The Problem with Infant Baptism: Where’s the Covenant?
In my previous “problem” post I discussed that the problem with adult or believer’s baptism was a lack of discipleship that has led to the majority of believer’s baptisms in America to be rebaptisms. As this series on baptism (previous posts 1, 2, 3, 4) continues toward what I have formulated as a third way on baptism I want to first highlight the problem I see today in the contemporary system of infant baptism.
I was baptized as an infant, and I think it is a beautiful and sacred act. It’s a sign of God’s providence and work in a persons life, since no infant can be active in their own baptism but must rely on God’s action of grace in their life.
Infant baptism, generally speaking, signifies the new covenant that Christ has confirmed with his death and resurrection. Just as circumcision is an outward sign of God’s covenant with the Jewish people, so to is infant baptism an outward sign of God’s new covenant with the church, his kingdom.
The problem with infant baptism is that the covenant is being misunderstood. Covenant is far too often misinterpreted as an agreement, like a legal contract. It is far more encompassing than that. Covenant means story. When an infant is baptized they are not just being initiated into a future faith agreement with Christ. They are being invited into the very narrative of God. That’s a powerful sign.
Unfortunately, it’s a sign that has lost its significance. The traditional trajectory of discipleship in churches that practice infant baptism is that the children grow in faith and then are confirmed into the church as adult members. This a proper and holistic view of discipleship, but one doesn’t need to go to statistics to realize that in most churches this does not happen. Instead, confirmation, just like believer’s baptism, is treated like a spiritual plateau. It’s a graduation of sorts, giving young people a certificate that they have arrived. There’s often not a message present in the local church that confirmation is just a step on the spiritual journey. Confirmation is too often treated as the end point for a journey started at baptism.
When an infant is baptized they are invited to participate in God’s story, first through the leading of their parents and the church community, and later through taking ownership of their faith and becoming an integral part of the church community. There is a disconnect between beginning in God’s story and taking ownership for your place in God’s story, and it is akin to the discipleship problem experienced in churches that practice adult-only baptism.
The problem of infant baptism will only begin to be renewed when the family and church communities take a long-view of the spiritual journey, and not just see the journey stop at confirmation. Infant baptism is an invitation into a lifetime journey within God’s story and participation in the kingdom of God. That is a high call, first placed on the parents and then transferred to children as they gradually take ownership of their faith, a faith that lasts a lifetime, not just until confirmation.
I really think you nailed the issue. Baptism, dedication, whatever are wonderful in concept — but our western/greek minds think that we do well if we “believe” something or achieve some conceptual goal; however, the truth throughout all of scripture is that you do well to believe, but such is empty without corresponding action. Your post very much reminded me of the book of James: just as faith without works is dead, so too infant baptism without discipleship is fruitless.
I believe that we can learn from Gregory of Nyssa who, in his book “The Life of Moses,” describes the Christian life as an ever-continual ascent into God (and for Nyssa this includes life in heaven). We are always on a journey. Yet, as David Griebner imagines for us in “The Carpenter and the Unbuilder” we tend to stop along the way, forgetting our invitation to dine with the King. But, the unbuilder (the church and spiritual friends, and the Holy Spirit) waits with us and helps us remember and continue on our way.
I believe that in our Protestant protest we have neglected the sacramental in fear of any high church ritualism, and therefore lost the sacramental dynamic to our life as CHURCH and thus our personal lives. I am becoming more and more convinced that the image and metaphor for discipleship/Christlikeness/holiness is baptism.
Over the last one hundred years (or so) the altar call/mourners’ bench with the focus on the “born again” experience has posited conversion to be a confession. Baptism is simply the seal of that confession done as a public testimony in front of others. The baptistery moved from the entrance to the sanctuary to the East wall (the front wall in the church that now holds the projector screens). When people are baptized today, the congregation are mere spectators of each person’s personal witness, end of story.
Yet baptism is our initiation into the community of faith, our new identity as new creation in God’s new order (if I may use that phrase) in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. It gives the Christ follower a model for the Christian life: I am crucified with Christ; therefore I no longer live but Christ lives in me. And the life I live in the body I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave his life for me.
So, the Christian life is then seen as four ways of living: living IN my baptism, living FROM my baptism, living BY my baptism, and living OUT my baptism.
