# Now what? Newly unequally yoked?



## Devoted (May 22, 2022)

I've been staunchly paedo-baptist for 25 years. I grew up in credo churches, but when I was 15 and after my mother married a Reformed guy who introduced the paedo view to me, I studied it (even did a paper on it for 10th grade) and came to my current convictions. I met and married my husband in the OPC when I was 19. Fast forward 21 years and after having to leave our OPC congregation and attending a couple different credo-churches over the last couple years.... my husband told me last night that he thinks he's changing his mind on it.

All our kids have been baptized as infants. None of them had made a public profession of faith before leaving the OPC. So there would be some major implications for our parenting moving forward if he's now credo- and I'm still paedo-. I'm finding it hard not to be distressed over this. It's not my husband's convictions in general that bothers me but being disunited and wondering how on earth we teach our children from wildly differing understandings.

Reactions: Praying 1


----------



## Pergamum (May 22, 2022)

Be a good wife and don't nag or argue with him. Marriage in the West is in trouble; having a good husband who is a baptist is not a huge crisis. Don't make it one.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## ZackF (May 22, 2022)

Pergamum said:


> having a good husband who is a baptist is not a huge crisis.


You’re a baptist.

Reactions: Funny 5


----------



## Pergamum (May 22, 2022)

ZackF said:


> You’re a baptist.


As we all should be. 

But if I were a woman (and thank God I am not) I would follow my husband on secondary issues for the sake of peace and unity in the home. If a marriage is basically good and unified why make this an issue when most marriages in America either fail or are unhappy. Why search for reasons to be unhappy? Keep the peace and focus on the family.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Taylor (May 22, 2022)

As a convinced “paedobaptist,” I think Perg is right. That’s not to say this is going to be easy. It likely won’t, and it may be a source of stress, but you _must_ not allow this to be a source of strife or contention. Submit to your husband, yet also pray for and with him, and discuss these things with him earnestly and humbly. It might be distressing, but I agree with Perg, it doesn’t appear to me to be a crisis.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Pergamum (May 22, 2022)

p.s. About 3 times a year I consider switching over to Presbyterianism.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## ZackF (May 22, 2022)

Taylor said:


> As a convinced “paedobaptist,” I think Perg is right. That’s not to say this is going to be easy. It likely won’t, and it may be a source of stress, but you _must_ not allow this to be a source of strife or contention. Submit to your husband, yet also pray for and with him, and discuss these things with him earnestly and humbly. It might be distressing, but I agree with Perg, it doesn’t appear to me to be a crisis.


If one is out of child bearing years, that makes it easier.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 22, 2022)

Pergamum said:


> p.s. About 3 times a year I consider switching over to Presbyterianism.


Take off your coloured glasses first, then read your Bible


----------



## Pergamum (May 22, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Take off your coloured glasses first, then read your Bible


I will refuse simply because of your useless "U" added to the word "coloured" - write like an American!

Reactions: Funny 6


----------



## Eyedoc84 (May 22, 2022)

is your biggest concern teaching the children or that your husband will want to rebaptize them?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 22, 2022)

Pergamum said:


> write like an American!


I'm not an American mate

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (May 22, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I'm not an American mate


Your loss.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 22, 2022)

Pergamum said:


> Your loss.


Are you going to tell the tribal peoples you work with that it is their loss they are not Americans?


----------



## Pergamum (May 22, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Are you going to tell the tribal peoples you work with that it is their loss they are not Americans?


I tell them that there is no better knowledge than to know they are children of God. Of course when I pointed up to the moon at night and told them Americans landed on the moon a group of them just laughed and laughed at me and said I was joking to them. So I dropped it. The greatness of America is hard to believe, after all.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 22, 2022)

Pergamum said:


> I tell them that there is no better knowledge than to know they are children of God. Of course when I pointed up to the moon at night and told them Americans landed on the moon a group of them just laughed and laughed at me and said I was joking to them. So I dropped it. The greatness of America is hard to believe, after all.


But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. 1 Cor 15:9

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (May 22, 2022)

Pergamum said:


> p.s. About 3 times a year ,I consider switching over to Presbyterianism.


