.

In conclusion, because of the three reasons given, we will assume that a believer should participate in the sacrament of baptism only in connection with entrance into the membership of a true local church of Jesus Christ.

We have now noted two issues related to children and church membership. We've determined that this study is being approached with the conviction that only believers in Christ should be baptized, and that baptism should be connected with membership in a local church.

3. However, there is yet at least one further major issue of concern when we come to the subject of children and local church membership -- an issue which will be the primary focus of the rest of this study. If faith, not bloodlines, determines one's eligibility for baptism and church membership, what distinctions according to age should be made concerning the baptism and church membership of younger children who profess to be believers? We must up front face the reality is that everyone who is convinced that only believer's baptism is biblical is still forced to grapple with making dividing lines at some point according to age and maturity when it comes to the matter of children and church membership. This is because everyone begins life as an immature infant who is unable to understand and believe the Gospel. Therefore, we all must determine at what age we are willing to recognize the profession of a child as a sound basis for baptism and local church membership.

B. Within the parameters which we have now discussed, there are basically three possible approaches of which I'm aware to answering our primary question, "What distinctions according to age should be made regarding the baptism and local church membership of younger children who profess to be believers""

1. There is first of all the approach of full membership of all believers regardless of age. According to this position, a local church should baptize and receive younger children as full members of the church as soon as they profess faith in Christ. In other words, such "believing" younger children should receive all the rights and privileges and liabilities of adult members of a local church. These rights and privileges and liabilities would include participation in the Lord's Table and in church business meetings including voting, and being subject to biblical church discipline including excommunication where there is impenitence in sin.

A biblical view of local church government which includes the input of the members in major church matters would seem to obviously exclude this approach, since the clearly immature nature of younger children would leave them unable to intelligently participate in church votes or other such corporate expressions.

Furthermore, as we have already noted, anyone seeking to adopt this approach would still be forced to grapple with the age at which they'd be willing to receive such children as full members since children transition over a period of years in their growth and development from being infants who are unable to understand and believe the Gospel to children who can understand and believe in a simple, child-like way. Would they be willing to receive them as members at age three?, age five?, age eight?, age ten? age thirteen? etc. Upon what basis would such a decision be made? I believe one would find it difficult to come up with any explicit biblical basis for making such distinctions.

But there is a second alternative approach adopted by many in an attempt to address these concerns:

2. It is the approach of a restricted membership of younger believing children until they reach adulthood. According to this approach, a local church should baptize and receive younger children as members as soon as they profess faith in Christ, but only into a limited membership. In other words, until they reach adulthood, such child members should have limited rights and privileges and perhaps limited liabilities in comparison with adult members. This was the approach which was once followed by the church where I am now pastor. We allowed such child members to participate in the Lord's Table, and they were liable to church discipline, but they could not vote until they were adults.

However, with this approach, one still must grapple with the question of when we are ready to begin receiving such apparently believing children into such a limited membership -- at age four?, age six?, age nine?, age twelve? In the church where I'm pastor, age ten or eleven was the youngest age of the few who were so received into membership before the practice was changed.

A further issue is that of when full adult membership privileges will be granted -- at age fifteen?, age eighteen?, age twenty-one? The church where I'm pastor had a constitutional provision granting full membership privileges at age eighteen.

Also, in taking this approach, one must recognize that he has created a two-level system of church membership according to age, and he needs to be able to biblically defend such a practice.

The church where I am pastor has abandoned this second, two-tiered membership approach and has instead adopted a third and final alternative:

3. It is the approach of no local church membership of younger believing children until they reach adulthood. According to this approach, a local church should wait to baptize and receive younger children as members of the church in any degree until those children have become adults. However, it should be underscored that such a position does not in any way intend to say that younger children cannot or should not be saved until adulthood -- an issue to which we will return later in our study.

Upon what basis have we come to this approach of only adult baptism and local church membership? This is not a light question, for if we are wrong, we are wrongfully keeping believing children from obeying their Lord in the waters of baptism and observance of the Lord's Table. And we are wrongly keeping them from their duty of being added to Christ's church. We are also disobeying Christ's marching orders for His church for which He shed His life blood -- no little offense.

In order to answer this important question, and to help us understand and apply this practice more fully, we will take up the following four categories or headings having to do with the practice of waiting until adulthood to baptize and add children to the church:

I. Its biblical basis.

II. Its historical background.

III. Its practical reasons.

IV. Its vitally-important lessons.

So first of all, consider with me:

I. The biblical basis for our practice of waiting to baptize and receive younger children who claim to believe in Christ until they have reached adulthood. We must start with the Word of God in wrestling with such issues, for Christ is the Head of the church, and He has adequately directed how His church is to function. If we don't have a biblical basis for our age distinctions, then we have no authoritative basis to make them.

We will first of all take up what I believe are the three strongest reasons which, taken together, establish the basis for baptizing and receiving children as local church members only after they have become adults. Next we will consider some further, biblically-based reasons for this practice.

A. The most direct piece of evidence is the maturity level of those added to and members of local churches in Scripture when it is specifically stated.

Introduction. There are matters of background, qualification, and clarification which we should consider by way of introduction to this biblical reason for not baptizing minor children and adding them as members:

a. First of all, consider a brief review of New Testament terminology which indicates maturity level. A Greek word often translated "man" -- "anthropos" -- is commonly used in the New Testament. However, it is a general term which often has a broader meaning than male members of the human race, and can be used to signify the entire human race no matter what age or sex.

However, there are two other parallel Greek words used in the New Testament which are much more specific. "Anar" clearly signifies a male as opposed to a female, and an adult man as opposed to a boy. It refers specifically to an adult male. So also, "guna" clearly signifies an adult female.