Rather than baptism being something on the checklist of Christian to-do’s, it becomes the image of Christian formation. It becomes the image and reminder of what life for the believer looks like (Not my will but Thy will be done).
As regards to infants, they have to come to the place as John Wesley did in his Aldersgate Street experience: that he had the assurance that God had forgiven him and his heart was “strangely warmed.” It was that day that he owned his baptism that he had received as an infant.
I think the problem then, that we are expressing regarding infant baptism, has to do with our understanding of conversion, and not the ritual itself. With so much attention being on the date when one said, “God, forgive me of my sins,” baptism is restricted to “believers.” However, I believe that it is possible for a child to grow up in the church with parents who intentionally raise their child AS Christian, and life in the church is the child’s world. And the child could come to a place where he/she cannot name a time or day when s/he became Christian–s/he just is. They’ve just always have seemed to have known Jesus. Then, baptism must be understood and seen differently, or more than just individual testimony.
We must re-think what conversion is and return to a more biblical view that sees the Christian life as a continual conversion.
We must see it as a continual conversion and ascent into God…en ever-expanding journey into God’s presence.
My upbringing was in southern Baptist churches, but I first shifted to the Presbyterian Church, and now my wife and I are at an Episcopal church and love it. The liturgy has been a lifeline for us.
However, infant baptism was a much more difficult thing for us to accept. It took a couple of long conversation with both priests at our church before the lights came on for me personally on this issue.
Our son was baptized on All Saint’s Day last year, but only with a long-view understanding of his spiritual journey with God and God’s community. I agree with your conclusion that neither adult or infant baptism have much value without this perspective.
For us, Jude’s baptism is based fully on the strength of our faith as his parents. We are bringing him with the commitment to raise him as a Christ-follower. Jude will grow up a Christian, just like I did, though I was baptized at around age 7 (an event I can only vaguely remember). As he gets older, we will provide him the space and encouragement to increasingly own that for himself, a process that is helped along by parents who are living out God’s grace and redemption before his eyes.
We also believe it is a sign of inclusion into the community of Christ-followers. Jude will be included into the Body of Christ even now, and the church accepts him as one of our own.
Thank you for your reflections on baptism. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed thinking through it again.
@Josh I hadn’t thought of applying the book of James to the baptism-discipleship dynamic, but it certainly fits the metaphor of baptism being analogous to circumcision. Just as circumcision was meaningless without circumcision of the heart, so to is baptism without discipleship.
@Michael What a great synopsis of the problems that have arisen out of the “born again” mentality over the last century. There are so many strengths in Evangelical and non-denominational churches that I only pray that a more formative approach to baptism and discipleship will grow up within Evangelical theology. I think it’s happening, slowly, just because the lack of discipleship is coming to a head, and in this post-Christian culture we are in we can no longer hope for discipleship by osmosis. We are counter-cultural.
@Jason I appreciate you sharing about your journey as a couple with this issue. It’s certainly hard to move from one background to another on this issue (as you, me, and so many others have). I pray that God continues to give you wisdom as you grow as a family together. As an expecting father, I have been learning to take seriously the call of the ancient church fathers that the home is to be the littlest church. May it be for all families.
So when a child grows old enough to question, and says, “Daddy, why did you baptize me as a baby?” — what is your answer?
@Josh That’s a hard question…depends on the kid? Haha. I think I will say, “your mother and I have always trusted you to God. Your baptism was a sign of your entrance into God’s family. We as parents were entrusting you to the service of God, knowing full well that baptism is an act of God and not of our own volition.”
I think this highlights some of the issue I have with how modern christians view baptism — we abstract, mysticize, and spiritualize it. While I think there’s value to these concepts, we do so at the detriment of the simplicity of baptism. My current thought on how I’d answer is:
There are things you can see, and things you cannot see. For instance, you can see trees and a house and people. But, you can’t see God or his angels. When you were a baby, we were promised to raise you to love God and obey him — but that promise and God’s power to help us all keep it cannot be seen like you can see clouds or a rainbow, so we baptized you as a sign that everyone could see and remember.
I think this is where the break is from sacramental theology. Baby dedication is for all intents and purposes is trying to say the same thing (for the most part, but without water) as baptism: we entrust this child to the Lord and promise to raise this child in the way of Jesus. Baby dedication leaves the baptismal event to the child for an age where it can be fully entered into.
