Tuesday, January 17, 2006

The Protestant Limbo

I don't enjoy Christian baby dedications. To me they're a little sad and a little irritating all mixed together.

It's sad to me because to me it's like making your kids live in a tent in the back yard until they know how to unlock the back door. You let them stay on the property but they don't really belong. So you make sure they don't come in the house. It's irritating to me because I don't really agree with the reasons usually given against infant baptism.

I should say right off the bat that I don't think baptism saves you. I don't think that baptism keeps a child from hell or protects them from the consequences of original sin. In that sense, I believe it is possible for a person to go to heaven even if they are never baptized. So in terms of the symbolic aspect of baptism, deciding when a person is baptized is partially a question of what you are trying to symbolize. Do you want them symbolically in from the beginning of their lives or only when they have made the personal commitment?

But are they really out when they are 2? I believe they're really in when they're 1, 2, 3, maybe even 4, 5, 6. Indeed, I believe it's possible that a person might be "in" at every moment of their life--if they accept Christ from the moment they understand their need for him. I bet Russ Gunsalus and Keith Drury have been on their way to heaven every single moment of their lives! Accordingly, it makes me really sad when we make it a point of saying that our children are "out." Frankly, I think our children should take communion too. I guarantee you the children at Corinth ate the communion meal of 1 Corinthians 11.

But of course I believe baptism is also a sacrament, a means of grace. In that sense, I believe it "helps" our fellowship with God in some mystical way. I actually believe that a child who has been baptized has a better chance of accepting Christ personally later, not too dissimilar from the passage in 1 Corinthians 7 that says our children are sanctified by our faith apart from any act of will on their part.

If baptism is truly a means of grace in this way, then to forbid our children from baptism is actually to refuse them an avenue of God's grace. In other words, it sets down a "harder" path into the kingdom for them than it could be. If we knew this to be true for certain, refusing our children baptism would be rather infuriating to us, something we would actually fight against (P.S. I write these words with some restraint).

I suppose the main objection to infant baptism is the idea that you cannot be saved without a personal confession of faith. But of course nothing I've said thus far contradicts this idea. That's part of what's irritating to me. Salvation is not the same thing as baptism. And there's often a subtle individualistic assumption that goes along with this position--as if for an experience to be meaningful I have to be conscious of it (note to self: examine possibly self-oriented assumptions I may not have examined).

And of course the fact that the baptisms recorded in the New Testament are all or at least nearly all adult baptisms doesn't settle the issue. The Bible never tells us an incident where someone is baptized as an adult who was in the church as a child. All the adult NT baptisms are people entering the church for the first time as an adult. And of course the NT does mention more than once that whole households were baptized--we just don't know who all was in them. On the whole, my sense of how group dynamics worked in the Bible makes me suspect it more likely than not that child baptism was a part of early Christian practice.

A personal relationship with God and Christ is of course essential, meaning that every individual must confess Christ and appropriate his death if they are at all intellectually able (Frankly I would still baptize a severely mentally challenged person, even if they will never really understand). But I suspect that such relationships were always imbedded in the community of faith in New Testament times. In a sense they were personal, but not individual, relationships with God and his Christ.

And of course infant baptism isn't just some Catholic thing. Luther, Calvin, and Wesley would all give an intense scolding to anyone using their name and not baptizing their children. In recent times, adult baptism is really an Anabaptist thing that resurfaced these last few hundred years, a backwater trickle that has really only flourished in America.

Many will disagree with me, but I find baby dedications lamentable, missed opportunities. To me they impoverish the church by placing our children in a limbo that they are not really in. While we could use baptism to emphasize that we are communities and families of faith, instead we accentuate ourselves as isolated individuals of faith. Rather than making our children have to work to leave, we make them work to get in when they are really in already. Rather than avail them of God's means of grace and give them any sacramental benefit to baptism, we make them come in cold turkey.

So maybe I'll go become a Methodist. Oh wait, the Wesleyan Church actually allows for infant baptism. I wonder why nobody does it? Maybe it's because we've been hanging out with the Baptists for so long.

25 comments:

Scott D. Hendricks said...

Dr. Schenck- I liked your post very much. I understand how you see dedications as putting our children in limbo; keeping them in the backyard instead of letting them into the house. However, I believe that many people who dedicate their children to God (at least this is how I perceive it, growing up in a church where children were never baptized; maybe all the adults saw it differently) do it in faith, believing that in the act they are symbolically trusting the Lord with their newborn. However, I can see where you're coming from, if I think about it really hard (that is, about the experience of witnessing a dedication and not the arguments for or against it), I have always wondered whether these dedications have any power or meaning . . . and it is kind of funny that they do sprinkle with water thrice in the baptismal formula.

Anonymous said...

As a wesleyan myself, I've wondered the same thing. Why don't we have more infant baptisms? And since we give a choice, why do we push for dedication? I haven't done many of either. Actually, only one of each. But I like giving the choice and helping them understand both baptism and dedication. If we offer both, then why not explain both, right? Wierd.