Finally, there are several Greek words which refer to infants or children. Some of the terms for children may refer more generally to adult offspring as well as those who have not yet reached adulthood -- in a manner similar to the way in which we often speak of our children in English.

b. Next, notice an important qualification to the biblical reason we are considering. Children evidently were present during the gatherings and activities of the local church. Several passages indicate this:

Here we learn that the epistles of Paul were generally read in the gatherings of the local churches. These epistles assume that children would be present when such an epistle was read. This much is clear.

Consider another text:

This gathering at Tyre was a send-off of the Apostle Paul and his party by the male disciples of Christ accompanied by wives (more literally adult women -- "guna") and children. This passage shows that the human author of the book of Acts clearly distinguished between adults and children (which will be relevant when we consider other passages in Acts) and also that children were present at activities of the church.

Notice a third matter of introduction:

c. A matter of clarification. It is important to recognize that in my first reason for our convictions regarding children and church membership, I am referring only to those places in Scripture where the maturity level of those added to local churches is specifically stated. I'm not going to spend time here speculating about the maturity level of those baptized and added to the church when the only description given is the general, ambiguous one of one's whole household (cp. Acts 11:14; 16:15; 31-34). Such references do not give us specific instruction one way or the other.

But there are specific references in Scripture which clearly indicate the maturity level of those added to or members of local churches. Let's now seek to survey those passages:

As far as I have been able to determine, the passages above are all of the clear references which identify the maturity level of those who were baptized and members of local churches. They all contain the specific Greek words for adult males and/or adult females -- "anar" and "guna" -- while terms for children are conspicuously absent. In other words, all the clear references to the maturity level of local church members are to adult males and females, while there are no clear, specific references which indicate the baptism of immature children who are not yet adults, or which include them in the membership of local churches. However, I am willing to be proven wrong.

By way of conclusion, although children who were not yet adults were clearly present at gatherings of local churches, they are nowhere specifically identified as being members of them.

Someone might raise an objection at this point. "You are arguing from silence, and that argument does not definitely exclude children from church membership." I am sympathetic with that objection. This first reason for my position on its own is probably not sufficient (although it should carry much weight and at least gain our attention in light of the perspicuity (clarity) and sufficiency of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17)).

However, there are at least two more reasons which must be viewed in conjunction with this first one. There is next of all:

B. The biblical distinction between children and adults.

Introduction. The Scriptures recognize the differences between younger children and adults which common sense tells us exist. Consider with me several key texts:

In this verse, the Greek word translated "man" is again "anar" -- an adult male -- in contrast with a young child. Here we are told that children speak and think and reason in a distinctly different way than adults do. What is the difference? Notice another text:

We learn here that one characteristic of children is that they are malleable, or easily influenced, and therefore are also potentially unstable in their convictions as various influences impact upon them.

One might ask, "Does this mean that it's not possible, due to natural immaturity, for a child to really believe in and follow Christ until he or she is an adult? Consider several biblical reasons why this is not true.

First of all, there are the indications that children, including younger minor children, are obligated to follow the Lord. In Ecclesiastes 12:1, Solomon urges individuals to remember their Creator in the days of their youth. Paul commands children to obey their parents "in the Lord" -- i.e., as those who are in a close union with Christ by faith in Him.

Secondly, parents are responsible to be the predominant molding influence upon their children in directing them to follow the Lord while still children:

Joshua had determined that he would require those in his household to live like saints -- at least externally -- even if he could not convert them. So should all parents do with their children in their household.

Thirdly and finally, there is reason to believe that children are naturally able to follow the Lord from a fairly early age because another trait naturally characterizing younger children -- dependence upon others -- is actually an aid to children in entering the kingdom of God when it is directed toward Christ:

What then are the implications of the natural differences between children and adults, if these differences do not of necessity impact upon one's inherent ability and responsibility to repent of one's sins and to believe in Christ?:

1. Children are not qualified to handle adult responsibilities:

2. Children are not permitted to make adult decisions:

Only when Moses had become an adult could he reject his place in Pharaoh's household in order to follow the Lord. Such a decision was not permitted a child for the very reason that he was still a child.

3. Children are not permitted to speak for themselves regarding adult commitments with adult consequences. Here notice a key passage -- John 9:13-38:

This man who had been born blind and then healed by Jesus was required by the Pharisees to indicate whether or not he was publicly committed to following Jesus of Nazareth. When his parents were asked to give their evaluation of Jesus and His work of healing, they refused to do so in behalf of their son and indicated that he could speak for himself in the matter because he was of age. These parents did this because they feared the adult consequences of such a confession of Christ -- excommunication from the Jewish synagogue. This response of the man's parents indicates that an open confession of Christ was viewed as an adult commitment with adult consequences. In this case the consequences for such an open confession of Christ as Messiah were the opposite of what they should have been. But still there was the accepted idea of adult consequences attached to adult commitments in which a child who had not reached adulthood could not appropriately be involved. Why not? Because of the instability and lack of discernment associated with such a child's immature state, and because of his resulting present dependence upon his parents to speak for him. That's why not.

However, one still might raise a question. "What does the general distinction between children and adults which is clearly recognized in Scripture have to do with children and church membership? I believe that the John 9:21 and Hebrew 11:24-26 passages allude somewhat indirectly to the answer to that question, which brings us to the third argument for my position:

C. The nature of church membership. Quite simply, I believe that the Bible presents baptism and local church membership as being adult commitments and decisions with adult responsibilities and adult consequences regarding which one must be mature enough to truly speak for himself or herself. In other words, one must truly be an adult to be a member of Christ's church. Let's seek to open this up further:

1. Baptism (along with its connected local church membership) is an adult commitment and decision. Baptism is an open commitment to unending attachment to Jesus Christ and His people. The one baptized and joined to a local church is openly committing himself to follow Christ, even if it means leaving father and mother -- even if the result is persecution leading possibly to death. It is a commitment parallel to that made by Moses when he became of age and chose the reproach of Christ, and by the healed blind man who was of age and therefore was excommunicated from the synagogue for his confession of Christ.

