Do you think that baptisms have become another superstitious act that parents and babies go through or does it still maintain its intended meaning?
At church on Sunday, a baby was baptised, and as I praying for the bébé and his family, I started thinking "why is this baby being baptised? where is the family in their faith? do they understand what’s going on?"
I’ve always struggled a certain amount with baptism and some times I really do believe that it just happens cause "its the right thing to do." In fact, some people I know have admitted that the church did nothing to explain or prepare them for the baptism – "just show up and invite the family."
I was baptised as a baby (that’s what they tell…I don’t remember it) but never really went to church until I became a teen and started going with friends and then eventually met Jesus for myself. I wanted to be baptised as a believer, but was told that I couldn’t (no "double-dipping") and confirmation was my way to accept my faith as a believer…I felt a little ripped off, partly cause I am slightly rebellious, but it felt like the Christian faith was forced on me. I’m over that now and recognize that my confessing Christ as Lord is equally as powerful.
So here’s what I’m wondering:
– Is the church too laid back about baptisms?
– Do we take on a responsibility as "observers" when its unclear that the family are not devout believers?
– Should we ever say "no" to a family when they want their baby baptised?
I can certainly see that baptism is becoming one of those rituals that parents go through “just because”. Growing up in the Catholic church, parents who went to church as children stopped going after they were confirmed. Then, when these people have children, they get them baptized and ship them off to catechism each Sunday until they get confirmed. Vicious cycle…
I really believe that parents don’t quite understand the promises they are making when they have their children baptized…
I wrote my final theology paper on just this. I do think that as a church we let parents off the hook way too easily… it’s hard to write this because I am one who works for the church? I do think that infant baptism is ok as long as the parents understand what their responsbilities are. We just had a baptism a few weeks ago and the parents who are young have been here regularly. It was nice to see.
Oh yeah nice blog. I like the new format!
I was baptized as an “adult” (well sixteen) in the Anglican church. Everything made sense to me and my baptism is actually one of the most meaningful experiences in my journey. I just think it sucks that it’s not for a lot of people.
i believe that now a days when people do baby baptisms its just becuase they think its what the parents are suppose to do. Personally I am not for baby baptism, i am however for baby dedication.
I was working at a church once and there was a baby baptism, and the pastor blew me away, and i loved it. He told the family right in his sermon that they are wasting their time becuase he knows that they will never come back to the church except for on the holidays. Why did he do the baptism then, i have no idea, but still…
The prupose of baby baptism is to make a promise to God that you are going to raise your child to know who God is, so if your not going to do that, why waste everyones time.
Sorry if that all sounds hostel, it’s not meant to.. .i think i’ve been hangin out with the baptists for 2 long!!!! Did my first baptism on Sunday night actually, was an adult, full emersion, good times, I’ve got another one coming up of a teen who asked if i could baptize him because he is now a christ follower, so as you can tell i’m all for “stickin them under till the bubbles stop” don’t want a sprikle, wanna be covered.!!
I’m on the fence about infant baptism, for the very reasons that people have mentioned. I don’t think I’d ever discourage a family from doing it, but I try to make sure they really understood what was going on.
If the parents don’t go to church and really have no clear sign of faith in Jesus, why have you baby baptised? It doesn’t make sense to me. But most parental related decisions don’t make sense to me…yet.
Sacraments are outward signs of grace, “not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but … certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace” (Church of England Article XXV).
Baptism is the sacrament of Justification. Grace always precedes human response. God justifies without our works. Before grace, we are all infants: unable to help ourselves. Apart from the Holy Spirit, no one can say, “Jesus is Lord.” By his grace alone we are brought to new birth in him, and made children of God, and brought up by him into the full stature of Christ.
It follows that God’s grace can work in the life of an infant just as in the life of an adult. We do not need to be of the age of reason to receive grace – “let the little children come” – although grace will one day demand our reasonable response in the confession of faith.
Therefore the sacrament of Baptism is something that, quite apart from parental understanding, benefits the child. It clears away the sin that stunts growth, and makes way for the fruit of the Spirit in later life.
