Musings on Baptism, part 6

The first covenant, with Abraham, had a sign and seal in the “sacrament” of circumcision. This was applied to males only, but to those who came into the covenant as adults, they had to submit, as well as those born into families which were part of the covenant on the 8^th day. This mark, this symbol of having the foreskin removed was not withheld until the child could “choose” or “understand” what was going on. Instead, it was a teaching tool as the sons matured, I can imagine. “Dad, why do we look different than the gentiles?” (Or I at least suppose this is how it went. Now as to how everyone was so aware of everyone else’s foreskin status remains a bit of a mystery to me.)

Nevertheless, the sign of the covenant was given to infants. They were marked. “This one belongs to God.” Why not apply the sign of the new covenant to our children?

Musings on Baptism, part 5

Of the two generally recognized canonical sacraments, baptism and the Eucharist, it is worth noting that baptism is passive. We receive baptism. We cannot baptize ourselves. The Eucharist, on the other hand, is more active in that we “take and eat.”[1] A priest can commune himself after consecrating the elements himself. You can’t self-baptize.

If baptism is the action which “brings us into” the church, we can’t bring ourselves in. We have to be brought in. If we concede that baptism is a passive act—we submit to it, does that not strengthen the case for infant baptism? If we are to come like a child—in submission because forces bigger than us are compelling us—then is not the baptism of infants the legitimate sign of this submission?

---

[1] Matthew 26:26

Musings on Baptism, part 4

One of my favorite bloggers has a video segment that ties into all of this….just out.

You can watch it here.

Musings on Baptism, part 3

There is a notion, that is used as an argument against infant baptism that runs like this: “The notion that mentally, morally, and spiritually non-volitional infants should be subjected by God to any loss, still more to an eternal one, unless adults have them baptized outrages the ordinary moral conscience and, for multitudes, would make the worship of such a God impossible.”[1]

This seems like a rational argument at first, however it is anything but. Let us start at the end and work toward the beginning. First, the phrase “such a God” is nonsensical. It matters not whether or not we like God. If he is God, then it is our business and bounden duty to get with the program and do what he instructs us to do—no matter how we feel about it.

I know this is not a popular sentiment in the western world. But, if we understand God to be all-powerful and we are his creatures—not his judge, not his peers, not his master—then we need to bow in humility and respond, “Thy will be done.” Even if we think it offensive or unreasonable. (I’ll understand if you need to go away and ponder that for a while before continuing on.)

Second, the argument could just as easily be inverted and used to support infant baptism—the notion that adults, who love their children, can in a relatively simple sacramental action, seal their children until such an age that they can embrace or reject the faith on their own, could just as easily be heralded as an amazing acquiescence of God’s grace to us.

God is under no compulsion to spare any of us. It is only by his love for us and his grace extended to us that any of us live, move and have our being. There is no necessity that God would open up any way to salvation for us, that he would spare Noah, call Abram, send Moses and the prophets, and finally, sacrifice his very son in our stead.

I dare say, it is much more “mean” of certain churches to demand that children risk eternal damnation until they are old enough—in man’s judgment—to be baptized.

Also, there seems to be a connection with the assumption that un-baptized children will be granted eternal fellowship with God because they “could not chose” leads eventually to universalism. (A position that at least a few early Anabaptist came to espouse as the worked out their faith.) The train of thought is simple. If God “must” grant grace to an un-baptized infant, then why not to a unreached aborigine in the bush? Then why not to the person who had a horrid home life and never really heard the gospel, then why not… and so it goes until Christ’s call to “follow me”[2] and his declaration that he alone is, “the way and the truth and the life”[3] are stripped of all meaning and his word is mocked. Is it only the apostate who becomes damned?

---

[1] Stanley G. Luff, The Times, 26 September 1958, quoted in Beasley-Murray, G.R., Baptism Today and Tomorrow, 1966: New York, MacMillan p. 11

[2] Matthew 4:19 and several other places in the Gospels

[3] John 14:6

Musings on Baptism, part 2

When considering whether or not baptism is efficacious for children below the “age of reason” we would do well to consider other similar cases. Should we baptize those who through physical or psychological impingement do not exercise a “normal adult” will? Those who are considered mentally retarded in some fashion, at some point, are declared to be unable to handle their own affairs because they cannot exercise their will at a sufficient level. Should these individuals, even if they express some degree of faith, be denied baptism, because we do not think them “true believers” because they lack mental acumen? What is the level of mental functioning necessary for baptism?

I would daresay that most would consider it cruel and unwarranted to forsake baptism to such individuals—even if they otherwise affirm the need for “believer’s” baptism. But this shows the incoherence in the position. If it is an issue of the will, of rational thought, then both the child and the child-like must both be excluded, or both must be admitted.

In fact, to call the one position “believer’s baptism” is to skew the argument in a certain direction. It takes as a priori that rational will is necessary for belief. The position would be more accurately termed “rational baptism.” Now some may counter that this shows “infant” baptism to be “irrational” and in one sense of the word, it is true—the rational intellect of the child receiving the sacrament is not engaged. That does not mean that it is an irrational act, per se.