2. Church membership involves adult responsibilities. These include acting with the rest of the church in the biblical duties of recognizing church officers (Acts 6:1-6) and of carrying out church discipline (1 Corinthians 5).

3. Church membership involves adult consequences if one is unfaithful as a member -- corrective church discipline including excommunication if necessary. The fact that excommunication is an adult consequence is clearly implied, although in a perverse way, in the incident regarding the blind man in John 9:21, where the Old Covenant Jewish synagogue was the setting. One who was of age not only was ready to make an adult confession and commitment, but also was ready to face adult consequences for his actions.

In the church where I am pastor, we increasingly found ourselves uncomfortable with the following scenario. A child who is still easily influenced by his parents (and who naturally wants to please them) appears to be a Christian, is baptized and joins the church. Then later, as he is becoming an adult with a clearly-independent identity, he, by running impenitently into a sinful course, manifests that he no longer desires to maintain his former childhood profession. And the church faces the unpleasant duty of excommunicating him. Unfortunately, such a scenario is not merely hypothetical, but all too realistic from sad experience.

In light of the biblical distinction between a child and an adult, we believe that it is wrong to put a child (and his parents) in the position of potentially facing such consequences while he is still a child and not an adult. Local churches of Christ have in the past also wrestled with embracing and practicing such a liability for children. Generally, when younger children have been included as local church members, they have not been treated as full members of the local church, or else there has been a tendency for the commitment and responsibilities and liabilities of church membership to be watered down for all members due to the felt pressure of putting such pressures upon a child. The latter alternative has dishonored the Lord, and has the potential to ultimately devastate that local church spiritually, making it clear that that option is clearly unacceptable.

These then are the first three reasons for the practice of not receiving professedly believing young children into the membership of a local church. As far as I am able to determine, these are the best arguments.

However, there are further biblical arguments for this practice which we will also now take up. So next:

D. Only by this practice do we satisfactorily and properly keep separate and distinct the divinely-delegated spheres of human authority of the family and the church.

God in His Word has clearly established various spheres of delegated human authority. These include the family, the church, the state, and the world of business. Although the various spheres may interact, and may even properly impact upon one another, it is wrong for leaders in one sphere to assume responsibilities over individuals which belong within another sphere of authority according to the Word of God. Notice how the Lord Jesus underscored this reality in Luke 12:13-14:

Even though in one sense the Lord Jesus was king over all the earth, at this present time as a man living upon the earth He did not openly possess authority as a civil ruler over this man. Therefore He steadfastly refused to assume such authority -- even when one party requested that He do so. In this He was an example for us to follow.

But what does this have to do with children and local church membership? Just this. I believe that a local church which receives young children who have not yet reached adulthood as members, and which in this way causes such children to become liable to church discipline if they continue impenitent in sin,

has intruded itself wrongly into the sphere of the family, usurping to itself the disciplinary authority of the parents in that family. On what basis do I say this? Consider with me an Old Testament example recorded in Deuteronomy 21:18-21:

In this passage the parents declare that the exercise of discipline in the family sphere has become ineffectual and turn over their son to the civil authorities for the enactment of civil punishment in that sphere -- here capital punishment.

Now let me ask you, "Do you think that a two year old son is here in view? A five year old son? An eight year old son? An eleven year old son? A fourteen year old son? A seventeen or eighteen year old son? Why not the two or five or eight or eleven year old son? The passage here helps us answer that question.

The son here in view is one engaged in the normally older-aged activity of partying and getting drunk. Furthermore, this son is one whom the parents can no longer cause to obey them through the use of biblical parental chastening. In other words, he has gotten beyond the more malleable, influential state of childhood, and he's grown bigger than a little child, so that his parents cannot handle him any longer. He is one who is sinfully beginning to "feel his oats" -- beginning to look at life as an adult with an identity distinctly different from that of his parents (although wickedly so here). Yet he is still in his parents' home, responsible before God to obey their commands. That is the description of a teen-age boy coming to adulthood. To allow the state to deal so severely with the discipline of a son before this stage of maturity would have been to allow the state to exercise its authority beyond its sphere and within the sphere of the family. Such is, I believe, a legitimate understanding of this passage.

How does this apply to children and local church membership? Just as it would be wrong for the civil government to execute the civil discipline of capital punishment upon a young child, so I believe it would be wrong to receive a child not yet an adult into the membership of a local church where he would be subject to church discipline including the spiritual equivalent of capital punishment -- excommunication. The discipline to which a younger child should be subject is limited (normally) to the home and to those like school teachers to whom parents for a time delegate their authority.

But now only does the local church membership of younger children constitute an improper intrusion of the church into the family sphere. It also tends to an intrusion of the family sphere into that of the church practically. The church is required to determine as much as possible from the confessions of those applying for membership that only true Christians are being added to her number. But since younger children are not yet old enough to adequately "speak for themselves", the church is forced to depend upon the parent's assessment of the child's spiritual state to a large degree if she is to act responsibly.

Thus in both directions, the divinely-delegated spheres of human authority of the church and family actually do (or at least tend to) intrude wrongly into the rightful realm of each other if younger children become church members in a biblically-ordered church.

Notice now a fifth reason for not receiving minor children as local church members until they reach adulthood:

E. There is other scriptural basis for delaying obedience to a command in God's Word due to immaturity. Someone may say in response to my position, "But aren't you keeping believing children from obeying the commandment of God? In Acts 2:38, Peter commanded his awakened hearers, 'Repent and let each of you be baptized.' The divine procedure dictated by apostolic example in Acts 18:8 was believing and then being baptized. If children have believed, then doesn't it seem clear that they should be baptized, even if they are still young children? And shouldn't they be baptized right away to avoid violating the command of Scripture?"