Baptism is for the child, not the parents. The grace of Baptism is for the child, not the parents. This does not mean that parental responsibility should be ignored or understressed. Parents and Godparents make promises as part of the rite. The pastor has the responsibility to make sure rthe parents understand these promises. If the parents do not take them seriously, they commit perjury, and lie to God.
Understanding these promises, the parents and Godparents accept this responsibility, and alone make the decision either to lie or to pray for the strength to bring up their chuldren as children of God. It is the part of Church to do as Christ commanded: “Baptize.” Should a child be deprived of the sacrament because a parents might not take seriously their pledges? Whether or not they fulfil their promises, God will fulfil his.
Charles, good points, I don’t know you, and i dont necessarily agree with you. You say that baptism clears away the sin that stunts growth, from my understanding Jesus is what clears away our sin, baptism is only a symbol of that, like an object lesson if you will.
I see, and I’m pretty sure the scriptures see, baptism as an outward sign of an inward change… we change our lives and follow Jesus, and in an effort to be obediant to scriptures, we are told to be baptised.
You say “Should a child be deprived of the sacrament because a parents might not take seriously their pledges?” but i say, the purpose for infant baptism is that a parent is saying that they are going to bring up the child in a Godly manner… again we look at it as an object lesson, an outward sign that the parent has made the decision to raise their child in a Godly surrounding, so they show that with infant baptism.
As i said before, I don’t disagree with infant baptism, and i dont agree with it either. I think that it is great if the parents are going to abide by the promises they are making.
Look at what Jesus did with circumcision. The jews believed that in order to be a Jew you must be circumsized, but Jesus said that if you are a Jew in your heart your a jew, just like if you are a christian in your heart, your a christian, weather you are baptised or not.
Will you get into heaven if you are a christ follower but arent baptised, for sure, just like you can be a jew and not be circumsezed.
Charles Irish ladies and gentlemen!
I agree with you – at the end of the day, God is far greater than us and is able to move and work in us despite ourselves.
Hi,
It is very interesting reading these comments. Thank you so much for them.
A bit of background. My name is Mal and I worked in the Diocese of Saskatchewan from 1998-1999 at St David’s Anglican Church, PA and then for the Diocese for about 3 months as the Diocesan Youth Worker. I am currently a Deacon in an Anglican Church in Sydney Australia but have a deep love for seeing the gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed in Canada. So, with that done I would like to add to the comments, if I can…
I must say I like what Charles Irish said about baptism. It is vital that we source our answers from the bible, ‘God’s word’ so that we make sure we decide on what baptism is on his terms and not our own!
The most important word in the Church of England Article XXV is the word “sign”. As Charles said; “baptism (is) an outward sign of an inward change… we change our lives and follow Jesus, and in an effort to be obediant to scriptures, we are told to be baptised.”
So why baptise infants? How do we know what is going on inside them?
Is baptism just a good way of making sure that parents bring their kids up fearing God. While i like the this, try and live by this, encourage my kids Godparents to keep this in mind and certainly feel the weight of this as I bring up my own 4 kids – there is not much support for it in the bible – in regards to baptism and also not in the Anglican Church understanding of Baptism.
Have you guys heard of covenental theology? The idea that a marriage is a covenant, like the Covenants that God made with Israel and so the blessings that the parents receive extends to the rest of the family.
The idea is seen in Genesis 2 and we see other examples in the Old Testament where what applies to the parents, applies to the kids. (See Joshua 7 and how Achan’s family were killed because of his sin bacuase of the Covenant idea: Or the same idea is expressed in 2 Samuel 7 when God makes a covenant with David and his family – see how the blessings continue through David’s children, eventaully fulfilled in David). This then is reflected in the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 7:14 as the kids are sanctified by the parents faith.
On Baptism, in Acts 16:15 show that the household’s of Lydia all were baptised, although she was the one that believed. While we are not told if the rest of them believed, there is some connection there. Especially when only a few verses later when the the prison Guards ask why they must do the be saved, they are told in verse 30: “Belive in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved – you and your household.”(NIV)
What do you think?
Charles is right, if you are a christian in your heart, your a christian, weather you are baptised or not – baptism is just a sign. But it is a Christian sign – not a sign for the unbeliever … I think that Chris is right here. Why are we, as Christians, willing to give what is our sign to those who don’t follow Jesus truly in their hearts?