I am a part of a church tradition (the Church of the Nazarene) that observes both, with the strong majority being baby dedications because of the overarching cultural influence from the Anabaptists in America.
Baptism is sacramental; the other is not. In baptism (seen as a sacrament and not just an ordinance) the grace of God in Jesus through the Holy Spirit is given to the baptisand. Even as an infant, by faith the parents present the child to the Lord to receive his grace, to be initiated into God’s family, and to seal a covenant made that they will raise the child in the way of Christ and his kingdom. Baby dedication leaves the parents with the aim to raise the child so that he/she can come to the place to make the decision to live fully for Christ and be baptized. The parents who have their child baptized aims to raise their child to actualize, or live into, his/her baptism.
@Michael: I’m not sure I completely understand what you’re asserting; however, this is what I got:
* Baby Dedication: Not a sacrament, but tries to be.
* Baby Baptism: Sacrament.
While I understand that may be an oversimplification of what you said, I’d like to know if I got the low-level gist of what you were asserting. Also, I’m interested to try to understand if you were saying one is better than the other, or is more appropriate to observe than the other.
I think Michael is spot on as is your summary. Baptism is a sacrament. Dedication is not. Baptism is God’s gracious gift to the child. Dedication is the parent’s obedient gift to God. As to the apropriateness of which to practice, that is much debated and depends largely on one’s tradition.
@Josh
As Eric said, yes–I think you are getting the gist of it; and I think Eric adds a nice layer to it in saying baby dedication “is the parent’s obedient gift to God.”
My preference is towards the sacramental. Yet, I want to leave the decision to the parents. As a pastor I would be happy to celebrate either. I’m not wanting to say that one is “better” over the other, or more spiritual. But again as Eric wonderfully noted, the focus is on two different parties: dedication – the parents (We dedicated you to the Lord); baptism – the child (You were baptized).
To add to Eric’s appropriate practice and tradition, this goes back to the Reformation. To oversimplify, Zwingli didn’t see the sacraments as a “means of grace”–they were merely ordinances commanded by the Lord to be observed. With the break from an institutionalized view of worship, the reformers stripped away those things which they saw as “non-essential”…and so the baby went out with the water (sorry, I couldn’t help myself). Perhaps baby dedication was retained as a way of remembering how Jesus was dedicated at the temple.
Whether or not a baby/child is dedicated or baptized, the church has a beautiful opportunity to practice community and observe this moment/event as a congregation (liturgically). Rather than the pastor just talking to and charging the parents and family, the pastor can talk to the whole congregation as well and charge the parents, family, and the church community to raise this child in the ways of God. The child has been brought into the church family. The family of God needs to be included in this event, as they need to be engaged during “believer’s” baptisms. This is a communal event, not an individual’s experience alone. In both the dedication and baptism the congregation needs to be reminded of their own dedication/baptism. Both practices can serve formationally for the congregation–returning it rightfully to the congregation and not the individual’s personal experience. It’s personal inside the context of participation in community.
Admittedly, the tradition of which I am a part does not do a good job at this. We have rites for both dedication and infant baptism, but we are weak at contextualizing the event within community. I think this is part of the reason why it is not seen through the lens of discipleship (getting back to the main issue raised).
So here’s my next question: What does God give to the baptized child that he does not give to the dedicated child?
@Josh:
A baptized baby is given the Holy Spirit and is buried with Christ and raised with Him to walk in newness of life as he grows up. He is made a member of Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church by virtue of his baptized union with Christ.
A dedicated baby is given a life verse and a quick parade in front of an adoring congregation (at least at my old church).
@Michael
I just noticed that you are in the Church of the Nazarene. That “old church” of mine that I mention in my previous comment was the Nazarene church and as a result, I am surprised to see a Nazarene articulating a sacramental view of baptism for as I indicated, there was nothing sacramental about the Nazarene church of my upbringing. It was thoroughly Zwinglian and Baptistic.
I left the Nazarene church to become Reformed Presbyterian for a few years and have now found myself enchanted by Lady Canterbury with her 1662 BCP and Richard Hooker.
Pax Christi.
There are a growing number of sacramental Nazarenes. Having just come through our first 100 years (we’re still a young tribe), we are in our adolescence and attempting to discover who we are. We were an “emergency order” to recover holiness of heart and life. And now we have moved past that…but still holding to our theology. There is a movement back to Wesley and thus, (re)discovering a sacramental core. Eric might have more to say about this, as he is Nazarene as well.