What response is there to such a seemingly strong argument? Upon what basis do I believe that we can properly delay obedience to such a commandment due to immaturity? We have already considered several reasons, but notice a further example from Scripture in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9:

If someone is burning with sexual desire, he is here given a clear commandment by God. There is only one alternative -- not fornication nor self-stimulation -- but rather "let them marry".

So let's consider the thirteen year old girl and the fourteen year old boy who find themselves burning as a result of their newly realized sexual maturity. What should they do? Isn't it obvious? They now are able to have the intimate relations of marriage and to procreate. So they should marry -- immediately -- because that is the clear commandment of God. After all to delay is to disobey. Right?

Wrong! Maturity is also a very important factor in the marriage decision which will often require a delay in obedience to the command of 1 Corinthians 7:8-9. For example, the Scriptures also clearly declare in 1 Timothy 5:8:

In our society in most cases that fourteen year old boy who is burning is totally unprepared vocationally to provide for a wife and children. So he had better wait to enter marriage until he has prepared to fulfill this responsibility of the married state.

So also, according to Ephesians 6:4, fathers are commanded by God to bring their children up in the training and admonition of the Lord. However, most, if not all fourteen year old boys are still too much of children themselves to be prepared to train and mold the lives of children who could quickly result from marriage at that young age. Therefore, to marry at such an immature state would be to put oneself in a potentially impossible situation as far as faithfully obeying the commandments of God is concerned.

Common sense itself tells even unconverted men and women that thirteen year old girls and fourteen year old boys are, in our society, totally unprepared for marriage due to immaturity. So also, I believe that both common sense and the Scriptures indicate that maturity is an important factor when it comes to obeying the command to be baptized. If so, then it is not sinful to delay obedience to this command due to the immaturity of children who have not yet reached adulthood.

It may be helpful at this point to consider a further illustration of this principle from everyday life which I have borrowed from other pastors. If a ten year old boy full of love and zeal for his country came to the Marine or Army recruiter and declared that he wanted to enlist, what would the recruiter have to tell the boy? Not that he was a hypocrite and was not really a good patriot who loved his country, and so for those reasons he must be rejected. Rather, that recruiter would hopefully sensitively tell that young boy that he needs to wait until he is old enough to assume the adult responsibilities and liabilities of military service at age eighteen. The recruiting officer would not be a traitor to his country to do so. Neither would he be keeping that child from doing his duty as a citizen. Rather, he would be protecting both the country and the child from real potential harm.

So with the local church. Our unwillingness to receive those who are still immature children into church membership is not a denial of their professed love for Christ and desires to follow Him. Neither is it a keeping of those children from obeying their Lord. Rather, it is an expression of concern for the church and for the souls of those children that we ask them to wait until they are adults, and are prepared to take up the adult decisions, responsibilities, and consequences associated with baptism and church membership.

Notice a sixth reason for my position:

F. Scripture nowhere gives us a basis to have a two-tiered membership in the local church based upon age and maturity. This is a further problem for the approach some would take of receiving younger children into a special membership with reduced privileges, responsibilities and perhaps liabilities in contrast with full-fledged adult local church membership. Christ nowhere has directed such an approach to membership. So at this point we must be sensitive to the biblical regulative principle of the church which directs that we not add any major element to the worship and government of the church which is not specifically commanded in Scripture.

In summary, for the reasons given, I believe that only children who have reached adulthood should be baptized and become church members. But this conclusion raises a further question.

When has a child become an adult and is therefore ready to be baptized and join a local church? This question is complicated by the fact that each maturing child passes through a transitional period of development between childhood and adulthood called adolescence when we aren't totally sure whether we are dealing with a child or an adult. So we are forced to grapple with determining when a developing young person has clearly reached adulthood. How do we do that? Do we set a certain age like eighteen or twenty-one (as civil governments generally do) which is automatically followed no matter what?

I do not believe that it is wise or appropriate to set a definite age for church membership because of several variable factors which together determine when a child has truly become an adult. There is the matter of the culture in which one lives, including the degree of preparatory training required for adult life in that particular culture. Closely-related are one's life experiences through which he providentially has passed which in some cases may cause him to mature more quickly than would someone in other circumstances. There are also biological differences in the timing of maturity for each person, including the fact that generally boys mature significantly later than do girls.

Maturity as an adult is most obviously indicated, first of all, by the arrival of physical adulthood associated with puberty, and also the attaining of one's adult height. But it normally should also include the possession of consistently adult thinking and acting. The young person should in a stable, godly way manifest that he is now viewing himself as an adult with an identity distinctly independent from that of his parents. His professed Christian faith must clearly be faith not only in his parent's Lord, but also in his Lord personally as well, from an adult perspective, so that he clearly stands for Christ on his own two feet before a watching world when away from the eyes of his parents. There should be evidence of adult decision-making, and of adult emotional and even financial maturity.

Pastor Greg Nichols, a fellow elder, has observed that the attaining of adulthood could, following the most broad definition, theoretically occur anywhere between the ages of ten and twenty-one. With reference to church membership, the attaining of adulthood in our United States society probably would not normally be attained before one's mid to late teens. But we have not been willing to be dogmatic at this point. The key factor is that the young person has, in the judgment of his or her parents and pastors, come to the level of maturity of an adult.

Having now sought to open up the biblical basis for the practice of waiting to baptize and receive believing younger children as local church members until they reach adulthood, we are ready to consider:

II. The historical background to our practice. At this point I will attempt to summarize the historical materials I have had available to me. Up front I will acknowledge that the information readily available to me was sketchy, and that I had little access to original sources. Therefore, I have had to depend upon the conclusions of others, and what I present here can only be tentative at many points. Any further materials which brethren could bring to my attention would be greatly appreciated.