Grab a towel, dry off your theology, and come on over.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Miss Marple (May 22, 2022)

As a mom I'd be very much rejoicing that they got baptized. A mercy and an obedient sign of the covenant.

He knows your convictions and (used to?) share them. So I doubt any plea would have an impact.

I'd hold my convictions, be honest with the kids as to what they are, and not make a big deal about it in the family. Should a fifteen year old get rebaptized upon a profession of faith due to his dad's conviction that this is the way, I do not think God would hold you or the teenager accountable for any error. As far as I could know.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dhh712 (May 22, 2022)

Pergamum said:


> Be a good wife and don't nag or argue with him. Marriage in the West is in trouble; having a good husband who is a baptist is not a huge crisis. Don't make it one.


I agree. To me this is one of those many "gray areas" in Scripture. I feel that my Baptist brothers and sisters in Jesus do not have wildly different views regarding Baptism; different, yes. I think it would probably be quite a hurdle to overcome if you were going into a marriage with opposing views; I would think at least one person would have to have not so strong a conviction regarding this for there to be a compromise attained. In the present situation, perhaps you might consider instructing your children in both views. I feel there are strong arguments for both in God's revelation. And, I feel that in either view one is able to have a strong and close walk with Jesus which is ultimately the most important thing for your children to strive for.



Pergamum said:


> As we all should be.


Ah-hem. Now we can be tolerable of others--BUT! : )



Pergamum said:


> But if I were a woman (and thank God I am not) I would follow my husband on secondary issues for the sake of peace and unity in the home. If a marriage is basically good and unified why make this an issue when most marriages in America either fail or are unhappy. Why search for reasons to be unhappy? Keep the peace and focus on the family.


Yes, definitely agreed again. It's a secondary issue. Peace and unity in the home comes before the gray areas. Now--if a spouse were to talk about things like he or she now believes the Bible is not the inspired word of God and that there are errors in it... Okay--now we have a problem. But I would not borrow trouble. Especially as ZackF pointed out, if the OP is out of her child-bearing years the issue is much easier.

Eyedoc posed a good question though--if her husband wishes to have the children re-baptized, would this be an issue? At my present understanding I don't see that it would be. Before I became a member of the RPCna (the first church I joined when I was converted), there was a question if the baptism I received under Roman-Catholicism would be valid. It was decided to be accepted, but if not I would have had no issue being re-baptized.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 22, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> is your biggest concern teaching the children or that your husband will want to rebaptize them?


If he becomes a convinced credo then he will need to rebaptize the children as that would be part of them joining the church. In fact, unless you were already baptized as adults, everyone would need to be baptized.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 23, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> If he becomes a convinced credo then he will need to rebaptize the children as that would be part of them joining the church. In fact, unless you were already baptized as adults, everyone would need to be baptized.


@Devoted 

You need to take this one step at a time, not as if this has all in any sense been decided or that he is a "convinced credo."

All you said to us was that he said to you that "he thinks he's changing his mind." 

Here's how I suggest you proceed: 

 Ask him how has he come to this, given your previous commitments, and let him know that you've not come to this and do not share his convictions.
 Ask him if he'd be willing to talk with your former OP pastor or some other paedo-baptist pastor about this. 
 Make it clear that you've together presented your children for baptism in united belief; if he now thinks otherwise, it is he who is proposing changes; it is he who is "upsetting the apple cart."
 He does not have the right simply to require the children to do otherwise than they were taught: this needs to be carefully worked through (what if their convictions at age 15, say, at the time of a profession of faith, differ from his and they are convinced paedo-baptists?) This is not a matter of simple filial submission, involving as it does religious beliefs. 
In any case, even if he got rebaptized and the children as well (age for them is a big issue here), he could under no circumstances, none whatsoever, "require" you to be rebaptized. I hope that you (and everyone here) are clear about that. 
Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 7 | Love 1


----------



## Pergamum (May 23, 2022)

Alan D. Strange said:


> @Devoted
> 
> You need to take this one step at a time, not as if this has all in any sense been decided or that he is a "convinced credo."
> 
> ...


An elder saying that a father "does not have a right" is troubling. He is their father. The father has many rights that an elder does not have over the care and teaching of his own children. If the wife or elder tries to usurp or minimize the authority he has over his own children, only trouble will result.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 23, 2022)

Pergamum said:


> An elder saying that a father "does not have a right" is troubling. He is their father. The father has many rights that an elder does not have over the care and teaching of his own children.


