I started to post a longish comment in reply to a comment by konastephen. It got too long for the comment section, and I really didn’t manage to stick to the subject. Oh, well.
konastephen,
Yes, “age of reason” is intensely Greek — as though we are saved by our reason. “Age of accountability” is closer to right — but the Jewish Bible speaks of being old enough to know good and evil, alluding to the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden (future post coming on that). Hence, we become accountable when we have the same awareness of God’s will that Adam and Eve had after they ate the fruit of the tree. The test is not of reason but of knowledge of God’s will.
But then, the Jews didn’t consider someone to have met that standard until age 20, which bothers most moderns, the Catholic Church going with age 7 or 12 more or less and most Arminian Protestant churches going with age 12 more or less. 20 seems too old because we all know that many of us were baptized much younger and the baptism seems to have taken. And we felt accountable during our teen years. In fact, many of us had highly refined senses of right and wrong due to excellent parental and congregational training.
But at what age does a child not raised in a Christian home or congregation become accountable for his sins? When does God expect him to rise above his roots? Put the question that way, and it’s a lot harder to answer. Paul argues in Romans 1 and 2 that a non-Christian can be held accountable for the Law based on God’s revelation through our own moral natures and through nature. Does God hold a non-Christian 12-year old to the standard of natural law, expecting such a one to discover God’s will in his own moral nature and in the creation? There aren’t many 12-year old kids who’ve read C. S. Lewis or Romans or who are capable of finding God on their own.
In fact, the human brain doesn’t become fully mature until around age 16 in terms of IQ, but it takes even longer for the brain to be capable of the judgment typical of an adult. Before 16 or so, most kids aren’t good at abstract thought — they may be able to learn abstractions from others but struggle to think abstractly for themselves — and even after age 16, many kids still struggle to think like an adult. If you doubt me, go teach the teenage class at church for a quarter. http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/09/the-teen-brain.html http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/teenage-brain1.htm
It might help to separate the questions of “when does one become accountable?” from “when is someone old enough to be baptized?” You may well be old enough to have faith and penitence and not yet be accountable. At least, we can’t just assume those are the very same things. They plainly aren’t.
I guess it would bother many to imagine someone being saved when he’s not yet been charged with sin — say, at age 11. But salvation is much more than forgiveness — and it includes forgiveness of future sins as well. The conditions for salvation are things like faith and penitence, not being in a damned state.
And I think we’ve seen many examples of children who came to faith and baptism quite young and whose salvation seems entirely real. Indeed, many of the most respected leaders in the church were baptized very young. But I’m not persuaded that that necessarily means they knew good from evil.
You see, all this has to take into account the sinful nature of small children. Even kids well below age 7 are fully capable of lying and violence — and they don’t need a bad parental example for this to be true. I’m the father of four boys — and they were fully capable of sin quite young.
But they had no knowledge of God’s will and no capacity for faith in Jesus. Now, because they grew up in a Christian home, they were taught very early that God wants them to obey their parents and not hit their brothers, and yet even while in diapers, they sometimes disobeyed and sometimes smacked their brothers with a Tonka truck.
There was no magic age when they suddenly became accountable. As far as being accountable to me, they were accountable as soon as they were old enough to discipline — which was quite young. Now, it was later before they had any notion that God’s approval might matter, too, but it was still well before age 7.
Now, my kids didn’t understand their faith at age 7 or 12 as well as they came to understand it at 18, and there was no instant “Aha!” moment when they went from ignorance to understanding.
And so we talked to them about Jesus and about the meaning of baptism, faith, and commitment and let them make their own decisions as to when they were ready — which is what most parents do. But I don’t think they became accountable the day they decided to be baptized or the day they had some understanding of its meaning. It just doesn’t work like that.
We therefore have this problem. Clearly an infant is incapable of sin and of faith, and clearly an adult is capable of both. There must be a transition. Even if you believe in infant baptism, all you’ve done is avoid the problem for your own kids. What about the kids down the road? At what age do they become accountable if they grow up apart from Christ?
The only real alternative point of view seems to be to treat children as damned from birth, and not many traditions do that any more. Even the Catholic Church now refuses to consider original sin as damning until the child reaches the “age of reason,” which is about age 7.
And this means that most traditions have to deal with the age of accountability one way or another. I would just suggest that it’s not necessarily the case that the age of knowledge of good and evil is the same as the age when a child can have a saving faith. Therefore, it’s at least possible that a child can be saved before ever being damned.
