This article first appeared on Andrew Williams’s website. It has been republished here with permission.
The views expressed in this article are of the author only and do not necessarily represent those of the Center for Pastor Theologians.
Who are the rightful recipients of baptism? Infants of Christian parents? Or only believers making a profession of faith?
My own tradition, Pentecostalism, has typically emphasized the baptism of believers only. However, there are some exceptions. For instance, from the beginning, the Pentecostal-Holiness Church (IPHC) allowed parents to decide whether to baptize their infant children or wait to baptize them as “believers”. The 1911 “Constitution and General Rules of the Pentecostal Holiness Church” stated:
All candidates for baptism shall have the right of choice between the various modes as practiced by the various evangelical denominations. Christian parents and guardians shall have liberty of conscience in the baptism of their children.
To my knowledge, the IPHC has never officially renounced this position. And yet, as a whole, Pentecostal churches baptize believers upon a confession of faith, all the while denouncing infant baptism.
However, is this right? Should we (Pentecostal Christians) only baptize believers?
The Meaning of Baptism
We need to realize that we cannot talk about who should be baptized without first talking about the meaning of baptism.
In my own work on baptism in the Pentecostal tradition, I have proposed that Pentecostals ought to understand baptism as a divine-human act—one that contains both objective and subjective meaning. Church history shows that without emphasizing the human aspect, baptism can become an opportunity for cheap grace. And yet, many Pentecostals today often associate baptism with subjective, cultural meanings which again prepares the way for cheap grace. So, I have argued that when talking about baptism, Pentecostals need to find the means for talking more intelligibly about the interplay of divine and human agency. This means asserting that God’s action is not only always prior to ours, but also that our action is made possible by God’s: it is God’s gracious choice that enables our own. My agency, then, is dependent upon God’s.
In addressing more specifically what God does in baptism, I contend the following:
Participation in Christ’s death and resurrection (Rom. 6.3-11; Eph. 2.5-6; Col. 2.13; 3.1)
Conversion, pardoning, and cleansing (Acts 22.16; 1 Cor. 6.11; Heb. 10.22; 1 Pet. 3.21)
The gift of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 1.21-22; Eph. 1.13-14)
Incorporation into the body of Christ
Sign of the kingdom of God and of the life of the world to come
But what might this mean for the discussion around infant baptism and believer’s baptism?
Either/Or? … Both/And?
If baptism is a divine-human act, this means that both infant baptism and believer’s baptism each communicate an essential theological truth: While infant baptism testifies to God’s gracious initiative, believer’s baptism testifies to its deep connection with personal repentance and faith. As a general rule, infant baptism often lifts up divine agency, while believer’s baptism lifts up human agency. For this reason, I have proposed that taken together, both forms express the full meaning of baptism – as God’s gracious initiative and our repentant and faith-filled response. Thus, I affirm a dual-baptism position.
However, something I have yet to discuss is Pentecostalism’s emphasis upon baptizing young children.
In my research into early Pentecostalism, I found many examples of not only adults being baptized, but many children as well. In the early Foursquare publication, The Bridal Call, whole families were often baptized together.[1] A family of three, for example, joined hands behind them right before descending together in the baptismal pool.[2] In one case a family of eleven was baptized together.[3] Another report records a time where “two little children descend(ed) into the water smiling”.[4] Oneness Pentecostals, too, often baptized “little folk” by immersion.[5] Though many testimonies do not reveal the age of the children baptized, a few do. In one case, a five-year-old girl was immersed.[6] Despite their age, children as young as “six years old were baptized” and even sought “the Holy Ghost as honestly as an older person.”[7] Thus, children were often baptized, but they were understood to be immersed as believers. According to Aimee Semple McPherson, “young as many of them are, they have all been born again.”[8]
Therefore, Pentecostal churches have baptized young children from the beginning, and the practice has continued into the present. In fact, as someone who grew up in a Charismatic/Pentecostal church, I can testify to the fact that I was baptized when I was just five years old.
So, the question that remains is this: what constructive theological possibilities might flow from this (Pentecostal) practice?
Gregory of Nazianzus on Baptism
Pentecostals are not the only Christians to prefer baptizing Christian children at a later age. Interestingly, the fourth-century Archbishop of Constantinople, Gregory of Nazianzus, also made a famous argument for baptizing young children. Make no mistake—Gregory was in favor of baptizing infants—but he states that, in his opinion, it might be better to wait until a child is a little older, around three years old:
I give my opinion to wait till the end of the third year, or a little more or less, when they may be able to listen and to answer something about the sacrament; that, even though they do not perfectly understand it, yet at any rate they may know the outlines; and then to sanctify them in soul and body with the great sacrament of consecration.[9]
Again, Gregory does not reject but actually encourages infant baptism. However, it is important to point out that despite this encouragement, it is not his preference. In other words, he does not see infant baptism as the standardizing practice.