No, it's not, brother, depending on the circumstances. No human authorities, I trust you agree, enjoy unqualified rights of submission from their proper subjects, especially when such an authority seeks to impose his rule contrary to the subject's biblically defensible beliefs.

Notice that I said "simply," which means, taken together with what I also said, that a father does not have the unqualified right to require submission in a religious matter in the case in which he's taught his son otherwise, has changed, but the son retains convictions with respect to the original teachings, especially in a matter like this in which good persons differ (it's not that the father is now a true Christian and seeks to teach this to his otherwise Hindi family--every circumstance may differ). 

We don't really know the facts on the ground or how this might unfold. I am unwilling simply to grant what you apparently are willing to grant: in any and all cases, regardless of the child's age and previous dual parental training, if the father changes his religious mind, which may not even actually be the case, all the children are bound to do so regardless of every other consideration. If that sounds extreme, that's the direction your counsel leads (you're the one arguing this way) and that is why I am trying to put the brakes on and indicate that the situation requires a more careful approach than that. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Anti-Babylon (May 23, 2022)

For perspective:

My sister-in-law is adjusting to my brother "losing his faith" into full-on Dawkins-style anti-theistic atheism.

There are worse situations out there, OP. Praying and go with God's blessing on you and your family.

Reactions: Praying 2 | Sad 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 23, 2022)

Anti-Babylon said:


> For perspective:
> 
> My sister-in-law is adjusting to my brother losing his faith into full-on Dawkins-style anti-theistic atheism.
> 
> There are worse situations out there, OP. Praying and go with God's blessing on you and your family.


Sorry to hear this.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Anti-Babylon (May 23, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Sorry to hear this.



Thank you, brother. I am going to edit my post and put quotes around the word "losing".

Reactions: Praying 1


----------



## Pergamum (May 23, 2022)

Alan D. Strange said:


> No, it's not, brother, depending on the circumstances. No human authorities, I trust you agree, enjoy unqualified rights of submission from their proper subjects, especially when such an authority seeks to impose his rule contrary to the subject's biblically defensible beliefs.
> 
> Notice that I said "simply," which means, taken together with what I also said, that a father does not have the unqualified right to require submission in a religious matter in the case in which he's taught his son otherwise, has changed, but the son retains convictions with respect to the original teachings, especially in a matter like this in which good persons differ (it's not that the father is now a true Christian and seeks to teach this to his otherwise Hindi family--every circumstance may differ).
> 
> ...


Yet he can sprinkle an unknowing infant without its permission and call him baptized from henceforth forward. But a father cannot begin to teach his children his new baptism belief? Very inconsistent. 

A father teaching his children is different than him requiring submission to that ordinance, for believer's baptism must be voluntary or else it is no baptism. But a father has a right to teach his children doctrine. He can also expect that the wife does not continually contradict his teaching when it concerns 2ndary Christian doctrines. The unity of the home is more important than one's baptismal position and the elders should not try to whittle away at a man's authority in his own home (which I often see done in churches).

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Anti-Babylon (May 23, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> If he becomes a convinced credo then he will need to rebaptize the children as that would be part of them joining the church. In fact, unless you were already baptized as adults, everyone would need to be baptized.



I know Pergamum already addressed this, but credo-baptists do not baptize our children. We wait until they can affirm saving faith by professing repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ [1689 LBCF 29] ( Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12; Acts 18:8 )

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 23, 2022)

Pergamum said:


> Yet he can sprinkle an unknowing infant without its permission and call him baptized from henceforth forward.


That's simply argumentative and non-responsive, brother, due to your own theological position. I get it, but it does not advance the discussion in any way. 

I certainly believe that the father, if he's really come to a baptistic conviction, which has never been clearly established, may teach his children accordingly. I've not addressed, and certainly do not question, such. I do think that he should talk with his wife about how best to do this, and to do so with great humility, in a way that does not overly confuse the children from their previous teaching.