Notice first of all:

A. The Apostolic Church. We have in the previous section been laboring to establish that the Apostolic Church indeed originally baptized and received as local church members only adult men and adult women. We've reviewed the data regarding the church from its earliest days in Acts. And we've observed the other relevant biblical principles which divinely-inspired Apostles gave and would therefore not have violated as they provided the earliest leadership to the church following Pentecost.

However, once the Apostles died, the church ceased to receive direct revelation from God. At this point in the writings of the earliest church fathers following the Apostles we observe what has been called the "cliff phenomenon". At the top of the cliff was the divine level of inspired Apostolic writings in the New Testament. At the bottom was the infantile understanding by the church of that God-given revelation. This immature understanding was at least in part due to the fact that the doctrines in the New Testament were not given as a well developed systematic theology. Rather, the church was justify to work out her doctrinal understanding of God's Word over time as she battled with errors that arose. As would be expected, the church's understanding of the major doctrines was hammered out first -- doctrines like the canon of Scripture, the Trinity, and the Person of Christ. Meanwhile errors were creeping into and becoming established in the church. One which evidently entered quite early was:

B. Pedo-baptism or the baptism and at least partial church membership of infants. This unbiblical practice over time came to dominate the church up to the time of the Reformation and beyond. When the question was asked, "How do children relate to church membership?", the almost uniform answer came to be:

This supposed later confirming became viewed in the developing Roman Catholic Church as a sacrament -- the sacrament of Confirmation -- although it was totally unfounded biblically.

How did this error get in? Here there is little data of which I am aware, and thus we can only speculate. However, I believe that it may be helpful to suggest some likely explanations for the eventual ascendancy of this error in the church:

1. Evidently the Post-Apostolic Church in her infantile understanding of the New Testament originally had a biblical practice regarding children but did not thoroughly understand the biblical principles and truths which lay behind that practice. Thus there was a vacuum which gave error an opportunity to enter.

2. Related to this is the fact that the church had an Old Testament as well as a New Testament, and was still wrestling with what had ended and what continued after the change from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant era. Under the Old Covenant, male infants of God's people were circumcised and became members of the covenant community. Probably this fact tended to pre-dispose the Early Church to look for a substitute for circumcision with regard to infants since Paul's epistle to the Galatians made it clear that circumcision was no longer required for membership in the New Covenant community. As the church pondered the question of where the children fit in, and as the Apostolic era faded into the distance, evidently the baptism of infants became the increasingly accepted answer.

3. A further factor which probably opened the door for pedo-baptism was the spiritual decline of the church over time as she slid toward the open apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church. The Christian faith increasingly became perceived in a man-centered and external and legalistic way. The sacraments became viewed increasingly as essential for salvation. The church embraced the error that, at baptism, one's previous sins were all forgiven and washed away. Baptism became viewed more from the perspective of what it did to the recipient, rather than from the biblical perspective of it as an outward indication of the saving faith and forgiveness of sin already present in the heart. Due to the inroads of such serious errors, there was probably less and less difficulty seen with baptizing infants who could not yet have actually exercised faith.

4. Finally, pedo-baptism was probably especially successful in infiltrating the church in the context of such errors due to the genuine concern of parents regarding their children. In those days it was quite common for children to die before adulthood. Parents longed for some assurance that all was well spiritually with their children. Thus infant baptism was probably increasingly accepted as such an assurance, even though it was not found in God's Word.

The practice of pedo-baptism continued to be basically universal, with perhaps a few isolated and largely undocumented exceptions, until the Protestant Reformation when there arose in the 1520's:

C. The Anabaptists as a distinct group. This group evidently first appeared in Switzerland. In fact, one of the earliest Reformers, Zwingli, at first largely agreed with the Anabaptist perspectives. However, he ultimately reverted back to pedo-baptism, apparently in part due to pressure from the local civil authorities.

What did the Anabaptists believe? Most of them biblically taught that only believers in Christ should be baptized, and that the church should be composed only of true believers. Thus they rejected infant baptism.

It is not hard to understand how the adoption of such views would have naturally led to the baptizing of children and the receiving of them as church members as soon as they professed to be believers. Indeed Zwingli's own earlier statements pointed in this direction:

Evidently by the age of discretion Zwingli meant the age at which a child was able to understand and believe the Gospel (although I am not at all certain what he meant by this terminology). I have found two further indications that the Anabaptists indeed baptized and received at least adolescents (if not younger believing children) into membership.

However, the Anabaptists evidently ran into real problems with their practice. Notice the words of Pastor David Kingdon:

These are legitimate questions. We believe that one important answer to this problem, although no fail-self preventative of spiritual decline in a church, is to wait to baptize and receive as members children who have grown up in the church until they have passed beyond adolescence and have clearly reached adulthood.

But now we move in our historical survey from consideration of the Anabaptists to that of:

D. The Modern Baptists. The little bits of information which I have found regarding the views of modern Baptists on the subject of children and church membership have reflected varying perspectives similar to the situation among Baptists at the present time.

Let's consider first of all:

1. The earliest Baptists. Baptists as we know them today arose in England and Holland during the 17th Century. They do not appear to have been direct spiritual descendants of the Anabaptists (although evidently there was some interaction between them, and help was received from the Anabaptists). Rather, the English Baptists directly descended from English Puritan Congregationalists who had earlier originated from English Puritan Presbyterians. One of the two main branches of these Baptists -- the Particular Baptists -- remained quite Reformed in their doctrine (unlike the Arminian General Baptists), and gave to us the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 -- a confession which is commonly held and used by Reformed Baptists today.

I have found one brief indication that at least some of the Baptists of the 17th Century apparently wrestled with the problems associated with baptizing children and receiving them into church membership before adulthood, and may have even possibly reacted into an opposite error. The Baptist Heritage by McBeth, a primarily Southern Baptist history, contains the follow description:

If indeed these early Baptists believed that a child was usually not converted until adulthood, then this was an error from which they should have moved away. But how could such a view have come to be adopted? Let me speculate a bit on how that might have occurred.

