I can attest as a southern baptist pastor in rural georgia that this is a problem. I have three thoughts.

1. As baptist we have to hold tight to believers baptism and stand firmly but compassionately opposed to infant baptism. People have a lot of emotion tied up in their infant baptism and they see rejecting it as rejecting their parents i.e.

2. As baptist we have to be educated enough to know the difference in what methodist, presbys, anglicans teach regarding infant baptism versus say RC’s. It is a nuanced position but a very important one.

3. I know that recently we were finally putting our church rules down on paper, and I suggested that no one under the age of 12 be allowed to vote on church matters and some folks went crazy. I guess they really think that a six year old even though truly converted has as much knowledge and wisdom on affairs of the church as older members. I’ve seen folks drag all their kids in to vote out pastors and some of them were as young as 8 or so. Not healthy.

4. As a pastor I feel comfortable accepting any baptism that was done with a Trinitarian formula, by immersion, of a proffessing believer. I do know folks who will not accept General Baptist or Free will baptist baptisms a valid. That is just bizarre.

5. I’v always felt secure in welcoming all to the Lord’s Table who are professing Christians. I’ve never quiet been a closed or close communist. I get the argument but I just don’t see how we can have a higher standard for local churhc membership than the Lord does to His table. It is a His table after all.

Regards,
A

Piper’s elders have not passed the compromise, and there is considerable opposition to it in his church and elsewhere on many of the grounds you are pointing to.

Baptists take conscience very seriously. The compromise allows a person SOME form of membership without violating their conscience. The compromise explicitly said that elders must affirm the church’s entire confession of faith. So it does create two kinds of members.

Piper has defended the compromise in sermons and documents at DGM. Many Baptists at the BHT oppose it for reasons similar to yours.

Piper says he’d like John Stott to be able to be a member of his church if he was spending a year in MN. He suggests we need to find ways to correlate the requirements for entering the Kingdom and the requirements for being part of a local congregatiom.

I have thought about the “Piper Compromise” over the last couple of days. I am not familiar with Piper’s theology, so I don’t know exactly how he views infant baptism. However, the compromise leads me to a couple questions. If infant Baptism is not viewed as a real baptism, at least in a Baptist context, wouldn’t it be tantamount to letting/encouraging those who were baptized as infants (to) avoid(real) baptism altogether?What are the Scriptural and pastoral implications of that?
In Piper’s church, how does he avoid setting up two distinct classes of Christians? An “in”crowd with full privileges, and a second class group not allowed to participate in a large part of the church’s ministry. What does this say about infant baptism? I laud his attempt at bridging this chasm, and to be a peacemaker between the two theologies. I don’t know if it is workable.
I am not trying to stir the pot or or enter into a theological wrestling match. Maybe the best answer is to let Baptists be Baptist, and Lutherans be Lutheran, and to preach our perspective doctrines on baptism with full conviction and clarity, and to make those hard pastoral decisions, letting the chips fall where they may.(While remaining amicable and non combative.) A pastor friend of mine says “Honest men disagree honestly.”

Richard,
Many pastors in the LCMS practice what is called ‘close’ communion. It is neither fully open nor fully closed, but an attempt at a pastorally responsible middle way. If someone who is unknown to the Pastor shows up at the communion rail, or approaches him before service desiring communion, they will be asked three questions:

Are you baptized?

Do you believe that Jesus died for your
sins?

Do you believe that this (communion) is the
body and blood of Jesus?

An affirmative answer to these questions will get you communed. This is controversial among our hyper confessional brethren, because there is not an exhaustive doctrinal agreement or church membership hoop to jump through. I know lots of pastors who practice close communion and I think it is a far better practice than the other two options.

One could write endlessly on the relationship between the LCMS and ELCA. The short form is that neither’s peculiarities should be taken as normative for what constitutes “Lutheran”. Some, though not all, in the LCMS would disagree. This is not my problem.

That being said, the analogy to baptism doctrine is a good one. I personally favor the more restrictive “real presence” language (which is not to say that anyone be quizzed at the communion rail). I would not take communion at a Baptist church because it simply isn’t the same thing. So I understand the Baptist point here. This raises other issues. Luther called baptism “the sacrament through which we became members of the Christian communion.” If a Lutheran baptism is no baptism at all, then it follows that those who have undergone only infant baptism are not in fact members of the Christian communion. I, obviously, disagree. But I concede that there is a logical basis here for rebaptism.

As for the other sort of rebaptism, call me naive but my reaction is utter astonishment. Wow. Just wow.

I don’t know how good the Easter Vigil type renewal would be, if the problem is “We belonged to (or I was brought up as a member of) Church A, but when we/I later started attending Church B, they wanted us to be re-baptised”, but I think maybe something along the lines of the renewal of the baptismal promises couldn’t hurt.

Of course, I can perfectly see how that might be construed as creeping Papistry trying to take over by stealth, but I am curious as to whether there ever have been any moves in that direction, or what would happen if something along those lines was discussed as a possible maybe hypothetical thing to consider?

Could somebody explain to me the difference between that and “Bait and Switch”?

Not quite how we think of it. There was no switch. Just not saying things mattered that really did. (To them.) And they don’t really tell you how much they mattered until you agree with the issue or issues. Kind of like a secret handshake that you don’t know exists until you start doing it. Then you find it opens a door you didn’t know existed.

And if this sounds way over the top don’t read too much into my description. Nothing overt like secret rooms or such. Just that there are lots of issues woven into the teaching and small group leaders that when you ask about them are told “we’re open on that topic” but no one “open” is allowed to teach. Which means your kids get indoctrinated with absolutes that you thought were open ambiguities.

I’ll stop now. I could go on but this discussion is about rebaptism, not the broader issue of legalism.

“Renewal of Baptismal Vows” — you mean like we Catholics go through at every Easter Vigil Mass?

(I’m not sure whether that’s specifically at Easter Vigil or a generic part of all Catholic baptismal liturgies; I keep remembering going through it every Easter.)

An Anglican priest and a Baptist pastor are discussing the relative merits of baptism.

“You mean to tell me”, said the priest, “that if I go in all the way up to my knees, it doesn’t count.”

“Yes”, replied the Baptist pastor, “that is not a valid baptism so it doesn’t count.”

“What about if I go all the way up to my waist?” asked the priest. “Surely that would count?”

“No”, replied the pastor, “that certainly would not count.”

“My chest?”

“No.”

“My throat?”

“No.”

“What about my forehead?” said the priest. “Surely if I go in all the way up to my forehead, it would be a valid baptism?”

“No”, said the Baptist pastor, “that would not be a valid baptism.”

“Aha!” said the priest. “I was right all along”.

“What do you mean?” asked the Pastor.

“You practically said it yourself”, replied the Anglican priest. “Its only the top of the head that matters!!!”

(another picture of Christ), yet baptisms are handed out without a second thought.
At least with marriage (yet another picture) we usually require some form of counseling. Where do we draw the line between helping someone to be faithful to the cross and fearing we’ll allow that same cross to be spit upon?

PS-Your faith as a 9-year old is to be commended. Most of the children I know now who “walk an aisle” or “pray a prayer” would never be hurt by such actions.