Additionally, I appreciate the point that credo-baptists do not baptize until the subjects for such profess faith and seek baptism. Much of the previous talk of this thread, however, assumed an almost coercive role of the father in this regard and I appreciate the sane reminders of those who are our good Baptist brethren that young people would be baptized only upon their own personal desire, in this case, to be rebaptized.

Nothing that I have said should be interpreted to say that dad cannot share with and teach his family in accordance with baptistic convictions. Rather, my point has been that such does not then make the whole family bound to imbibe the convictions of husband and dad so that all must become baptists both in belief and practice. Any fair reader of the thread may admit that such has been herein intimated by some remarks and I wanted to make it clear that the situation is far more complex than "whatever religious convictions dad may come to plainly and simply bind the whole family. and that's that!"

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Anti-Babylon (May 23, 2022)

Alan D. Strange said:


> That's simply argumentative and non-responsive, brother, due to your own theological position. I get it, but it does not advance the discussion in any way.
> 
> I certainly believe that the father, if he's really come to a baptistic conviction, which has never been clearly established, may teach his children accordingly. I've not addressed, and certainly do not question, such. I do think that he should talk with his wife about how best to do this, and to do so with great humility, in a way that does not overly confuse the children from their previous teaching.
> 
> ...



But dad is the head of the house and even if disagreed with, must be brought under submission to his view as long as it is Biblical, yes?

You said:


Alan D. Strange said:


> Ask him how has he come to this, given your previous commitments, and let him know that you've not come to this and do not share his convictions.
> Ask him if he'd be willing to talk with your former OP pastor or some other paedo-baptist pastor about this.
> Make it clear that you've together presented your children for baptism in united belief; if he now thinks otherwise, it is he who is proposing changes; it is he who is "upsetting the apple cart."
> He does not have the right simply to require the children to do otherwise than they were taught: this needs to be carefully worked through (what if their convictions at age 15, say, at the time of a profession of faith, differ from his and they are convinced paedo-baptists?) This is not a matter of simple filial submission, involving as it does religious beliefs.
> In any case, even if he got rebaptized and the children as well (age for them is a big issue here), he could under no circumstances, none whatsoever, "require" you to be rebaptized. I hope that you (and everyone here) are clear about that.



There are no issues with 1-2 as I see it.

3 seems superfluous. True but largely irrelevant in terms of headship.

4 is where I believe the issue lies. By definition of credo-baptism, he cannot "require the children" otherwise he is in fact NOT credo. Carefully working through convictions is mandatory and the process can vary from church to church but always involves strict Scriptural adherence.

When you say "This is not a matter of simple famial submission" is where there seems to be a big question of what you mean and why. If Christ is the head of every man and in so being, every man is the head of the wife (1 Cor. 11:3) then what is your Scriptural basis for rebelling if he lays out a case for believers' baptism for his children?

That does indeed seem as if you are advocating the advice of an elder over and against the (heretofore hypothetical) desires of the God-ordained head. If I am wrong, I am wide open to see where I am misinterpreting you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 23, 2022)

I think the key word in this is "require". A father should not "require" a son or daughter to be rebaptized against his or her conscience. A father does not have lawful authority to do such.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 23, 2022)

Hello Kristin @Devoted ,

As passionately paedo as I am, the true yoke you wear with your husband is heart allegiance and love to Christ, not the issue of credo vs. paedo – significant as that is. You are still a daughter of Abraham, whose chaste deportment is "the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price" (1 Pet 3:4 ff). Let your husband see this precious jewel of your heart in love and respect to him, and to your God.

If your husband is still fervent and sincere in his walk with Christ – I seem to recall in another thread, there may be some concern here – you still are unified in caring for the spiritual state of your children, and baptism ought not be a large issue in their ongoing desired-by-you conversion. Please don't make it one. Have you told your husband – meekly and sweetly – that while you respect his choices you nonetheless hold to the faith you've had for decades in that matter. And drop the subject, and perhaps, changing the subject, ask him if he would join with you in praying for their salvation periodically.

I'll remember you in prayer in this. Keep calm and let the Lord's peace be in your heart in all this. Your Sovereign sees it all, and is with you, and loves you. Your joyous demeanor in the trials of life may shine a clear light in your husband's heart, and be a strong testimony of the truth you abide in.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (May 23, 2022)

Anti-Babylon said:


> But dad is the head of the house and even if disagreed with, must be brought under submission to his view as long as it is Biblical, yes?
> 
> You said:
> 
> ...