It is possible that there was a tendency among these Baptists to not give credence to the professions of younger children raised in Christian homes unless there were unusual and striking circumstances indicating a clear and radical change, because according to their understanding, to accept such a profession meant that the serious steps of baptism and local church membership should soon follow. Yet their own experience may have showed the problems with moving ahead with those important steps in the case of younger children raised in Christian homes where the great change from death to life is usually not so obvious, and where earlier professions of faith by younger children often fall away when they approach adulthood and begin to wrestle with spiritual issues from a more independent, adult perspective. I.e., perhaps these early Baptists concluded that the conversion of children did not normally occur until adulthood because they could not separate between salvation on the one hand, and baptism and church membership on the other hand, when it came to younger children. Yet for good reasons they were usually unwilling to baptize and receive as church members younger children who professed Christ.

Of course, it is also possible that, in reacting against pedo-baptism, these early Baptists may have wrestled with understanding and knowing how to respond to the more quiet and gradual dealings of God (from outward appearances) with children raised in the ongoing nurture and training of Christian homes so that such children often cannot point to a specific time when they were conscious of a great change from darkness to light, even though such a great change did take place at some time if one is truly a Christian. The first generation Baptists may have wrongly been demanding more striking and clear experiences of conversion which more closely paralleled their own adult conversion experiences, without knowing how to respond to less obvious experiences common to children raised in Christian homes.

I.e., there may have been confusion and a lack of clear understanding on the part of brethren holding to many sound, biblical principles at this early stage in the development of distinctively Baptist convictions from the Scriptures.

However, it is also possible that McBeth has misinterpreted the practice of at least some Baptists who were not willing to baptize and receive children as members until they had become adults due to their immaturity. Unfortunately, thus far I have been unable to locate original sources in order to sort this out.

But now, let's move on and consider:

2. More recent Baptists. Some prominent Calvinistic Baptists in more recent years have argued for the membership (and therefore, apparently the baptism) of children who are not yet adults.

Dagg, who died in 1884, very clearly wrote in his Manual of Church Order:

Hiscox, in his Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches which was completed in 1893, evidently argued for the membership of minor children who credibly professed faith in Christ (although there is a degree of ambiguity in his language):

We might respond to Hiscox with the question, "What is abundant and satisfactory evidence of conversion -- especially when it comes to the matter of qualification for baptism and church membership? Could not the issue of childhood versus adulthood be a factor in determining whether or not the evidence of saving grace is satisfactory for such adult commitments?" As far as I know, Hiscox did not explicitly deal with this issue in his book.

It is also interesting to note the level of membership which Hiscox apparently envisioned for believing minor children (although his language again is somewhat ambiguous here):

Evidently Hiscox believed that believing minor children should receive all the rights of regular local church members and should also be subject to corrective church discipline. If this was truly the position of Hiscox, I would ask you to remember some of the problems with such a position which we have already observed.

Interestingly, if Hiscox is indeed arguing in his book for the membership of minor children in local churches, there is what appears to be a problem of biblical consistency in what he says elsewhere. When he speaks of procedures for receiving new members, he declares, ". . . candidates must come personally before the Church and speak for themselves". But if you remember, the Gospel of John, chapter 9, indicates that one is ready to speak for himself in such a public way only when he is of age -- i.e., is an adult. Thus at this point, Hiscox, apparently unwittingly, argued for the practice I am defending -- waiting until adulthood for baptism and church membership.

It should be observed that in the quotations by Dagg and Hiscox above, there is no specific biblical proof given for their apparent position on children and church membership. There is no comment regarding the biblical materials which we have already considered in this study.

However, because of the apparent positions of these two distinguished Baptist leaders, we might wonder with a degree of legitimacy if Baptists have ever believed both that children are often converted while still children, and that baptism and local church membership should await adulthood.

Historians from what was the old Northern Baptist Convention (largely liberal today), in A Baptist Manual of Polity and Practice from the 1960's, answer that question with an apparent "Yes". Maring and Hudson write:

Notice that these authors again give no biblical basis for their own rule of twelve or thirteen years of age, while I have sought to provide a careful biblical basis for the practice which these men themselves declare to have been once prevalent among Baptists -- delaying baptism until adulthood.

This then is the best I can presently do in giving the Historical Background of Our Practice. As you can see, there has been a variety of perspective and practice concerning children and church membership in the history of the church. Most importantly for our study, that variety has apparently included as one option the very position I am taking -- that children should not be baptized and added to local church membership until they are adults. We are not coming with some totally new practice and understanding which has never been held or practiced before in the church, even though it may be somewhat rare in the baptistic evangelical world today.

Let me now take up our third major heading:

III. Some practical reasons for our practice. Having traced out both the biblical basis for our practice and its historical background, it is important to also underscore that there are some practical reasons for not proceeding with baptism and church membership until children are adults. These reasons flow from others' and our own practical experience and hopefully wisdom based upon the principles of Scripture.

A. The first practical reason for our practice is that if four year olds and eight year olds and twelve year olds are treated the same as adults in this area, we create a climate for presumption. A child tends to simply embrace as true whatever his parents tell him. Therefore, if adults hear his childish profession of faith and pronounce him ready for baptism and church membership, he must be a Christian indeed. As the child arrives at adolescence and begins to look at life and truth from a more independent adult perspective, he may be deceived into concluding that all is well, even though evidence is appearing that there has been no work of grace at all in his heart. And parents may even squelch proper expressions of doubt regarding his spiritual state by pointing to his past childish profession and baptism. After all, such doubts could be very disconcerting to parents who greatly want their children to be saved and had thought that they were already "safe". In this way, presumption may be fostered.