I mean, imagine if you went and asked the native Candians if you could participate in one of their sacred rituals – do you think that they would let you be a part of it?
Why don’t we keep our signs for only Christian people? Why are we asking people to make promises in a baptism service that they have no clear intention of keeping – are we not encouraging them to lie? To make a promise before God that they will not keep … and we are the ones getting them to do so!!!!
Remember James 3:1 – “know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”(NIV)
Anyway, this is just food for thought from a person with fond memories of Canada, and especially a love for the people in the Diocese of Saskatchewan. My prayers for you all come with this blog and I hope to keep on chatting with you all.
Hey mal, great stuff.. i think you mixed up a bit of my charles said and what i said, as i said if your a chrisitan in your heart your a christian, but no biggie. Baptism is one of those things that we could talk about all the way to the grave, and we all have our different traditions on how we “do it” ultimatley it’s all about the individual and their heart i think, whether you get a few sprinkles as a baby, or are dunked as a (teen, adult, whatever) it just doesn’t matter. I believe it’s issues like this one that are the cause for so many different denominations today, but lets just love Jesus and love those he called us to love… everyone
Hey Thanks. This is my first time blogging and so I was a bit unsure how to read who made the comments that have been made. I think that I can see now. I am sorry if I mis-quoted people, but I hope you got the drift of what I was saying. Thanks Chris.
You are right, baptism is just a sign and we could have a meaningless conversation about it until the grave and it is about the heart and wheather a person has a living relationship with Jesus Christ.
But there are pastoral implications that should not be overlooked – wouldn’t you say?
I mean, there are some out there that do believe there is something more in baptism – and especially the non-believer who thinks that somehow their kids are transformed or saved by being baptised. We need to figure out how we should respond to people like this – especially when they ask us for advice because we are Christians, and it is a Christian sign.
So this is where Shawn is right in posting this sort of discussion so we can in an open and friendly environment discuss these issues and learn from each other. While it may not be a big pastoral issue for you now, it could be in a few years …
You are right when you say we should love Jesus and love those he called us to love … but what does this actually mean? Jesus also says in Matthew 10:37 that we are to love him more than our own family! In Matthew 16:24 we are to love Jesus more than ourselves!!! We need to make sure that we love Jesus more than everyone, first. And so when it comes to baptism, what are our priorities? To please people or to please Jesus?
Maybe loving them is not getting them to make false promises? Maybe loving them is to tell them that they need to believe in the Lord Jesus rather than having their child baptised? Maybe loving them is to not baptise their kids, so they see the importance of needing to follow Jesus? You see what I mean ….
On one hand, not a big deal … on the other hand, for some – a very big deal! How are we meant to respond?
The same arguement can be used of adult baptism.
A question for Charles, Jesus tells us to “make disciple, baptizing them” (Matthew 28:19), what is the more important here? Making disciples or baptising them? Are they made disciples by being baptised or are people who have been made disciples to get baptised? Is Baptism a “sign” of justification or do you see it as bringing about justification? I am only asking so that you can qualify your position on baptism and I do not misinterpret what you are saying … thanks mate.
Anyway, looking forward to what you say. This is a great idea and the discussion is very stimulating and making me think. The bible talks about how we sharpen each other up and I hope that you feel the same.
the real rotters are the godparents…
Joseph, I love it!!!
Mal, from what i’m reading we are saying the same thing. I think you just misunderstood me. When talking about loving the people, I totally believe that we are suppose to love Jesus first and formost, and I didnt mean to make it seem as though I wasnt saying that. And when I said we need to love the people, i meant exactly what you said when you say “Maybe loving them is not getting them to make false promises? Maybe loving them is to tell them that they need to believe in the Lord Jesus rather than having their child baptised? Maybe loving them is to not baptise their kids, so they see the importance of needing to follow Jesus? You see what I mean”
This is totally what I was trying to get at, just didnt put it in so many words. Part of loving people is rebuking them, and also trying to steer them in the right direction, not having them make false promises, but having them come to a point where they truly in their heart of hearts believe in jesus and what he did for them.
My turn…
I honestly just thought this was going to be another one of random thoughts and observations…never thought it would bring on an international debate. But it’s great!
