.

the assumption of a false dichotomy, that all of humanity falls into one of two neat categories: they are either saved or reprobate. As a result child evangelism has taken the place of Christian nurture. Jeschke’s recommendation is that Anabaptists recover an understanding of the innocence of childhood.37 This does not avoid the difficulty of giving definition to the process of nurture but it does, in the face of revivalist assumptions, begin to put the discussion of the initiation of the children of Christians on the right field. It also gestures toward a way of understanding the life of the church that can take into account those with developmental or cognitive impediments. Space does not permit the development of an alternative to the notion of the age of accountability and the false dichotomy Jeschke names; nevertheless, it is definitely the case that we can question the assumption that children are objects of divine judgment in need of conversion. The baptism of children has been challenged before in Anabaptist circles, and my argument is that because of its theological incoherence it should continue to be critiqued. It should not be allowed to become normative, for in doing so I fear it would reshape Anabaptist theology in destructive ways.

      Locating the Problem in Denominational Theologies

In O’Connor’s presentation of baptism the passion of the central characters—the young boy, the sitter, and the preacher—is juxtaposed to a detached, empty cosmopolitanism represented by the boy’s parents and their friends. This aspect of the story calls into question the sentimentality and triumphalism inherent in many religious practices. A well-known anecdote about O’Connor makes her view clear. The story is told that once at a dinner party in which a writer-sophisticate proclaimed that the sacraments were still useful—as literary symbols—O’Connor is said to have bluntly responded: “Well, if it’s a symbol, to hell with it.”38 For O’Connor a sacrament implies much more than symbolism. Likewise, the central characters in her story are more than merely open to the possibility of God acting in their world. They expect it. If the Christian faith is to have any of the serious sort of impact to which baptism portends we should wonder how the life of the church could be characterized in any other way. Indeed, this question arises from the very history of Anabaptism itself. Arnold Snyder has stated that the closest analogue early Anabaptists had to the medieval eucharistic sacrament and its concept of the real presence of Jesus was the life of the church itself.39 Nevertheless, for many contemporary Anabaptists the rite of initiation does not participate in the divine nearness of sacramentality. To both support this claim and to explain more clearly how believers’ baptism is understood today it will be helpful to look to the way some Anabaptist denominations present their beliefs and practices.

The category is hard to define, but conservative estimates are that more than 1.6 million people participate in Anabaptist-affiliated congregations in the world. Only slightly more than 0.5 million of those reside in the United States and Canada.40 These congregations, though, make up more than fifty denominations or independently affiliated Anabaptist groups.41 They range from very acculturated denominations with high levels of education and professional training to culturally distinct groups who see little use for formal education. They include highly mobile individuals as well as those who have decided not to ride in airplanes or even drive cars.42 Giving a theologically significant and succinct description of the beliefs that these groups hold to be true about baptism is challenging. It is a job that threatens to slowly and laboriously swamp this project with detail. Rowing through extended quotations varying only slightly one from the other would tire even the most committed reader. Nevertheless, a sketch of how some prominent self-identifying Anabaptist groups describe the practice will provide helpful context for the discussion that follows. It will also advance the thesis of this project by displaying the theology of baptism and opening it for critique. I will describe key features of the current statements of five Anabaptist denominations: (1) The Conservative Mennonite Conference (Conservative Conference), which includes about 110 congregations in North America. The Conservative Conference is rooted in the Amish Mennonite expression of Anabaptism. With its denominational origins traceable to 1910, this group formed from congregations that sought a middle ground between more assimilated Amish Mennonites and the traditional and distinct Old Order Amish. (2) The Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren (Mennonite Brethren), which includes some 250 congregations in Canada. The Mennonite Brethren trace their origin to revival movements among Russian Mennonite settlements in the 1860s. Today the Mennonite Brethren describe themselves as both Anabaptist and Evangelical. (3) The Brethren in Christ of North America (Brethren in Christ), which includes about 295 congregations in both the United States and Canada. The Brethren in Christ count both Pietism and Wesleyanism as formative theological traditions alongside their older Anabaptist roots. The final two denominations under examination currently use the same confession of faith, the “Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective” (“Confession of Faith”), affirmed in 1995. These two denominations are (4) Mennonite Church USA, which includes roughly 940 congregations in the US, and (5) Mennonite Church Canada, which includes close to 230 congregations in Canada. These two denominations are the result of the recent merger of the General Conference Mennonite Church and the Mennonite Church and include some of the oldest Anabaptist conferences, groups of mutually accountable congregations, in North America.

The statements described below are the way in which these groups publicly articulate their beliefs in the form of a confession of faith or a doctrinal statement. These denominations have each taken a variety of steps in formulating these documents, which themselves hold differing levels of confessional and teaching authority within each denomination and its affiliated organizations. Formal statements of belief and practice are not new in the Anabaptist tradition even though the proper status of central Christian statements like the Apostles Creed and the Nicean Creed is debated.43 Classic statements such as the sixteenth-century Schleitheim Articles and the seventeenth-century Dordrecht Confession have served as gathering points for Anabaptists throughout history. In what follows I will first consider the doctrine of baptism and then provide a further description of the ways in which it is dogmatically related to the doctrines of God and the church.

Every denominational document surveyed here describes baptism in testimonial terms. Some denominations like the Conservative Conference list water baptism alongside communion, washing of feet, anointing the sick, laying on of hands, and marriage as “ceremonies and symbols of the Christian faith.”44 The specific language that the Conservative Conference uses to describe baptism depicts it as an “external symbol of internal spiritual baptism.” It symbolizes being buried with Christ and joined in his resurrection, being cleansed by God from sin and guilt. In addition, the Conservative Conference describes baptism as a “public confession of faith,” and it is linked to membership in a local congregation.

The testimonial understanding of baptism is also clearly evident in the Mennonite Brethren statement. It says, “We believe that when people receive God’s gift of salvation, they are to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Baptism is a sign of having been cleansed from sin. It is a covenant with the church to walk in the way of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.”45 The Mennonite Brethren statement also reads: “Baptism is a sign of the believer’s incorporation into the body of Christ as expressed in the local church. Baptism is also a pledge to serve Christ according to the gifts given to each person.” This shares the perspective of many early Anabaptists, which inverts Calvin’s view of how baptism functions as a pledge. For the Mennonite Brethren the one who makes a promise in baptism is not God but the individual. Of the denominations surveyed here, the Mennonite Brethren state most directly their belief that infant baptism is invalid, saying, “Persons who claim baptism as infants and wish to become members of a Mennonite Brethren congregation are to receive