B. Also, early baptism and church membership can create a climate for a double life. The child has been properly trained, and has been taught that it is biblical to do things to please Mom and Dad. He or she is baptized and becomes a member as a child or early adolescent. Then adolescence hits with full force. Perhaps the young person begins to have doubts regarding spiritual things as he matures. He feels the great pressure of his developing sexuality and there is the increased desire for peer approval. He doesn't want to express his doubts regarding his state to his parents or pastors because he knows that it will break their hearts. So, feeling and perhaps yielding to the new pressures and uncertainties, begins to lead a double life (although the Lord usually blows the cover eventually, and often corrective church discipline is the result). Sadly, such a reality is no theory for us in the church where I have been pastor now for eleven years.

C. We also, by early membership, may create a climate for formalism and nominalism. Some children, due to their temperament and good parental training, are received early as members and never find themselves desiring to leave the security of the New Covenant community as they come to adulthood. They have an outwardly respectable life, and confess an orthodox creed, so there is no clear basis for excommunication. But they have never had a work of grace in their hearts. They are formalists and nominalists. As time goes on, there may come to be more and more such nominalists and formalists in the membership of the church until the church is full of them. And then you have majority votes on church decisions by people who do not think spiritually and lack true discernment because they really aren't Christians. One can clearly see the spiritual ruin coming upon local churches and individuals when such a situation develops over time.

D. We also, if we add younger children to the church, are in danger of giving up the biblical concept of the church as a company of gathered disciples. This is because disciples, according to Scripture, are people who know that they are in a war, and are prepared to shed blood and to die for Christ. They are a people who know that they are joined to the army of God, and are determined to stay there among the soldiers in the army , even if supposedly believing parents turn away from the Lord. Such a militant mind set and independency of response is very difficult if not impossible for younger children.

E. Finally, if we baptize and receive younger children into membership, we are in danger of making a mockery of baptism. Often children who were baptized as younger children, upon coming to maturity with new spiritual sensitivity, realize that they really were not converted at the time when they were first baptized, and therefore face the responsibility of being baptized again. So you end up with people being baptized two or even three times -- a practice which potentially undermines the seriousness which baptism should have, and the reality which it should be.

We must ask ourselves seriously if we really want any of these potential pitfalls of early baptism and church membership. I certainly do not, and I hope you do not as well. It must be granted that some or all of these problems may still occur where children are not baptized and added to churches until they are adults for different reasons. But hopefully, it is also obvious how the practice of baptizing and receiving younger children can especially contribute to these difficulties.

In fact, one long-time pastor has declared that this issue is the most important issue for the future of any church, second only to the quality of her leadership and the continuance of growth in grace and knowledge by the membership. I.e., this matter of children and church membership is no little issue for local churches. This is why this study has been so extensive.

Now some might over-react to what we have seen, and might respond, "Since it's good to wait for baptism and membership until adulthood, let's be really sure before anyone is received into membership, and wait awhile even after adulthood is reached". This especially would be a temptation if one has been disappointed by young people in the past who were not baptized and received until they were perceived to be adults -- but then turned away from the Lord. (Once again, such an experience is not just theory for us.)

However, to so over-react would be to fall into a dangerous error on the other side. You would be leaving believing adults in disobedience to Christ's command to be baptized and to observe the Lord's Table. You would also be leaving believing adults vulnerable to uncertainty where they stand spiritually -- vulnerable to an unnecessary lack of assurance and doubts. Furthermore, all sorts of problems are created when such non-member believing adults go off to college, and/or want to begin pursuing a marriage partner, where their spiritual allegiance has not yet been publicly and clearly fixed. Therefore, it is certainly possible to wait to long to baptize and add children once they have indeed come to adulthood.

We come now to the fourth and final major heading of our study:

IV. Some vitally-important lessons from all that we have seen. Although these lessons are here directed primarily to young people and children, they should also be appropriately applied by all who have dealings with children and young people -- especially parents:

A. Dear young person, do not allow what we have studied to be twisted by the Devil and your own sinful heart into an excuse to not be immediately reconciled to God and to follow Christ. Do you see how that might happen? You might be tempted to reason, "I'm too young to be baptized and to join the church even if I was a Christian. Therefore, my standing with Christ is an adult concern which can be put off for a future day, and I'll just live as I please right now." Is that the way you are thinking and responding right not? If so, such notions are a lie from the pit of hell, and may take you soul to hell if you don't spit them out and flee to Christ. Whether you are a child or adult, if you die today without becoming a Christian, you will plunge into the eternal torments of the lake of fire. God's Word comes to child and adult alike. And it does not say, "Wait or delay" when it comes to your salvation. It instead cries out, "Behold, now is the acceptable time -- behold, now is the day of salvation." It says, "How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?" It says, "Come." It says "Remember your Creator in the days of your youth."

B. There is also a word for you dear young person who believe that you are a Christian, but you know that you really are not yet an adult. Perhaps you have even talked the matter over with your parents and they have agreed that you are not yet an adult and that you are not ready yet for church membership. How should you respond?

1. First of all, you ought not to feel guilty of sin because you have not yet been baptized and joined the church, and are not yet partaking in the Lord's Table. You are not violating God's command because He providentially has placed you in circumstances where you are unable to obey those commands -- where you are not eligible to perform those duties yet because you are not yet mature enough. The key question for you should be, "What is my desire? Do I want to be baptized as soon as all involved agree that I'm ready? Do I long to be a member of this local church and to partake in the Lord's Supper?" If your answer is yes, then we rejoice. And your Lord is satisfied and pleased. Remember Paul's words regarding another subject -- giving -- in 2 Corinthians 8:12:

So keep those godly desires alive. God is satisfied by them and you are not disobeying Him.

