Now what? Newly unequally yoked?

[Jerusalem Blade]

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.

 

[Pergamum]

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:


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.

Yes, 4 is were I also took issue.

 

[Pergamum]

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.

 

[Devoted]

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.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

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...

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]

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]

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...


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

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?

 

[No Other Name]

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

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

 

[Alan D. Strange]

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!

 

[Jeri Tanner]

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.

 

[Pergamum]

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!

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.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

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

 

[dhh712]

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 : (

 

[Pergamum]

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

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

 

[CathH]

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.

 

[No Other Name]

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!

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 ....