Children engage in all sorts of behaviors and receive a multitude of actions performed unto them as they grow, mostly by their parents. We consider all of these “rational” in the colloquial definition of the word, namely, we can see a reason for them. A baby at the mother’s breast knows to suck in order to receive nourishment. We do not ascribe higher-order thought to this action; in fact most would lower it to the level of instinct. Yet, we see a reason for it—the child needs nourishment. In the same way, the parents will routinely change a baby’s diaper. The child may, on some occasions, even sleep through this procedure. Clearly, there is no thought given by the child to what is happening in this case. At other times the child clearly protests this disruption of what they were doing and the cold and suffering it imposes on them. However, the parents engage in this activity because they understand the benefits of performing it upon their offspring.

A good definition of what constitutes a Christian was related to me by Father Chip Edgar. He said, “A Christian is one who believes all he knows about Christ with all he knows about himself.” So, by this definition, a child who believes in Jesus because, “Daddy says so,” is a Christian if they are two or three years old. For a typical child of 15 or 16, this would not be seen as an acceptable answer.

So, for an infant to be called a Christian because their parents present them for baptism and make promises on their behalf—until the child is able to make them for themselves—seems a perfectly rational act. To insist that someone has to have some understanding before they are baptized raises many second-order questions. What must they understand? How do we know they understand it?

Musings on Baptism, part 1

(This is the first in a series of some various thoughts I have had on infant baptism. It has been a topic of much discussion in my journey to Anglicanism. These are not necessarily complete arguments, more like observations and reflections.)

Having come up in the Anabaptist heritage, one of the key features of their belief is, “no compulsion in religion.” For many, this meant that they were serious about not baptizing infants. Often one had to be 18 or older to be a candidate for baptism. This historically created some issues for nonresistant Anabaptist in WWI, who were seeking to avoid military service because while they may have been of age for the draft, they were not members of the church they claimed because they had not yet been baptized. (Or were just recently baptized, calling into question the sincerity of their conviction.)

The Anabaptist came by this “no compulsion” practice honestly. The radical reformation was not a pretty time in church history, especially if you are part of the movement. State churches were still the norm, though they had split into one of several flavors, Roman, Lutheran, Calvinist and Anglican depending on your geography. As politics changed, so did church affiliations at times and these were rarely painless changes. Add to that these “fringe” groups of Anabaptists and Pietists and what is the state to do?

I freely admit I hated church history in seminary. This was motivated by a few factors I think. First, if you’re an Anabaptist, it’s not a good news story for most of the 2000 years of the church age. Second, growing up in the United States where the First Amendment has been the law of the land, the idea of religious intolerance was intrinsically foreign to me.

For their part, the Anabaptists decided that state churches were not faithful enough and they saw their practice of incorporating everyone as watering down discipleship. Granted, these critiques are not without their merit. However, given the opportunity, they sought to do the exact same thing. (The Puritans in New England come readily to mind.)

Anabaptists, of course, got their name because they were, at least in the first generation, truly, re-baptizers. Having been born in state-church controlled lands, they were baptized as infants. But, through personal Bible reading and reflection, they came to believe that infant baptism was not legitimate. Naturally enough, they wanted a legitimate baptism, so, as adults, they started baptizing each other.

These actions lead to some ugly persecution. The horrors that Christians have visited on each other through the ages make anyone cringe. Anabaptist didn’t want to perpetuate this cycle, so they sought to allow believers—including their children—to choose for themselves. This personal confession became a key hallmark of the movement, and eventually of evangelicalism as a whole. As a reaction to the historical realities they faced, it seemed a logical move. It certainly was an influence on our First Amendment. William Penn’s colony attracted a great deal of Anabaptist migrants from the continent with the promise of religious tolerance.

Concurrent with these shifts, the radical reformation had a serious impact—it wore down the state’s resolve to maintain true faith for her people. You can only burn so many heretics before you have to stop and ask yourself, “is this working?” Eventually, the pragmatist in the room started realizing that maybe they should work to uniting people with similar (Christian) beliefs but divergent practices (Catholics, the various reformed movements and the radical reform movements).

However, the second order effect of this new tolerance was, ultimately, the downgrading of the importance of religious faith. If it is no longer ‘important’ enough for the state to mandate and regulate, then, is it really that important?

This is certainly not the only factor at play to challenge the importance of faith during these centuries. The rise of empiricism also had huge consequences. But, unintentionally, the message was silently sent that “the state is no longer concerned with your soul.”

What does this have to do with infant baptism, other than it being a watershed issue for Anabaptists? We’ve allowed the same thinking to creep into our homes. The Anabaptist ideal of “no compulsion,” albeit unintentionally, downgraded the importance of faith.

States do not allow children born to her citizens to choose their citizenship. If you are legally born in America, you are a United States citizen, period. You can change your citizenship, but, by default, you are an American. Every other country follows similar practices. You come of age and gain rights to participate more and more in the state, most notably at age 18 in the United States, when you are eligible to vote and serve in the military.

Why would a church allow its children to be “free agents” until they decide to join? Most things that are important we give our children no choice over accepting. 2+2=4. (Deny this and you will be correctively trained.) George Washington was the first President. There are 26 letters in the alphabet. The list goes on and on. We willingly and cheerfully “indoctrinate” our children in all of these beliefs.