Anonymous said...

Is the reason the Wesleyan church gives an option between infant baptism and dedication a matter of choosing one's conscience? If so, what about the other sacrament - the Lord's Supper? Why can't Wesleyan pastors serve grape juice AND wine, and ask people to vote their conscience here as well? Yet we are firm on this issue. My denomination feels that we need to abstain from alcohol - I guess because even if we serve wine in Communion it will cause everyone to fall into sin and alcoholism. But this isn't the case with our conscience. Again, why do we practice things in such a way? Wierd.

::athada:: said...

As a United Methodist, I can tell you that at my home congregation, we are seeing a lot more baby dedications than baptisms now(recently, the youth pastor's son). I was baptized as a baby and then was told by a well-meaning bible-study-leading adult at the end of high school that baptism should be MY decision. So I got baptized again in a kiddie pool at a non-denominational church with several members of my UM congregation standing by in support.

So now I don't know what level of heaven or purgatory I'm headed toward :)

Kevin Wright said...

What's even funnier is that Wesleyans "dedicate" children while using water and all the trinitarian language associated with baptism. It's like we want the benefits of baptism but want to preserve the emotional charge associated with those who receive baptism as an adult under their own choice.

Aaron said...

Why can't we use an infant baptism/dedication, as a symbolic view of the prevenient grace and the later chosen baptism as the step into conversion (not in a salvific sense but you know what I mean)?

Heather Cooper said...

My wife and I struggled with this issue as well when our 1st daughter was born. I was actually a United Methodist pastor at the time and didn't necessarily agree with infant baptism. I also didn't see the value in dedication because aren't we going to raise them in a Christian community regardless of a dedication ceremony?

So, we didn't do either. We personally felt that if we did one or the other that we would be doing it because of pressure brought about by tradition. She has yet to be either dedicated or baptized. Does this effect her in any way? I don't believe so. Are we "dedicated" to raising her in a Christian home without a ceremony to remind us of our committment, absolutely. When she is old enough to make the decision for herself than her mother and I will stand behind her 100% and rejoice in her decision.

Mike Cline said...

"If baptism is truly a means of grace in this way, then to forbid our children from baptism is actually to refuse them an avenue of God's grace."

Yet we say that this means of grace is not enough for salvific grace. This is where I get confused. So does the Lord's Supper and Communion communicate some measure of grace that actually isn't measurable at all? It's as if we need to draw up a linear equation as to what effect the grace that is communicated actually has. What does this grace do? Hold them tighter to God's will for a little longer?

And I would ask this: If refusing baptism from our children is keeping them from some measure of God's avenue of influence and grace, then why must Communion be only for believers? If it's truly a means of grace (again, I don't think the definition of this is clear), shouldn't we allow anyone to take communion and allow God to decide where there heart is and how much grace they need at that moment? (I would say no...but I think this is where the argument would head)

Ken Schenck said...

Good discussion all. Quick responses:

1. I'm not impugning the motives of individual parents.

2. For those who do not view baptism as a sacrament that works ex opera operata, then it really comes down to what symbolism you prefer and what effect you think it will have on the person and church.

2. It is not a sacrament that saves but that catalyzes the cleansing of the Spirit. I believe in offering communion to anyone who is seeking God, not just those who are already in. And I prefer our children taking communion alongside us just like they did in the early church.

3. Given the individualistic focus of Western culture, it's no surprise that this would be the most popular approach for us. I understand it and will respect such wishes.

4. Woe to pastors who forbid or do not inform parents of the possibility of infant baptism. And woe to pastors who baptize infants and then don't proclaim the meaning to their churches. I still think that the leanings across the board toward adult baptism are another example of America's tendency toward spiritual masturbation.

Keith Drury said...

I agree in the importance of such in/out symbolism and (as you know) fully agree with your pro-infant-baptism position. But I'll raise a related issue: what “significant symbolic act” will you then assign to the time when the 6 year old, or 15 year old makes their own “decision” to be the Christian their parents already dedicated them to become? Having “used up” baptism what act will you suggest to make significant personal commitment important—is the “come forward and kneel” enough? Confirmation of some sort? Re-baptism? I am with you on infant baptism but do not want to shrug off the very significant act of an individual’s will when they determine to follow Christ. What act do you suggest?

Ken Schenck said...

I agree with James that confirmation often comes off as a rather weak equivalent for adult appropriation. Again, shame on any that do it for not lock-stepping it with infant baptism.

If I had to choose, I'd rather do the pretend adult rather than the almost infant baptism. But I suppose for a church like the Wesleyans--who don't have confirmation really--it's important for those baptized as infants to have some other official moment. The Wesleyan Church needs to develop a special ceremony for those who baptize their children as infants (it might even involve water :).

If it wasn't so historically rejected, I wouldn't necessarily object to a second baptism as a moment of personal appropriation. I need to hear more discussion on it to decide.

P.S. ex opera operata isn't quite the right phrase for what I meant. I mean that the faith of the parents can make the baptism sacramental for the child even when the child is not able to have faith consciously.