Yes, 4 is were I also took issue.


----------



## Pergamum (May 23, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I think the key word in this is "require". A father should not "require" a son or daughter to be rebaptized against his or her conscience. A father does not have lawful authority to do such.


That is precisely what every infant baptism is....The father requires it upon an unknowing and thus unwilling participant. If there is any coercion, it is in the paedo position. A father teaching the family and even expecting the wife to go along and not contradict him is less coercive than sprinkling a baby without its permission.

I think this issue comes down more to the authority of a man over his home more than it does the doctrine of baptism. I have seen too many church examples of women getting the elders into their family affairs to act as the "heavies" to bring the husband into line.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Devoted (May 23, 2022)

Thank you to all who have responded graciously and stayed on topic.

I guess I wasn't clear with my last sentence. _It is not the fact that he is changing in his personal convictions that is the issue_. As I have tried to express my own personal difficulty in attending a credo church where our children are not considered legitimately baptized (nor I, for that matter, having been sprinkled as a teen and not immersed) and have made cases for the paedo position, when he seemed to get defensive, I immediately backed off and said that I was sorry if it came off like I was attacking his views because I didn't realize he may be coming to a different understanding and I did not mean to debate theology with him. I certainly respect all my brothers and sisters in the Lord who are convinced of credo and can make a Biblical defense.

The issue is that for the last 15 years (my kids are ages 6-15) we have been teaching our children about the rightness of infant baptism through their own baptisms, others' in the OPC church, catechisms, discussions of how these other churches differ from us after baptism-topic sermons, discussions about church history in our homeschool time, the meaning of the covenants in Scripture, family devotions time, etc. But honestly I do take a much more active role in these conversations as the homeschool teacher-mom and because my husband is more comfortable with my doing most of the reading out loud around the table. So I cannot honestly now teach them that WE were wrong all along because I do not believe we were wrong all along. The best I can do is say, what, "Daddy now thinks this other way is right"? I guess? 
"But what do YOU think, Mommy?" The LAST thing I want is to have any kind of division amongst our children about who's on Mom's side and who's on Dad's side. But no, I cannot any more say that I think my husband is right than if he went on to an Arminian view of salvation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 23, 2022)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, 4 is were I also took issue.


Perg, 

Do you still take issue with #4, even as I qualified it in dialog with you, agreeing that the father in such a case can certainly teach what he believes (his new view of baptism) to his family?

Here is #4 again:

*He does not have the right simply to require the children to do otherwise than they were taught: this needs to be carefully worked through (what if their convictions at age 15, say, at the time of a profession of faith, differ from his and they are convinced paedo-baptists?) This is not a matter of simple filial submission, involving as it does religious beliefs.*

I maintain that something other than just dad's beliefs are in view in this sort of case (of changed/changing beliefs). His beliefs do not automatically become those of everyone in the household regardless. This all needs to be worked through carefully, as I've suggested. 

So when you say...



Pergamum said:


> I think this issue comes down more to the authority of a man over his home more than it does the doctrine of baptism.


I agree. This is not about baptism narrowly (though it is about changing theology within a certain spectrum of views). 

Dad is not an autonomous actor here (or anywhere), shielded from other proper actors in their equally valid roles. Do you mean to suggest, as you appear to, that father is unaccountable in his religious beliefs and whatever he may come to (within the realm of reasonability), he may teach and his family must imbibe, regardless of what the church of which they are a part might say. Never mind for now the former Presbyterian connection, do you really mean to imply that Dad, now among the Baptists, can teach and act as he pleases, his family must submit, and he is not accountable to his brethren in the Lord (Hebrews 13: 7, 17) for such? 

You seem to hold, by several things you say, that a man is perfectly free to believe and teach what he wills to his family, that they must simply receive it, and that the church has no say in the matter. Another commenter herein has mentioned the father's God-ordained authority. Well, dad is not the only one that has God-ordained authority, and others who do, in other spheres, cannot simply be dismissed as no part of the equation. 