Now, suggesting the possibility does not prove the case, but it offers an alternative approach that I think merits some reflection. I think there are more assumptions built into our understanding that need re-consideration as well, but I suggest a good place to start is to consider whether a child must be damned before coming to saving faith.
It’s just always bothered me that we’ve assumed that we can’t allow our children to be baptized until we’ve decided that they’re damned in their sins, that is, accountable. I never have like the idea of being forced to wait until I’m sure my child is lost before permitting a baptism.
And, of course, for a child who is slow to make the decision, the parents will be in agony each day after age 12, knowing their son or daughter is accountable and not saved. That’s a difficult teaching, and it’s resulted in countless baptisms that were actually premature. These are often the kids who feel the need to be rebaptized later on.
If those children are right to consider their first baptisms ineffective, then their parents and Bible class teachers and youth ministers accomplished nothing by encouraging a premature baptism. And this creates all the more uncertainty as we worry about the salvation of our children.
It’s easy to see why parents often push for infant baptism, just to not have to worry! The traditional age of accountability doctrine is replete with uncertainty and pastoral problems.
Jay, I found this very timely and tied in with many of my recent thoughts. I was particularly interested in finding and reading your thoughts about the parents who push their children to salvation before the child/adolescent, etc feels the urgency. I've recently been relating my personal spiritual journey to some new friends and realized once again that my Dad (who had the best of intentions) really did me a great disservice when he literally pushed me down the aisle at age 10. I had a better intellectual understanding of the Bible than most at that age; however, the only urgency I felt was to get my Dad off my back so I could live my life. I relented, did all the "necessary" things as dictated by my Baptist upbringing, and proceeded to live the next 13 years of my life without once doubting my salvation. However, through the campus ministry at University Church, I really began to re-examine that age 10 experience and realized that it could not possibly have been a genuine salvation experience. I began to think, pray, study, discuss, debate, etc about the Bible, salvation, and especially, "what must I do to be saved?" Clearly, the Holy Spirit was working on me. I became fully aware of my "lost" state; however, while I had concluded that my age 10 experience was indeed not a salvation experience, I continued to cling to the Baptist teaching of "once saved, always saved," which for some time kept me from recognizing that I had never truly accepted Christ. Well…as I said, the Holy Spirit was truly working on me and for the first time in my life I really felt the urgency of my lost state and the need to take action. The next question was that, "What must I do to be saved?" thing. I knew what I had always been taught in the Baptist Church. I knew what I had learned as I had studied extensively a number of denominations. I knew what I had learned in the dorm from members of various churches which taught Baptism as an essential step before the new believer is "in Christ." So, I literally, as the scripture states, "worked out my own salvation with fear and trembling" and a whole lot of tears. The bottom line here is that the actions of my well-intentioned dad when I was 10 caused me to live for 13 years, never once feeling a need to take any action toward salvation. I recognize full well that somewhere between age 10 and age 23 I certainly became "accountable." However, I never felt the urgency and would go so far as to say that I never sensed the Holy Spirit's presence tugging at me until that few weeks in spring 1985.
Based on my experience, I tend to believe that while the age of reason and the age of accountability may come much earlier for some than others, the time for salvation comes when the individual experiences that sense of urgency that only comes when the Holy Spirit is really at work on his/her heart.
The issue is the whole eternity in hell thing. There's no need for an "age of accountability" if you don't believe we are essentially damned to eternity in hell for Adam eating an apple. All this "age of accountability"stuff is, is a way of saying that the inheritance of original sin is time-delayed. Rather than the Calvinist, "your inherit Adam's sin when you are conceived" its "God doesn't impute Adam's sin to you until you're 12." Its a stupid idea. The real issue is the injustice of James 2:10 and all models used for condemning people to eternity in hell.
James 2:10 "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."
If I tell a little white lie, God condemns me as a murderer and rapists? If I am guilty of the most minor sin then he condemns me of all others even though I haven't committed them?
This is where the doctrine of eternity in hell comes from. Since God holds you guilty of ALL sins when you commit ONE small sin, therefore you deserve to burn forever.
But nothing could be more unjust.