Gregory’s defense of infant baptism is in the context of emergency situations. He says,
‘What have you to say about those who are still children and conscious neither of the (sin) nor of the grace?’ ‘Are we to baptize them too?’ Certainly, if any danger threatens. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated.[10]
According to Gregory, if an infant is close to death, they should be baptized. Why? Because (contrary to most Pentecostals) Gregory believed that if an infant is unbaptized and they die, they will not enter the kingdom, though neither would they receive punishment (in contrast to the Augustinian position whereby an unbaptized infant would receive punishment. I would reject both views in light 1 Corinthians 7.14, but that discussion is for another time).
But for those infants who are not in danger of dying (“in respect to others”), Gregory recommends that parents wait until the child is a little older. Why? Because Gregory gives weight to the confession of faith, even if it is a young, immature confession of faith.
Gregory and Pentecostals in Conversation
Both Pentecostals and Gregory recognize the significance of personal faith. This leads both Gregory and Pentecostals to prefer baptizing those who can make a profession of faith. Still, there is a difference. Gregory seems to have a better grasp on the fact that while young children can make a profession of faith, it is still very much an underdeveloped one. This should not worry us, though, because our confession of faith is not what saves us. God saves us and invites our confession. It takes just a small amount of faith, that of a mustard seed, in fact.
In my mind, baptizing a young child is a lot like getting married. The bride and groom have *some* understanding of what this ceremony means (and what it will mean for them in the future), but not a complete understanding. As the bride and groom begin to live out their marriage—just as a child lives out their baptism in the years to come—they will continue to come to a fuller understanding of what has been said about them, what claims have been made on their lives, etc.
Gregory, though, believes baptism is more (but not less) than a profession of faith, which I believe is something Pentecostals also can glean from him. Baptism, according to Gregory, enacts transformation into the likeness of Christ, purification of body and soul, enlightenment, gift of faith, grace, and anointing with the Spirit. Because Gregory believes God accomplishes things through baptism, Gregory is open to infant baptism. In other words, Gregory believes that God can work in us even when we are not conscious of it.
Pentecostals would do well to admit this. My friend Dan Tomberlin has rightly pointed out that Pentecostals implicitly believe this when it comes to our prayers. For instance, if a fellow believer passed out unconscious, we would still believe that God could work despite their inability to consciously exert faith. The person praying over the unconscious person, we might say, is supplying the faith for the situation. In the same way, then, the faith of the community supplies the faith when an infant is baptized and not actively exerting it themselves. (I am going to skirt past the issue of ‘infant faith’ for the sake of space).
Still, Gregory believes it is better for a young child to be somewhat conscious of what is happening in their own baptism. Pentecostals would typically agree. Here I think of Martin Luther’s famous statement, “Remember your baptism!”. If Gregory could, we might imagine him replying, “Yes. But how much more power might that statement have if one was able to actually remember their baptism?”
And this is where I want to make an experimental, constructive claim: Could Gregory’s view of baptizing young children provide a via media between infant baptism and believer’s baptism for Pentecostals?
In an odd way, baptizing a young child testifies both to (1) God’s grace, considering any confession of faith is at best, partial, and (2) personal faith, considering the young child can at least verbally comply.
Also, I wonder if this practice could help Pentecostals retain an emphasis on personal faith, while at the same time, providing a needed corrective to it by lifting up the necessity of the Holy Spirit’s work considering the subject’s obvious naivety and ignorance.
In lieu of developing this idea further, for now, I just want to submit it for further reflection. At the moment, I am a bit unsure of the proposal myself. Still, I wonder if dialogue with Gregory’s position might help open more fruitful conversations among Pentecostals on the subject of baptism. I also wonder if Christians from other Church traditions might consider the practice of baptizing young children in light of Gregory’s concerns? Further, how might this widespread practice in low church environments contribute to the ecumenical conversation surrounding the sacraments in general, and baptism in particular?
Notes:
[1] Bridal Call 6.9 (1923), 18.
[2] Bridal Call 7.1 (1923), 14.
[3] Bridal Call 7.1 (1923), 14.
[4] Bridal Call 7.1 (1923), 15.
[5] The Christian Outlook 8.5 (1930), 67.
[6] The Christian Outlook 8.5 (1930), 77.
[7] The Christian Outlook 8.5 (1930), 76.
[8] Bridal Call Foursquare 10.4 (1926), 32.
[9] Gregory, Oration 40.28.
[10] Gregory, Oration 40.24
Andrew Williams is the Lead Pastor at Family Worship Center in West York, PA. He hold a PhD in Theology at Bangor University. Andrew is the author of Washed in the Spirit: Toward a Pentecostal Theology of Water Baptism and Boundless Love: A Companion to Clark A. Pinnock’s Theology. He is a member of the St. Basil Fellowship of the Center for Pastor Theologians.