But these are facts, you say? Of course. Is not our religion factual as well? Do we believe our religion to be true? Then it is a fact, no? So why are we hesitant to raise our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord? I would submit that, in part, we have bought into the secular principle that the marginalizing of religion is good for the state. We’ve bought into the skeptics claim that there is no absolute truth. In short, we are communicating that our faith is not all that important. It may be helpful, we may enjoy it, but apparently, it is not essential.

So let’s relate this to baptism. The Anabaptist will say that a believer is the one who is eligible for baptism. For the sake of argument, I will sidestep the delineation of ‘infant’ and ‘believer.’ Let us just accept that there is some age that rational choice becomes possible. The sacramentalist will say that baptism does something. The typical Anabaptist will say that it is not salvific. Most everyone agrees that Jesus did command it.

Let’s look at how this plays out in the life of a child born in the church to believing parents. For the sacramentalist, the child is born, and at an early age (pre-rational) the child is baptized into the communion of the church. Details vary as to what exactly this means in terms of receiving the Eucharist, etc. But, the child is sealed with the symbol of the new covenant in baptism. The parents, (and often God parents,) in the child’s stead, make promises on behalf of the child and promise to raise the child to be one who internalizes those promises. At some future point, the child, after going through some sort of catechism, is eligible to be confirmed. That is, the church states that the parents have done their job, with the assistance of the church, to raise this child to internalize those baptismal promises.

Let’s go to the Anabaptist church. A child is born, and, at some point, there will usually be an “infant dedication,” where the parents “dedicate” the child to God and make promises to raise the child in the faith. Once the child crosses the age where they are deemed able to make rational decisions, then they are usually encouraged to seek baptism. Some sort of instruction generally takes place before the event. The “believer” is baptized and admitted into communion of the church. This may or may not include being admitted to the Eucharist, depending on the particular body in question.

Now I ask, from a pragmatic standpoint, what is the difference? Both scenarios include promises made for the child, both include the child embracing the faith as their own at a later date. A casual observer would say the only difference is when water is applied. This obviously side-steps the issue of what a sacrament is, which is not trivial. But it illustrates my point.

Faith is important to both families. Both would like to see their child grow up and share their faith. This much I think we can agree on. Do the different scenarios communicate anything different to the child, implicitly or explicitly?

Some of this will depend on the view of the sacrament of baptism that we espouse. But, the thing communicated by the Anabaptist doctrine is this: baptism isn’t that important. It doesn’t ‘do’ anything; it’s just this nice ritual we do because Jesus said to. It’s a spiritual placebo. But their practice runs counter to this. It seems very important, at least in terms of when it is done and to whom. Often, various groups have very strong ideas about the mode in which this baptism is administered. If one is not baptized, even as an adult, in the proper mode, then sometimes re-baptism is required to join a particular body. But it’s not a sacrament. (So why the big fuss?)

The sacramentalist scenario communicates that baptism is important, there is something that happens when it is rightly administered, and we cared enough about what it does to go ahead and do it on your behalf. It’s like the MMR shot. Sure, you should have a say-so in your health care, but if we wait until you’re 18 then ask you if you want the shot, you may have already had measles, mumps and rubella, and possibly died. Interestingly, sacramentalist don’t seem as hung up on mode. The liturgy is important, but the actual act of getting the recipient wet isn’t that crucial. Sprinkle, pour, immerse, just get them wet.

This relates back to the earlier musings about state religion. If the state is truly concerned about the souls of its citizens, it will exercise its power to see that they believe rightly. We’ve seen that this can cause all sorts of problems throughout history, but the motivation was a good one. If we think we have the truth, we should desire those we can influence to have it as well.

One of the problems is when the state makes something compulsory, it has limited means to achieve cooperation. Mostly, it has punitive actions, up to and including death, for non-cooperation. This can be powerful, but it is mostly a deterrent from deviation, rather than an incentive to embrace.

The family has an advantage. While it has a set of punitive measures at its disposal as well, it has much more powerful shaping features as well. Modeling, instructing, training—all of these are used, either deliberately or not, by every family unit.

If we believe our faith to be founded on truth, if we believe it has lasting, profound consequences, should we not use every means at our disposal to ensure our children understand, accept and internalize the faith? Even if we think there is a bit of spiritual efficacy in the sacrament, should we not apply it early to our children as a part of our desire to bring them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord?

Finally, the Anabaptist will generally state that baptism isn’t so much about the recipient, but that the act is a witness to others. If this is the case, then what difference does the age of the recipient make? Is not the family baptizing their infant also a witness? Does that not also evidence a belief in the command to be baptized?

Lenten Reflection

And we are not so earnest for our own salvation, as he [Satan] is for our ruin. Let us then shun him, not with words only, but also with works; not in mind only, but also in deed; and let us do none of the things which he approves, for so shall we do all those which God approves. Yea, for he [Satan] makes also many promises, not that he may give, but that he may take.

St. John Chrysostom, from his Homily on the temptation of our Lord.