So the problem is not really with the doctrine of "age of accountability" but with the most basic doctrine of Christianity–i.e. that God is an unjust tyrant who condemns us all by default no matter how small our sins are to eternity in hell. If we believed in a just God who punishes sin proportionally, that is, punishes us with a punishment that our sin actually merits and no more than that, then we would not have these problems. But then we would also not need a sacrifice for sin, because for most of us our sins are too small to even be concerned with. Christianity seems to be weighted towards being of more interest to the severely wicked. Good people are merely deceived into it by tradition and family, but if they were to think rationally about what it is based on, would not buy into it.
rey,
Here I think the Calvinists are right. James 2:10 is correct: we are all sinners that need grace. Luckily we are not punished proportionally for our sins, for then all would fall hopelessly short (Romans 3:23). Instead we are shown undeserved/unmerited favor if we repent and believe in Jesus and are baptized…
God is not an unjust tyrant; instead we are cut adrift in our delusions and sin. On this note, I love Tim Keller’s rendering of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Hell_Isnt_th…
I come to the churches of Christ from a Mennonite Brethren background. I made the choice to be baptized at 21 years of age. For me the choice was more about commitment than about being saved. While I understood that baptism was about salvation and for the remission of sins, I also believed it to be about personal commitment—similar in import to that of marriage. At 15 I was too young for the commitment of marriage, how much more so a REAL commitment to God! Or at least this is how I saw things. I never felt the soteriological anxiety as sometimes seen in this tradition, which still seems shaped by too many 19th century Calvinist/Enlightenment categories…
So, I agree, Jay, with your sentiment to separate salvation from accountability. While I certainly believe that accountability plays a part in our maturing—for certainly there is a difference in responsibility in a child’s mistakes to that of an adult’s—however, I’m not convinced that we are merely being saved from our own personal sins. While I think that it is problematic to say that we’re accountable for the sins of others (and unbiblical), I do think that we require saving from our fallen state (our estrangement from God). Without diminishing free will, I see our personal sins as the working out of the logic of our sinful nature. Our sinful nature is a lack, a bent inward (or away from God), a cracked image/icon that requires 'saving' (fixing). Baptism is a part of this process of sanctification—much more than mere symbol—and yet I do not see how its position in the process is necessarily fixed.
I can’t help but think that the 'Age of Accountability' plays too much in coC thought. My young kids (6, 4, & 2) are all accountable to some degree, how ever small—and yet even adults of high rank (perhaps because they themselves haven’t tasted that Lord is good) make foolish mistakes in relative ignorance (Luke 23:34). As an aside: I sometimes hear people in the churches of Christ belittle the rebelliousness of children and kids being kids, and seem callous towards the errors of adults–all in comparison to Calvinists who, in light of God's holiness, see very little difference between the sins of adults and children.
I’m not quite sold on the idea of ‘knowing’ that you describe in reference to faith and baptism—you mention ‘abstract concepts’, and it seems to me that this is still a more Greek way of seeing faith and knowing. I’ve always taken the more Hebraic view of knowing to be that of intimate personal knowledge. But this to our modern ears will only become mystical / romantic yearnings…so we’re stuck again with the categories that we have.
Because it’s known to me, I’ll probably encourage my kids to wait to be baptized till they’re ready to strike out on their own. Though I can imagine a culture where infant baptism is apt, I’m uncomfortable with it. I don't share the culture milieu that would make such an act cogent. But even more than this, I’m deeply distressed by the idea of rebaptism! This, to me, seems to demean the whole affair of its power and efficacy. But perhaps I'm still not getting the churches of Christ understanding of baptism…
Rey,
It's been a while since I've seen your gravatar. And you're exactly right. The problem with all this is the underlying assumption that souls are innately immortal and therefore must either suffer forever or be in bliss forever. We'll take that question up shortly.
Konastephen –
I'm with you on the rebaptism thing. That seems to make baptism a merely symbolic act, stripping God's role from the act (the sacramental aspect of it). We can't go off the deep end on the sacramental side (the "magic" of the "priest"), but to deny God's action in baptism is really a sign of arrogance and lack of humility.
Are there situations where rebaptism is appropriate? Sure, like when you aren't baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, ie a baptism that doesn't focus on the Trinitarian God of Christianity.
As Paul says, one faith, one Lord, one baptism. I can't help but think that when we see reality in the afterlife, even what we view as the "perfect" believer's baptism will be laughable in it's human failure – that God is the active agent in the baptism, and where we think we play a role will be seen to be nothing more than selfish pride.
Ether way, however it plays out, I am convinced that God is the savior and redeemer of humanity, and I am thankful for that and put my faith in the God who saves.
K, your marriage comparison is very good. If you are too young to decide on a spouse, how can you decide to be the bride of Christ?