2. Furthermore, and closely-related, don't be discouraged and frustrated with your present situation. Recognize and embrace the fact that you have providentially been called for a time to live with a tension -- to live with godly desires to openly confess Christ in baptism, and to remember Christ at the Table, while being unable yet to do those things. Life, and especially the Christian life, will be full of such tensions. There will be desires to marry, but you're not ready or the Lord hasn't provided a suitable and willing guy or gal for you; desires to be perfectly done with sin, yet there is the reality of the struggle with remaining sin; desires to do more for the kingdom of God, but there are the realities of responsibilities for a growing family or of declining strength as you get older which seem to thwart those desires. Embrace your present situation as an opportunity to learn to live with God-given tensions in your life with a cheerful, submissive attitude.

3. But also, do everything you can legitimately and submissively to put the pressure on your parents and teachers to let you move forward with baptism and local church membership as soon as it is legitimately possible. In a godly way beat down the front door to the church. Don't just sit back and try to coast as a Christian because, after all, "the really important part of the Christian life hasn't started yet". What do I mean more specifically?

a. Diligently cultivate and maintain living, growing communion with God, and growth in grace and the knowledge of Christ. Be consistent in your private devotions without having to be constantly prodded by Mom and Dad. Set your own alarm if you have one to be sure that you get up in time to have devotions or take the initiative by asking Mom or Dad to get you up in time to meet with the Lord, however this may apply in your own situation. Be quick to repent of your sins when you blow it in the family -- both to God and to those you have offended -- on your own without having to be prodded. Memorize portions of God's Word and meditate on them as an aid in dealing with areas of sin where you struggle.

b. Boldly stand for your Lord when you are away from your parents -- with the neighborhood kids, while engaged in that part-time job, while away at camp or youth conference or in school. When around unsaved young people, let it be known that you are a Christian by both words and deeds. Seek to introduce such lost peers to Christ and His Gospel. Refuse to go along with their sinful behavior and graciously take a stand against it even if it brings you grief in the process. Carefully avoid improper behavior toward the opposite sex. Be a young person whom your parents can trust.

c. Work diligently (and in dependence upon the Lord) at learning to communicate with your parents and other adults openly and comfortably about adult concerns. Don't just isolate yourself off with peers of your own age. Interact with the adults too. It is the open-faced communicative young person who looks you in the eye and who speaks of mature concerns who will impress those around him that he is indeed now an adult.

d. Keep checking on your status. Periodically and respectfully approach your parents and ask them if they think you are ready yet, as you are continuing to do the things I have already listed. So conduct yourself that they may eventually feel pressured in a right way to encourage you to apply for church membership. Don't hesitate to approach the pastors of the church where you attend about the subject out of fear that you will be rejected. "Wait" to an older child is not equal to a rejection and you should not view it that way. Neither should adults view it or present it that way -- whether parents, pastors or other adult church members.

Young person, it is a badge of honor that you are so eager and diligent regarding being a member in a biblical local church, and that you force pastors like us to feel the tension acutely in having to say "wait". Make your parents and pastors feel the pressure in a godly way. Make them squirm as they see you passing the communion plate without partaking because they are increasingly feeling like it's wrong for you not to be partaking. If you are doing that right now, keep it up. You are setting a good pattern which will, by God's grace, carry you all your days.

Of course, be prepared to have some areas that need work yet pointed out if you ask your parents or pastors about membership and they do not believe that you are ready yet. Be ready to graciously receive those concerns and to go to work on them -- first on your knees, and then in day-to-day life. But put holy pressure on them by your godly, increasingly mature conduct and speech. That's what the church of Christ desperately needs in our day -- church members who are eager to identify with and serve and obey their Lord.

C. There is also here a word for those of you who have reached adulthood and know that you are a Christian. First:

1. Hopefully you have been given a fresh reminder or perhaps a new understanding of the seriousness of becoming a member of a local church of Christ. It is not child's play to be baptized and join a church. It is a mockery of baptism and church membership to try to coax a crying young boy into the baptismal tank because he has just walked forward, said a prayer, and therefore has been pronounced a Christian -- a sight which I have unfortunately witnessed with my own eyes and ears in a supposedly evangelical church. Church membership is a serious, normally long-term commitment made before men. It is, if the relevant local church is biblically ordered, a commitment to adult responsibilities and to potential adult liabilities including church discipline. Such steps ought not to be taken lightly just because I have seen my best friend or buddy or sister or brother step forward and I don't want to be justify out. Or because I know that my parents want me to do it. These are not good enough reasons in and of themselves, although they might be secondary motivations.

Be sure that you have counted the cost of following Christ -- that you have come to see what is at stake -- before you step forward.

But further:

2. Dear believing young adult (or older adult), the time has come for you to take your stand. The seriousness of the step is no excuse to not do your clear biblical duty if your are a Christian. It is rather a call to count the cost and to follow Christ in baptism and local church membership. It may not have been time to obey Christ in these ways a year or two ago, but you know that it is time now. If you are delaying, look into the eyes of your Lord and tell Him why you are delaying.

D. There is a lesson as well for adults who do not know the Lord Jesus as Lord and Savior. The issue of age and maturity is no factor at all for you, is it? The issue for you is crystal clear -- Will you have this man, the man Christ Jesus, to rule over you? Will you be done with your sin and rest in His mercy?

E. Finally, for all of us, we should be charitable and patient toward those of our brethren who happen to take a different approach to children and local church membership than we do. We should remember that the church has wrestled with this often emotional issue for centuries. Furthermore, many of us once had a different approach to this issue than we do at present. So we should walk humbly and charitably toward those with whom we presently differ.

May the Lord enable us to wholeheartedly in faith understand and do His will in His church to His glory in the days to come -- especially as that will relates to children and church membership.

Copyright ©1999-2007, The Reformed Reader, All Rights Reserved