Mal, you bring up a very interesting question. And, while I am still sitting on the fence (like a good Anglican), as I said before I can also agree with much of what Charles is saying. Which comes first – disciple or baptism? (The whole chicken or the egg problem).
Should the church, out of love, be taking the Baptist position of not preforming infant baptism and waiting for the individual to come forward after they have made a decision for Christ. I know the argument in the Anglican Church is that what happens at confirmation. But even there – how many times has a teen gone forward for the Bishop to lay hands on them, mess up their head, when they didn’t really have an understanding of what is going on.
I’ve been to loads of confirmation services and talked with the teens afterwards, and many of them have no idea what just happened. And the ones who do, the church has nothing for them post-confirmation. This is all stuff that I nag and say to churches all the time.
Does the church and congregation where an infant is baptised have any responsibility following the baptism? In the service for baptism (for the Anglicans), it clearly says in one of the statements to the parents & godparents:
Use all diligence therefore to see that he be virtously brought up to lead a godly and a Christian life; and to that end you should teach him to pray, and bring him to take his part in public worship. (BCP pg 530)
Or for the non-Anglicans:
It is now your duty as parent(s) and godparents to see that this child is taught, as soon as he is able to learn, the promises you have made in his name. and it is your responsibility to ensure that he is taught the Christian faith and what it means to trust in Christ. (English Prayer Book pg 127)
It’s laid out for them…how complicated is that? They also promise to renounce Satan, that they themselves are Christian, that the child will be taught the basics of the faith and that they will take offering envelopes.
Either people aren’t listening or we aren’t fulfilling our responsibilities.
Hey guys,
Sorry if I did misunderstand you Chris. I guess people these days tend to get the wrong idea if things are not spelt out. I love what you are saying! I actually needed to think twice before I replied because I though that this is what you were probably saying … this is the problem with having a discussion over the computer – but thanks for pointing out that we are saying the same thing.
Shawn, it is good to hear your thoughts on the question and congrats brother on this blog. Great idea … don’t ever let it be just radom thoughts, but let people have real discussion and help us all grow together … I think it is awesome!!
You do have to wonder why confirm a person who, when they had just been confirmed, has actually no idea what happened!!! Does this not lessen the sign? Good on you mate for nagging the church about this – tell Tony that I have come onto this blog. I have a lot of time for him – he is a godly and good man.
You are right about what it says about the Anglican service and the godparents and parents – but remember, this is an Anglican idea – not a biblical idea! So, to say that we should do infant baptism depends not on this. You need to consult Article 27 of the 39 articles to see what the basis of the Anglican Church’s reason for Baptsim of Chiildren is. It is retained by the church because it is ‘most agreeable with the institution of Christ’ – not because of the Godparents.
Yet, as I said before, I think that the idea of Godparents and responsibility of Godparents, and the promises that they make are great. I am fully for them – All I am saying is that I would not use them in a discussion as to whether we should or should not baptise infants. You know what I mean?
Anyway, enough said from me. I think that we are all pretty close on what we are thinking here.
Maybe you could start another blog – or keep this one going about what comes first the disciple or the Baptism. I would be interested to hear what other think on this. If Shawn is on the fence, let’s help him get off it!!! What do you think?
Shawn deffinatley needs to get off that fence. I know that for teens who are on the fence about whether they believe in God or not, i just tell them that if they sit on the fence, when Jesus returns, they’ll pretty much be screwed…. not that i think shawn will be screwed for not knowing what the thinks about baptism!!! Just pick a route and go with it bud, i wont hate you in regards to which one you pick, even if it is the wrong one. LOL A good baptist friend of mine once said “yea we all have our different ways of baptising people, they can do it their way, and we’ll do it God’s way” good funny Baptist joke, not meant to offend any one!
You hit the nail on the head Mal, and I was going to say the say thing about anglican tradition, not biblical principle. You took the words right out of my mouth.
Anyways, it’s 2 am, i’ve got an annoying person in my headset by the name of shawn branch, and I’m stinkin tired as I just spent 5 hours giving my blog a sexy new makeover.
I’m done for the night
I pray that Jesus will forgive me for not taking a stance on infant baptism.
Mal, I’m taking your thoughts and starting a new thread – “Which comes first”. See you there…