"James 2:10 is correct." (konastephen)
When Obama catches wind of you saying so he may start putting people in prison for life for jay-walking, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.” So if you jay-walk, you are guilty of threating the president's life!!!!! Don't you see how stupid such a principle is?
By thw way, the law did have different penalties. James point is valid, any transgress makes you a law breaker.
Jay,
This is not a hypothetical question – I'm in a real quandary at the moment. Allow me to explain.
At Holly Hill, we're in the process of developing a k-12 curriculum. The concept is that we will develop lessons where the same basic content can be taught at all grade levels, with learning expectations and teaching practices matched with maturity levels. We've completed a year of our proposed 4-year cycle (so each child that grows up at HH goes through the whole curriculum three times, learning the same material in a deeper way each time through).
The upcoming quarter is focusing on The Church, and I'm currently writing two of the three introductory lessons.
1) The Lord's Church: What is it? Who is it? What is a Christian?
2) God's Mission to the World: The External Purpose of the Church
I'm not sure what the writer of lesson 3 is doing, but the concept will be the Internal Purpose of the Church – how the church treats its members, etc.
You and I agree, Jay, that a Christian is one who believes in the Christ, has repented, and has been baptized. Further, I would say that the church is made up of Christians. This present a quandary with how I work out lesson 1 for the k-1st and 2nd-3rd grade classes.
I've been reading the Age of Accountability series pretty actively, hoping for a clue as to how to prep this material for the kids, who believe they're part of the church but may in fact not be. Very little of the discussion has addressed the fact that everything in the NT addresses 1st generation Christians. There seems to be zero direct teaching on what to call children of Christian families or, in fact, how the church should deal with them at all.
So, Elder Guin :), are they Christians or aren't they? I hope you can tell I'm honestly seeking wisdom – I'm not trying to test you. You've already stated that the "suffer the little children" passage does not indicate that children are necessarily part of the kingdom of God. To what kingdom do they belong? When should we tell them?
Currently, I don't know of a single church that doesn't treat the children of Christian families as Christians. We teach them to sing songs where they self-identify as Christians, as children of God, as children of Abraham, etc etc. Are these practices consistent with what we believe?
Just to throw it out there: I like the analogy in the 'Christian Standard – letter to the editors' entitled 'Baptism and Rebirth' http://www.christianstandard.com/letterseditor.as… which relates becoming a Christian to the birth of a baby. While we can agree that one is born a Christian and into the church through baptism, preceding this is the point of conception–namely, faith. (Perhaps this analogy can provide a bridge between various traditions…)
Like the 9 months between conception and birth of a baby, there is an (indeterminate) amount of time between believing and baptism.
But to the question about 'when does a child become a Christian'–without really teasing out the nuances of the question it starts to sound as puzzling as asking 'when does the food I eat become part of my body…?' Don’t get me wrong; I think the question is important. But if we're not careful, and if we hang too much on this particular peg, then the rest of our theology can become warped out of place.
So, if you're willing to call a baby in the womb a baby, then perhaps we can also consider children in the church Christians…in the church we are all working to be conformed to His image. So assuming this is our direction in life (evinced by our actions), then let's not doubt to call each other Christians (i.e., followers of Jesus)
Larry,
It's true that the Law had different penalties — because God teaches the necessity of punishment that is proportional to the crime. Thus, the Law teaches —
That passage was always interpreted by the rabbis as requiring proportional penalty. If you take someone's eye, you suffer a penalty equal to the value of the eye. The Law was never enforced by the literal taking of an eye. http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_mishpatim.htm…
And so, yes, a single violation makes you a lawbreaker, but not all lawbreakers are punished the same.
Nick,
We'll get there, but it'll take a few posts.
Meanwhile, I can say for a fact that most Churches take the position that unbaptized children aren't members and aren't Christians. They get asterisks by their name in the church directory (seriously) and can't serve at the Lord's Table, take communion, or otherwise enjoy the privileges of membership — be that good or bad.
On the other hand, they do sing "I'm in the Lord's Army" (I guess: is that still allowed?) and other songs that claim membership. So we're inconsistent, but ask the elders or preacher, and in most congregations, they'll declare plainly that they're not members until they're baptized. To say otherwise would be to adopt "open membership."
If they aren't members, then they shouldn't be counted in the attendance! But, i'd bet the elders and preacher would be patting each others' backs if the church grew by 10 people…yet they were births and adoptions. The "church" didn't grow, but the "Church" sure did!