I am truly grateful that I, as one who holds the teaching office in the church, as well as being a husband and father, am not autonomous in any of those offices and am answerable to the church for how I conduct my office as husband and father, not in a way that impinges on and denies my God-ordained authority as husband and parent, but keeps me accountable beyond my family, to my session and my presbytery. 

That such has been abused before--that ministers and elders have ridden roughshod over husbands/fathers--no more delegitimizes a proper use of authority here than it does elsewhere. Fathers and husbands have abused their authority but such does not invalidate their authority. Similarly,_ abusus non tollit usum_ (the abuse of power does not mean it has no proper use) is also the case with ecclesiastical authority: its misuse does not mean that it has no proper use, here as elsewhere. Do ruling and/or teaching elders sometimes need to bring folk, including dad, into line? Yes, and I hope that they begin with me!
,
Peace,
Alan


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 23, 2022)

Devoted said:


> So I cannot honestly now teach them that WE were wrong all along because I do not believe we were wrong all along. The best I can do is say, what, "Daddy now thinks this other way is right"? I guess?
> "But what do YOU think, Mommy?" The LAST thing I want is to have any kind of division amongst our children about who's on Mom's side and who's on Dad's side. But no, I cannot any more say that I think my husband is right than if he went on to an Arminian view of salvation.


Kristin,

Thanks for this.

Let me ask you, if I may, what explicitly do you understand your husband to be requiring of you? Is he asking you to teach the children differently than you've been teaching them?

I understand now that he's uncomfortable with your expressing opposition to a baptistic position, or vigorous paedo-baptism rhetoric on your part. Is that pretty much it, or is he requiring you to do something more than desist from disagreeing with him?

I understand that you are dismayed that he has or may be coming to a different position on this. What precisely is he requiring differently of you and the children? 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Pergamum (May 23, 2022)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Perg,
> 
> Do you still take issue with #4, even as I qualified it in dialog with you, agreeing that the father in such a case can certainly teach what he believes (his new view of baptism) to his family?
> 
> ...


Your clarifications have made me feel better about Point 4.

However, let us note that a father cannot cause anyone to believe as he does. Nobody can. Belief is personal and, as much as I would like to, I cannot make my children believe anything. But we CAN and SHOULD teach them what we believe to be the truth. 

He can require that the teaching in his home come from the WCF or the 1689 and refuse to allow teaching from what he deems heretical or mistaken sources. He does not overstep his authority in these things. So if he decides his home is to be taught credobaptism and the wife does not go along, then the elders should not take the wife's side just because they are paedobaptist. 

Perhaps a meeting with him alone and without the wife would allow the elders to address the theological issue while still respecting his role as head of his home. 

Parents pass their beliefs onto their kids all the time... even atheist parents. 

While dad is not the only authority, he is the MAIN authority of his home and elders should make sure they know this. He does not need your permission to teach his own children. Most self-respecting men will not be bullied by a strange man siding with his wife on an issue and he will probably take the family and leave for another congregation if you push. What then? Discipline him for leaving?


----------



## Anti-Babylon (May 23, 2022)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Another commenter herein has mentioned the father's God-ordained authority.



Hi, my name is Brad. Nice to meet you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 23, 2022)

Pergamum said:


> He can require that the teaching in his home come from the WCF or the 1689 and refuse to allow teaching from what he deems heretical or mistaken sources. He does not overstep his authority in these things. So if he decides his home is to be taught credobaptism and the wife does not go along, then the elders should not take the wife's side just because they are paedobaptist.



Perg, 

Two things: 

First, as to domestic autonomy, we apparently have incompatible theological and ecclesiological beliefs here. I believe in true mutual accountability while respecting proper jurisdictional boundaries. I don't believe that the differing institutions God has created are sealed off from each other so that the father has no real accountability if he rejects it (certainly in this kind of situation) and thus may rightly in all things simply bind his family. You believe in the functional autonomy of the home: that is what you've described here. I don't believe in the proper autonomy of anyone or anything! We are all answerable to God and to God-ordained authority. Perhaps we'll take this up again on another day!