Not sure what I would add, Michael has pretty well articulate my position. It would seem that the sacramental shift (though still a vastly minority opinion) in the CotN is rooted in a discovery of truly Wesleyan Holiness, as opposed to the brand of holiness peddled by Pheobe Palmer and the other Camp Meeting Revivalists. It is a holiness rooted in a sacramental life. With the discovery of Wesley, the Anglican, is Wesley, the catholic, who was shaped by the early fathers is a profound way. It was the early church that clearly taught us: “I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” That tradition of linking (albeit a mysterious link) baptism and salvation as the former being a means of the latter has a long history in Christian tradition… Including Wesley.
And I think naming this mystery regarding baptism is what causes confusion within the evangelical church. Up until the development of the “mourner’s bench” (later to be renamed “altar”) there was no developed sinner’s prayer. There was no ask, believe, confess formula for coming to faith. Baptism was they symbol and seal of conversion–recognizing that there is a major break with the former way of life (St. Paul) to press on what is before us. There is the identification with Christ’s dying/rising in the sacred waters. St. Paul uses the metaphor of “washing” in 1 Cor 6.11, pointing or at least alluding to baptism.
Yet as evangelicals, we have a hard time with an external symbol carrying the weight of salvation. It seems to be less about faith…as if it takes less faith to believe that we are identifying with Christ, dying to ourselves and our former ways when we go down in the water and coming up as new creation….or it seems less because we are not the one doing the action (since baptism is a passive act).
So, to link baptism with salvation and not something internal within the believer (ask, believe, confess) appears to move salvation towards a “work.” It just becomes something you DO after you become a Christian to show the world that you are a Christian. There is, therefore, nothing sacred to it…it is merely something to be done because Christ commanded it (in the Great Commission). But, it doesn’t serve as any connection with our understanding of discipleship or holiness or progression into Christlikeness. Thus, we’re back to the “missing jewel” of discipleship.
@Michael, I’m intrigued by your view on infant baptism. The work of God you describe in infant baptism sounds a lot like what most “Christians” would recognize as “salvation.” Do you mean to say that baptizing a baby is salvation to them, and that babies without it lack the same benefit?
If not, what is the distinction between what you describe in infant baptism and salvation?
For either view, I’m eager to know the scriptures from which you draw this understanding.
Admittedly, the scriptures specifying “paedobaptism” – either pro or con – are lacking. Scripture simply doesn’t address the issue aside from some comments regarding the baptism of “the house of…” which may or may not include children. There seems to be plenty of extra-biblical evidence that the early church baptized infants to claim that this has been the church’s practice from the beginning.
As to the biblical support for linking salvation and baptism, there is plenty. Just do a quick search for “baptize” and you will find ample references to “repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins;” or Peter’s words that “this water now saves you” to Paul’s words, read every Easter Vigil, that connect the descent into the water with Christ death and the rising out of the water with His resurrection from the dead.
If scripture weren’t clear enough, the ecumenical councils certainly were. The apostles’ creed affirms our belief in the forgiveness of sins. The Nicene tells us how…. that’s right, “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”
Now how this all works out is indeed a mystery. Especially with regards to infants. What we must understand is that Baptism is baptism is baptism, regardless of the age. God’s grace is freely given to all regardless of their age. Infant baptism is not in any way different from believer’s baptism. That said, the church has always wrestled with this very issue. So, while the church in the East has always held a unity in the Rites of Christian Initiation (ie baptism and confirmation) the church in the West as separated them to make confirmation the acceptance of the grace received in baptism. I don’t know enough about the respective positions enough to draw any conclusions beyond the fact that these questions are not new, nor will they be definitively answered by the great cloud of armchair theologians in the blogosphere…
How old will be a child old enough to be baptized?
@yuung I think in most churches that practice infant baptism it is left to the parents; the general rule is sometime between a couple months and two years.
@Thomas Thank you for the clear answer. I thought my question would be a little bit more comprehensive than just the physical age since all the comments and information exchanges are about the biblical truth of baptism. I am very clear that the issue of infant baptism in terms of the new covenant with the living God as the article explained from the biblical point of view. But the question is how do we actually draw the line.
@yuung The line is a tricky thing. I don’t think there is a good answer. It’s best left up to the local church or denomination to decide as the Spirit leads them.