Third Way Thursday: Baptism Conundrums
I have been baptized twice. Double dipped so to speak. According to most theologies, whether baptistic or mainline, I am assured of salvation, so I basically doubled down on my fire insurance.
Jokes aside, baptism continues to be a divisive issue within the church, partly because of the ambiguity of baptism in the Bible, like what does it mean that "whole families" were baptized in Acts at the same time that all detailed explanations of baptism are for adults only.
Infant baptism proponents see the act as a sign of the new covenant, like circumsicion was for the Jewish nation.
Early church teaching almost universally accepts infant baptism, including the following quotes:
"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" –Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" –Hippolytus (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Yet theology is a growing and changing enterprise and as traditions wane over time and culture changes how are we to respond with baptism?
Based on Scripture alone, believer’s baptism proponents has a strong case, especially in the detailed accounts of baptism in Acts. Children are present at baptisms, but are they actually baptized is assumed and not mentioned.
In my own thinking, I have greatly desired a third way out of this conundrum because, when I am being intellectually honest with myself, I think both are valid arguments. Both infant and believer’s baptism are significant liturgical actions full of meaning. Both fulfill Scriptures admonishment to perform this sacrament.
Part of what is infuriating about this is that the authors of the Scriptures never really considered this a big enough issue to make an argument one way or another, and so for me a third way of viewing this is that baptism is in part defined by your community, and that both should be held valid.
When it comes down to it, I think this problem would be lessened if churches would recognize the baptism of another church and not demean the baptism of a fellow Christian. It goes both ways, for those who go through believer’s baptism and aren’t infant baptized, or for those who are infant baptized and not believer’s baptized. And then there is the crazy cases like me who are baptized in both ways, and it lead to much confusion on my part. This dilemma was raised in Take Me to the River by Leon Boder, as he opines:
The Church that is emerging into the 21st century will need to take seriously Paul’s assertion that there is “One Lord, one faith and one baptism … One God and Father of all.” When our communities of faith begin to recognize one another’s baptism in the spirit of this unity, who knows. … we could very well witness the heavens themselves being ripped apart, the Spirit of the Living God hovering over us like a mother bird, and the gentle words of God whispering in our ears, “These are my beloved … in whom I am well pleased.”
Is Leon and mine’s thinking a proper third way on this issue? Is there another way to think about this? What does your church do when confronted with these types of situations? I’d appreciate your thoughts.
2 Comments
Submit a Comment
SUBSCRIBE:
I Support
I’m like you–I can see both answers. I grew up in a church that held to believer’s baptism. Now I go to an Anglican church, which holds to infant baptism. In my understanding, it’s not about wiping away original sin, but as you say, entering into a covenant like circumcision. The thing is, eventually my husband and I hope to have children. And not only will we have to figure out for ourselves if infant baptism is appropriate but be able to explain to our families (who aren’t Anglican) why we chose to do so (if we choose to do so, which we’re leaning toward).
In the Lutheran tradition, baptism is fundamentally an act of God, which reconciles us to God in Christ, and not a human action by which we save ourselves. In the words of Luther’s Small Catechism:
It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.” (Bold face added by me!)
For us, the contrast is not between “infant baptism” and “believer’s baptism”, per se, but between “sacramental baptism” (meaning that God is the effective agent) and “believer’s baptism”, in which human agency and consent (i.e. “works”) effect reconciliation with God, albeit in obedience to Christ’s command to baptize. For obvious historical reasons, Lutherans tread wary when human works and salvation are used in the same sentence, and especially when “faith” is made into a “work”. We encourage Christian parents and guardians to bring their children, including infants, to be baptized, because we know that Baptism is a gracious gift from God which does not depend upon the child’s agency for its holy effect. And because we believe that Baptism is an act of God, we also believe that it is full and sufficient in its effect, which precludes multiple baptisms.
But, we are not indifferent to the role that faith plays in our life in Christ. It is no accident that Luther explains Confession (or Repentance) immediately after his explanation of Baptism in the Small Catechism. Baptism inaugurates a life of daily repentance, of daily “turning” back to God. In effect, the one-time-only event of Baptism is lived out in daily repentance for the rest of our lives. (Note that the discipline of repentance is understood as “turning back to God”, NOT as “beating up” on one’s self in some masochistic exercise.) Christians who bring infants to be baptized accept the responsibility of raising those children in the Way of Christ; of modeling and teaching a life of faith, Christian community, worship, and daily repentance. Many, if not most, of those children will one day stand before the people of God and publicly affirm their faith in God; affirming what God has accomplished in them through the gift of Baptism, and their own determination to live a life in the Way of Christ. We call this rite Affirmation of Baptism or Confirmation.
Lutherans recognize the validity of any Baptism with water in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The age or mental acuity of the baptized is irrelevant.