Second, now that Kristin has further responded, the facts on the ground appear to be different than what you describe in the quote above. This is not a man teaching his family in the way that you describe and, in any case, it does make a difference (though you seem not to admit it) that a man who has for years embraced and/or allowed a particular teaching (paedo-baptism) comes now (perhaps) to differ with it. Everyone must simply fall in line with Dad's new thinking? Really? Such an approach is potentially unstable and arbitrary (maybe threatening to the weak, especially) and perhaps even, depending on how executed, despotic. I am not saying that the man can't teach as he believes now, that his authority is out the window, etc. I am saying that it's a little more complicated than "whatever dad wants he gets." That's not how I understand any proper biblical authority under God. 

Peace,
Alan

@Anti-Babylon 

P.S. Brad, hello to you as well, brother! I am guessing that you just did that because you were the one who had mentioned the father's God-ordained authority, right? It's hard to keep track of all commenters, especially when doing other things (I won't bore you with all I am doing just now!). Sorry! Certainly, no offense intended!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (May 23, 2022)

Devoted said:


> I've been staunchly paedo-baptist for 25 years. I grew up in credo churches, but when I was 15 and after my mother married a Reformed guy who introduced the paedo view to me, I studied it (even did a paper on it for 10th grade) and came to my current convictions. I met and married my husband in the OPC when I was 19. Fast forward 21 years and after having to leave our OPC congregation and attending a couple different credo-churches over the last couple years.... my husband told me last night that he thinks he's changing his mind on it.
> 
> All our kids have been baptized as infants. None of them had made a public profession of faith before leaving the OPC. So there would be some major implications for our parenting moving forward if he's now credo- and I'm still paedo-. I'm finding it hard not to be distressed over this. It's not my husband's convictions in general that bothers me but being disunited and wondering how on earth we teach our children from wildly differing understandings.


I think it's normal and natural for you to be distressed, also taking into account the difficulties you've expressed with husband's past lack of spiritual leadership. It is distressing. You'll have to resign yourself to some level of distress, but you are really going to have to get real with yourself about your own trust in and devotion to the Lord, and how that works itself out in your relationships in the home and at church. Many Christian women have and still do find themselves in grievous circumstances with a husband who is either not a Christian, or who professes to be one but evidences no love for Christ, and no firmness of convictions. You will have to cast yourself on the Lord and not borrow trouble from tomorrow, in keeping with our Lord's command. (Strive to do this.) These kinds of things are where the rubber meets the road. We can be unhappy and sorrowful when life takes turns like these that affect us in the deepest parts of our hearts and souls. Learn to sing the Psalms. Keep the Sabbath day holy and rejoice in it! Love your husband and children, and devote yourself to those things the word of God instructs you to devote yourself to. Trust the Lord for the future and to take care of your children's spiritual and physical welfare through all these changing scenes. 
Will sure pray for your situation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (May 23, 2022)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Perg,
> 
> Two things:
> 
> ...


Yes, I am glad that Kristin responded. The situation does not look severe. She sounds like she is handling it well. 

As to authority structures, don't misrepresent my position. I believe in sphere sovereignty. But the father is the head of his home, not the elders.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 23, 2022)

Pergamum said:


> But the father is the head of his home, not the elders.


I agree that the husband is the head of his wife and that parents govern their children. That is explicitly biblical. Head of household is the language of the Bureau of the Census and not the Bible. It's the home of a husband and wife. The wife is to be in submission to the husband and children to them both (5th commandment).

As members of the church, however, all of us, all office-bearers included, are accountable for how we live the whole of our lives, including for how I as a husband properly lead my wife and how we together manage the household. This does not make the teaching and ruling elders directly over households: quite right. Any more than that they head my business, though they do have a right to know how I conduct my business as a Christian. The spheres are not laws unto themselves (they are not autonomous) and they are mutually accountable.

Kristin's husband is accountable to the OPC if his membership is still there or to the independent church if that's where his membership is now. And given all that Kristin has said, such a church, whether Presbyterian or Baptist, should encourage him, as I am seeking to do (and that's all!) to go about any change of mind here, and what's been taught for years, very carefully and thoughtfully. A man of God should be able both to take that from his local elders and to want, seek, and encourage it. That's not a denial of his proper masculinity but a sign of security in it. A man who knows how properly to wield authority knows properly how to take it as well. One is not fit to govern who can't be governed. No autonomy anywhere. That's Scripture, plainly and simply.