Ken Schenck said...

P.S. What really solidified my favor toward infant baptism was when I was faced with the question of what to do with my own children. I didn't want there to be any question but that they were in the church with us and part of the family of God. I believe they are. Indeed, I believe that until the moment of choice when prevenient grace makes it possible for a person to move toward or away from Christ, they still have not reached the "age of accountability." And that may be at 54, 72, or perhaps even 90.

::athada:: said...

Age of accountability ... at 90?! Wow... that will send my head reeling for a bit...

Be back when I stop spinning,
-at-

Ken Schenck said...

I thought it might be a fun tributary to ride down for a second...

Ken Schenck said...

I first thought of the phrase "spiritual masturbation" in relation to the way contemporary Christianity so focuses on the importance of "quiet time," "personal relationship," it's-all-about-me-and-God-out-there-alone, parallel play Christianity. I do think whatever all this ball of off center focus is plays into the current I-need-to-be-there adult baptism focus. But I'll admit that it is less appropriate of this issue than some of these others.

On the whole, I just don't think Paul or the other NT in their day would have recognized the way we tend to talk about personal relationships with God. And I don't think the issue is as biblically slam dunk as most assume.

Thanks for posting the constrasting position, James. No one but me is promoting infant baptism in the Wesleyan Church that I know. I'm reacting to people in my own denomination, perhaps even pastors, who might not even know that they're on the opposite side of our longer history in resisting infant baptism. It was all we could do to communicate to the church secretary that our children were being baptized, not dedicated. And some of us are a little puzzled why two babies were dedicated this past weekend at my church when I would have thought the parents themselves would have been more baptism type people. I don't know the details, but took the moment of thought to vent. The opposite position gets all the air time in the Wesleyan Church (or more often, there's no awareness that there even is another position).

Kevin Wright said...

Perhaps the underlying question is, have we watered down doctrines, inspired insipid ignorance, and promoted such a vapid view of scripture and tradition that we are no longer able to understand why we do what we do? While tradition is not the answer, understanding the development of baptismal doctrine does aid us in our quest to seek a doctrine protean enough for this day that still remains faithful to the traditions and sacraments of the church. So basically it comes down to this. Let's stop being Baptists and start learning what it means to be a Wesleyan.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps I'm one of those "spiritual masturbaters"; but, it seems to me that this whole thing begs the question, "Can God's power and grace be halted by the difference of a few litres of water?"

To dedicate means to consecrate -- or Set Apart for God.

Baptism is an initiation rite.

(definitions according to Webster)

In my (limited) experience, parents generally MEAN the same thing by both.

Which is more important to God: the Heart or the Actions?

Ken Schenck said...

You all are helping me think through what I want to do with all this--and what I think should be done with all this. No one has taken the critique in some directions it could go. For example, the current Wesleyan configuration of membership also tends to pull against the idea that "everyone here is assumed to be in until proven otherwise." Membership of the attendees versus the admitted is a long standing debate in our church.

But it especially has stood out to me that the WC has no liturgy for those few who have been baptized to make it personally theirs. So I think the next step for me is to design a "Salvation Service" to correspond to the cleansing of sins at justification. I think it can be designed to look just like a baptism by immersion, only without calling it baptism.

What do you all think?

Ken Schenck said...

I appreciate both believer's baptism and infant baptism and want to find some way to combine the strengths of both. Those who sprinkle dedicate fall off the log preferring to call the adult one the baptism; I'm trying to fall off the log on the other side.

Thanks for the head's up on Staples.

Ken Schenck said...

I'll pretend like I came up with any ideas I like :)

Ken Schenck said...

I don't at all mean that you would give communion to non-believers, but to those who "do earnestly repent of their sins and " ... I forget exactly how the WC liturgy goes...

Ken Schenck said...

Sorry, Jay, I see you're thinking of children. Yes, you could very easily expose me as a very strange mixture of theology, liking infant baptism but having a quite different sense of communion from the "catholic" tradition.

Mike Cline said...

"I believe in offering communion to anyone who is seeking God, not just those who are already in."

Which, if we are all being honest in that case, we would just have to take someone's words/coming forward and count them as "seeking." (unless their actions OBVIOUSLY prove otherwise). In the end it's on their head right if they are taking communion without good intentions? I don't know. This seems wishy washy to me

Ken Schenck said...

I'm not sure what you mean Mike. That's basically what I think, that it's not the minister's job to sort out who can or can't take communion. God knows the hearts and knows those who "drink condemnation to themselves." Baptize them all and let God sort them out...

Mike Cline said...

I guess with my background, it is hard for me to think that anyone can just stroll up and take communion. I was always always told I had to be "saved" (Baptist Church). Then I took on the Wesleyan side of "means of grace" and started taking communion even more seriously. Yet, this idea that we should just let God sort it out seems to show a lower view of communion in some way, while at the same time, a higher view by suggesting that in the act, grace is communicated to whoever. I do not know where I am going with this. I am flushing out my system onto your blog. Sorry