Infant Baptism

I guess one of Bence's classes got somewhat heated over infant baptism, so I thought I would weigh in.

First of all, I have divided feelings on the issue. On the one hand, I value my baptism. I can remember it, and it is meaningful that I can remember it. It symbolized for me my commitment to Christ. Notice the operative terms in this paragraph: I... I... I... for me my. Believer's baptism is "me" centered, and modern Western culture is individualist in orientation.

On the other hand, I think children are "in" until God brings them to the point where they can choose not to be. Did the early church baptize infants? I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if they did, for the ancient world was a group oriented culture (e.g., Acts 16:15, 33). I do believe that the children of Christians ate the Lord's Supper along with everyone else, since it was originally a meal (1 Cor. 10). The assumption would have been that they were "in" until one way or another they made it clear they were not.

Incidentally, my read on the New Testament leans toward the "security" rather than the "one sin you're out side." New Testament authors treat the members of their churches as if there is a long period of iffiness before a person is out and damned.

So I like the symbolism of infant baptism that puts a claim on the salvation of our children--not a presumption that they will be saved, but a commitment to cooperate with God's prevenient grace and a symbolic affirmation that they are more "in" than "out." They are sanctified by the believing parents and thus made holy (1 Cor. 7:14).

I believe children of an early age go to heaven when they die--whether they are baptized or not. I don't think they're like animals who don't count, and I have a hard time believing God sends them to hell when they had no chance at all.

Now also important is my belief that baptism doesn't actually save you. I think in theory you can make it to heaven without baptism (a relief to you Salvationists, Quakers, and babies out there). Nevertheless, I think it is an important symbol that the New Testament universally affirms as expected.

In fact, I think it is more than just a symbol in the sense that as a sacrament, I think it actually catalyzes God's grace to you. I would go so far as to say that I believe an infant who has been baptized has a better chance of eventually becoming a Christian than one that has not, even though I know this poses some issues for the matter of free will (but then again, so does the idea of praying for the lost).

And so, I see benefits to both. Believer's baptism is more meaningful to me because I make the choice and receive the sacramental benefit consciously. But as a parent, infant baptism places a claim on the child for God in a sacramental way and says, this child is God's--stay away Satan.

I wish we could do it twice, frankly, if it didn't seem to play games of disbelief with God. I would rebaptize someone if they wished, however, because I believe God is very pragmatic.

So where do I come down on this issue? I am sympathetic to both practices. Because baptism doesn't actually save you, I don't think the timing is as important as some people make it (the Wesleyan Church thankfully allows baptism at any age or even never at all).

But ultimately I had my children baptized because I didn't want them hanging in limbo during this period of their life (yes, in a Wesleyan church). God considers them "in" during this period, so I wanted them to be symbolically in as well. I also wanted them to receive any sacramental benefit it might carry.

And lastly I deplore the self-centered individualism of Western culture. Christianity isn't all about me. You (plural) are the temple of God, not you singular (1 Cor. 3:16). I think the next few years will see an increasing awareness among American Christians of how hyper-self-preoccupied we are--without even realizing it, I hate to say.