Does it all need to be handled wisely, with humility, with care? Absolutely, I Peter 5: Elders must never "lord it over" those under their care. But they are to shepherd, guard, and guide, and this is not meaningless. I can sympathize with you in suffering ham-handed or undue church authority. The remedy, however, is not to reject church authority. You'll like this, Perg: I think that no small part of the remedy to local abuse, especially, is a connected church order that allows appeal beyond the local congregation that is not merely voluntary but binding on the church governors there. Another, though related, issue for another day!

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## dhh712 (May 23, 2022)

Anti-Babylon said:


> For perspective:
> 
> My sister-in-law is adjusting to my brother "losing his faith" into full-on Dawkins-style anti-theistic atheism.
> 
> There are worse situations out there, OP. Praying and go with God's blessing on you and your family.


Oh, Brad I am so sorry to hear. Your poor sister-in-law; I can't even imagine. The deceptions of Satan are so strong out there; I will pray for your brother to return to the Lord and the only true and lasting hope in life. It is a very sad, sad thing when our brothers and sisters in Jesus--and especially a blood relative that is also our family in God--leave the flock and believe that the world offers them something better than what God does : (

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (May 23, 2022)

Alan D. Strange said:


> I agree that the husband is the head of his wife and that parents govern their children. That is explicitly biblical. Head of household is the language of the Bureau of the Census and not the Bible. It's the home of a husband and wife. The wife is to be in submission to the husband and children to them both (5th commandment).
> 
> As members of the church, however, all of us, all office-bearers included, are accountable for how we live the whole of our lives, including for how I as a husband properly lead my wife and how we together manage the household. This does not make the teaching and ruling elders directly over households: quite right. Any more than that they head my business, though they do have a right to know how I conduct my business as a Christian. The spheres are not laws unto themselves (they are not autonomous) and they are mutually accountable.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the clarification. I can take that. Thanks for explaining this in-depth and in a winsome way. I appreciate you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CathH (May 23, 2022)

Devoted said:


> The issue is that for the last 15 years (my kids are ages 6-15) we have been teaching our children about the rightness of infant baptism through their own baptisms, others' in the OPC church, catechisms, discussions of how these other churches differ from us after baptism-topic sermons, discussions about church history in our homeschool time, the meaning of the covenants in Scripture, family devotions time, etc. But honestly I do take a much more active role in these conversations as the homeschool teacher-mom and because my husband is more comfortable with my doing most of the reading out loud around the table. So I cannot honestly now teach them that WE were wrong all along because I do not believe we were wrong all along. The best I can do is say, what, "Daddy now thinks this other way is right"? I guess?
> "But what do YOU think, Mommy?" The LAST thing I want is to have any kind of division amongst our children about who's on Mom's side and who's on Dad's side. But no, I cannot any more say that I think my husband is right than if he went on to an Arminian view of salvation.


Dear Kristin,

This is a tricky situation and I feel for you. This level of difference of opinion, on an issue that involves the kids, is a big thing to have to come to terms with. 

It is usually a good principle to be open with the children about the two different points of view, but this doesn't need to be done in a way that makes it sound like they have to pick sides between their mum and dad. It sounds like they are already aware that different groups of Christians take different views on baptism, so they will already know (a) that salvation is not at stake here and (b) those who differ are still to be respected as brothers and sisters in Christ. It would be your husband's responsibility to explain to them how/why he came to change his views - the most you would need to do (for the sake of your own conscience and convictions) is state that the difference now exists. That can be done peaceably and respectfully, and you don't need to be defensive or feel you have to apologise that your own views haven't changed.

It is difficult but not impossible to bring up children when you and your husband have different views about their status. It would be a reason for thankfulness that the children have already been baptised, so the sign and seal of the covenant that is rightly theirs is already in their possession and can't be taken away from them. At the end of the day, whatever our views of baptism, as parents we can only look to the Lord to save our children's souls.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Anti-Babylon (May 24, 2022)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Perg,
> 
> Two things:
> 
> ...


Is this part of what you were working on? Awesome news, and congratulations!

Facebook just notified me of this event and I saw a name pop up there that was very familiar to me ....


----------

