Back in the early 90’s I spent a fair amount of time
considering the concept of infant baptism when my first child was born. I was a member of a church which practiced infant
baptism and I felt like I needed to decide whether or not to baptize, dedicate,
or skip the entire thing. After a fair
amount of investigation I came to a few conclusions.
1.
- 1. Most importantly I realized that baptism, while important, was not required for salvation.
- 2. I concluded that the Roman Catholic position was problematic.
- 3. The position of my denomination that allowed only for infant baptism or adult baptism was also problematic.
- 4. Biblically, baptism was an act performed by adult believers.
- 5. Infant baptism as practiced by the church I was part of was much more analogous to the Jewish ritual circumcision than to believer baptism.
- 6. There is a certain value in having some type of ritual in which the parents and the church make promises to the child and acknowledge that both parties are accepting some responsibilities for the spiritual welfare of the child.
In short, while I think that calling what happens baptism is
a poor label, I think that there is value in the sacramentally making a set of
promises between the child, the family, and the local congregation on behalf of
the Church.
Recently, I had the occasion to reflect on this and what
exactly we as a congregation were promising.
In my experience, most people affirm the promise they make thinking that
they might teach Sunday School or VBS of something like that and to engage in
some general act that will generally help the child grow up in the faith.
A few weeks ago this seemingly theoretical question became immediately
and crushingly real to me, when I got the call that my younger sister had died
suddenly leaving two young daughters without a mother. At one point during the week between her
death and the funeral there was a prayer service at the church, at which
someone brought up the point that this circumstance was the time when the
church needed to step up and honor the promise that was made when these two
girls were baptized. Not in a “Hey I’ll
bring cookies to VBS.” way, but in a real, deep, ongoing, and meaningful
way.
Obviously the family, both immediate and extended, has the primary responsibility, but that doesn’t let the Church off the hook.
Obviously the family, both immediate and extended, has the primary responsibility, but that doesn’t let the Church off the hook.
I actually am looking forward to see how this plays out over
the next several years and to see some amazing people step into roles in the
lives of these two girls in amazing ways and in ways that we can’t even
imagine. This is one of those areas
in which the Church can and does step up and really shine and frequently does.
3 comments:
At a church to which I once attended and in which I was personally involved officially, infant baptism was practiced (I don't recall any adult baptisms occurring during my time, nor was I aware of it having ever been done in recent times--this congregation goes back to the mid-to-late 1800's, so who knows what happened in the old days), and was performed during regular church services in most cases. The idea being that it was indeed a communal thing, with all members of the congregation being participants and taking responsibility for the spiritual growth and guidance of the child. Can't say as that was ever truly put to the test in the manner your post describes...and not even sure how many would truly have acted to correct a child going astray or to what extent or in what manner that would manifest. But I would prefer that not only would people not be too timid in accepting that responsibility and acting on it in a responsible manner, but also that parents would approve of those who care enough to risk pissing off a parent with regards to correcting a wayward child, considering how parents can be where their children are concerned.
I am sorry for your loss
Post a Comment