I return to the thought that baptism is for 'us and our children', something that means that since the very earliest days of the Church, we have baptised children (which includes infants). Acts 2 is perhaps a little helpful here:
“Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
Now, some cry when they hear this, " Aha! This means adult children!" The subtext of course being that I'm wrong to baptise sprogs and they're correct in only doing adult (or believer's baptism). Of course the Didache and other sources would show this to be incorrect. What infant baptism has done for us is to see us continue to offer the same product to a very different consumer. Confused? (then my work is done . . ) Let me (try to) explain.
Whole households were baptised and later when more children were born into a Christian household, they were also baptised. What we were seeing was an addition to the family, temporal and spiritual. The parents were believers and the children, being part of an ethnic group called 'Christian' were also going to be Christian too! Look at any of the 'ethnic' groups and you'll see in them what we were and also see in them the route towards becoming what we are. I met some interesting people this weekend, one was born Islamic and lives his faith pretty much according to it. Another was born Islamic but has become secular. He calls himself Islamic but eschews dietary and alcohol prohibiting laws and lives in the same way as those who call themselves 'Christian' yet live as if they are not.
We have lost the 'ethnic' status of being Christian. It is regarded as being what we choose to do rather than what we actually are and this has a bearing for us in relation to communion too!
If we believe that baptism actually does something, regardless of age, in that it is an imposition, a 'gifting' of God's grace upon a person then why would we kick up and complain that we were blessing anyone. After all, if it were a life-saving innoculation (which is surely what it is supposed to be, the life being eternal in this case) would we stay our hand. Now I have to be honest, I have problems here because I don't want to refuse God's grace but I am troubled by the 'folk religion' and the mumblers who bring their sprogs for a 'nice day'. If the parents aren't ethnic Christians then does the baptism still have worth? Well actually, I think it does because me, God and sprog are still doing the business and I think God can bless despite the unknowingness of the parents and sponsors. (but that's for another day).
The same is true for communion. If I am bringing something that will bless and heal who would complain that I am administering it. for those who don't understand, but did? It is the administration of grace to a flawed and broken brother or sister, not much different from when I receive it (except that in having understanding I am in perhaps a less favourable position).
Do they have to understand still for Christ to die for them? I don't think so. Mind you, I still try to sort out whether or not they were communicant members before their faculty loss just to avoid crossing the line and communicating where they have declined through decision and choice - partnership and family not imposition of the other kind!
The loss of a Christian ethnicity makes both baptism and communion a little more difficult - but at the end of the day we're administering grace and if Christ died for all, I am sure that He can cope with administrative errors and the reality is that both baptism and communion are something vibrant, valid and real and so I continue, knowing He is love, grace and compassion.
HTH (more later - rushing out)
V
2 comments:
"I think it does because me, God and sprog are still doing the business and I think God can bless despite the unknowingness of the parents and sponsor"
I think you hit the nail on the head here. Although If this is Baptism in the sense portrayed in the New Testament then the child has to grow up aware of it.
The Church of Scotland's Book of Common Order 1994 has this which is addressed to parents after the child has been Baptised:
Your child belongs to God in Christ. From this day she will be at home in the Christian community,and there will always be a place for her. Tell her of her baptism, and unfold to her the treasure she has been given today, so that she may know she is baptised, and ,as she grows, make her own response in faith and love, and come in due time to share in the communion of the body and blood of Christ. "
I would not, however, have missed being baptised by immersion as an adult, where I could publicly declare my faith and my wish to continue following Christ. It was 30 years ago but will always be a most memorable event!
Baptism besides the Eucharist should be that which unites us as Christians rather than cause conflict.Gal. 3.26-28
I think that your comments are quite right on this issue.
I am interested in the comments on Baptism by immersion. My son converted to the Mormon religion on Marriage.
Whether I agreed with the decision or not, we attended his Baptism, by full immersion, which was quite moving, although other aspects of the service did not feel genuine (if I can use the word) to us.
The other thing we resisted most forcefully was the attempt of the Mormon community to convert us as well. They can be quite aggressive in this, albeit, in a nice way.
As for our son - it lasted as long as the marriage, which sad to say was not that long.
In this case, Iwould say that the Baptism was for convenience rather than through genuine conversion.
Post a Comment