Regional Synod of Canada - Reformed Church in America

Pioneer Christian Monthly

Date - May/73

Contributor - John J. Opmeer

Title - Let's Take Another Look at Baptism IV - Our Attitude To The Re-baptized Person

Topic - Baptism

WHAT about re-baptism?

That's a hard question facing many of our churches. We have taken a hard look at this question last time. But what about the re-baptized person himself? Should he be disciplined? And further: can our churches give room to people with different convictions on the matter of baptism?

Suppose a person has requested re-baptism, and the Reformed Church refuses. That person may then turn to another church, in the baptist tradition, and have himself baptized. There is no 'problem' of course, when such a person then also joins that other church. But suppose he desires to stay with your congregation. We can hardly act as if nothing has happened. Should we say: here is your certificate of transfer, you no longer are desired in our church?

That's indeed the attitude that has often been taken in our churches. The argument is: by the very act of going to another church and asking for something that is not allowed in our church, such a person has removed himself from the community of the Reformed Church. There is a certain logic in that attitude. However, it is a simplistic solution. It begs the real questions. And it means that we remove from our church rolls active Christians who desire to stay with us. The real irony in this situation is that we may keep on our church rolls members who are inactive, and remove from our rolls re-baptized members who, apart from their conviction on baptism, may be exemplary Christians. Certainly, such would be a deplorable action in a Christian congregation.

"But we have to keep the Church pure...."

Then what should our attitude be? The answer depends largely on what you think church discipline is and is for. Should discipline always lead to removal from the church rolls if a person does not repent? I don't think so. Discipline is for the purpose of keeping the church pure, and for the spiritual welfare of the person who receives the discipline. Now obviously we must keep the church pure. But keeping the church pure is a far cry from allowing only one point of view in the congregation. The purity of the church is not really threatened by different interpretations of Scripture accepted by the various denominations. Denominational differences are basically differences of interpretation and culture, and have usually nothing to do with the purity of the church. There are exceptions to this, of course, but in my opinion baptism as discussed is not such an exception. Then, if the re-baptized person cannot be removed from our church rolls for the sake of the purity of the church, should he be removed for the sake of his own spiritual welfare?

The answer would be "yes", if there is a definite sin involved, and there is no sign of repentance. Such removal may be a hard action, but its aim is to lead the person involved to repentance. The question is therefore: is this the case with re-baptism? Is re-baptism a sin from which a person must repent, or else .... ?

Is re-baptism a sin?

I am willing to defend that rebaptism - if arrived at for conscience's sake - is not a sin; is a matter of a deep conviction, running counter to the interpretation of Scripture in the Reformed Church. It is a step arrived at after much soul-searching, by people who are convinced that after all they have never been really baptized. How can something be a sin when a large body of Christians with whom we have brotherly ties is practicing it all the time ?

But re-baptism is still something of which we deeply disapprove. Our disapproval should be made known in no uncertain terms to the person involved, through counseling and then through admonition. But without the added that that unless the person repents of the step he has taken, we have no room for him as an active member of our congregation. I believe, therefore, that in the case of disagreement with the R.C.A. practice of infant baptism, leading to re-baptism, discipline should be exercised only in the form of admonition. Admonition is the mildest form of discipline. It consists of informing the person of the disapproval of the elders, and of an attempt to help the person see why his action was wrong. If, after this, the person is still convinced that he has done the right thing, the admonition ends right there. Further action is not called for, and the person in question should be accepted and treated by all as a brother in Christ.

This, I believe, is the attitude that should be taken towards a re-baptized member of the Reformed Church. Provided, of course, that such member does not start a campaign to convince other church members that they have not really been baptized. For in that case, further disciplinary action must be undertaken, on the ground of disruptive and schismatic activity within the local church.

The back door open for baptist Reformed ?

But we are not done yet with this matter of re-baptism. For the approach suggested above obviously opens the door for something new in the R.C.A. It opens the door - the back door - for regular membership in our churches to Christians who reject infant baptism, or at least prefer adult baptism over infant baptism. And hence it would certainly open the door to an increasing practice of leaving children unbaptized until they have reached the teen years. What if, as a result of the lack of firm action against re-baptized members, the number of people desiring adult baptism increases in the R.C.A.?

Then slowly but surely the tradition of baptism in our church will be changed. I believe that this trend has already begun, and for a variety of reasons.

Is there room for choice ?

This leads to a very important question: should and can there be room in our churches for a choice between infant and adult baptism? And the related question: is there room in the Reformed Church for ministers who prefer adult baptism over infant baptism? This question is very much alive in the R.C.A. As a matter of fact, Classis Cascades has just sent an overture to the General Synod dealing with this very question, asking for opinion on the matter. If the door is closed by the General Synod, many will feel that the Reformed Church makes too much of a matter that does not necessarily touch the essentials of faith, and closes its membership from many potential new Christians who believe in adult baptism. And if the door is opened, the R.C.A. cannot help but move closer to the baptist tradition, which would be a major breakthrough in the history of the Christian Church.

I myself would favour such a development. For I believe that, under certain conditions, room CAN be given to adult baptism in a church that accepts the truth of the teaching of infant baptism. And I further believe that such a position would strengthen the mission of the Reformed Church in an age that is turned off by internal church differences, but still asks the question, "To WHOM shall we turn,?" I would like to deal with this matter further next time. And let me have the benefit of your opinion, please.

Please click the "Back" button of your browser to return to previous page.