I had an interesting conversation this past week at District Assembly. One of my friends told me he baptized 8 people this past year, but the report published in the Journal only has him listed for 6. He inquired about the discrepancy and was told the publish statistics do not include infant baptism. When questioned that he was told he was lucky to be able to baptize infants at all.So this got me digging. The Annual Pastor’s Report ask for three things. (1) “Christian Baptisms (not infants)” (2) “Infant Baptisms” (3) “Infant Dedications.” So, we do differentiate between infant baptism and dedication, but we also do not consider infant baptisms to be “Christian” baptisms. Is this a fair reading?
Have you run into this problem? Why would the district journals not include infant baptisms in the number of baptisms preformed? Is there a way to get the infant baptisms to count without false reporting? Perhaps one of you could help me out.
eef
home office
1st Sunday After Pentecost, 2007
posted by EF + at 2:39 PM
14 Comments:
Wow, that is really scary to me -- I wonder if Evan knows that -- as you know he's passionately paedobaptist. Just wait until we go so far as to not just baptise but also excorise our own child!
You know, our tradition (Nazarene) tends to differentiate many things, perhaps unnecessarily. We don't just say salvation, we require ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION. You may be called into ministry, but only those with a call to preach are ELDERS. Etc. Etc.
Anyway, very interesting and scary. Thanks!
Julia.
This is simple. Here are my explanations for the church:
1. We are not really Wesleyan
2. We do not really care about children
3. We provide meaning and understanding of baptism not God
4. There is no actual grace found in the waters of baptism
Here are my solutions:
1. Just don't differentiate in your reporting of baptisms. Christian baptism is Christian baptism. If they call you on it, tell them to get bent!
2. Remind your DS that the church has performed Christian baptism on infants for longer than he's been DS, so it'll be okay.
Anyway, I've got a million sarcastic answers. This is one of those issues that really lights me up. I'm sorry, did some moron really say "lucky to even be able to baptize infants at all"? Oh, my! If only the Orthodox church ordained women!
This is confusing. I'm sure that I am not the most qualified to try to answer, but maybe the Church sees that an infant really has no choice to be baptized, but yet one who is not in need of getting their diaper changed, has an actual choice and voluntarily decides in what they are doing so their baptism is considered more of a Christian baptism than that of a babies. Maybe they are taking in effect that baptism is more of a life altering experience when you decide on your own to do so, rather than a baby that is pratically forced. And that is why it is determined to be an infant baptism rather than a Christian baptism. Becasue those who are voluntarily baptize are becoming Christians, whereas an infant did not make that choice, and still has awhile to go before it decides to make that choice of walking with God.
I don't know if that's right or not, but that is the only logical reasoning I can give. Hey, some good news came this week. Everybody who is going to NYC, Me, Andy, Crissie, DJ, Megan, and about three others are already to go and paid for.
Hope all is well for you.
That is so AWESOME!!! wish I could be there...you guys rock!
I agree with Nicholas' explaination. I think he is on the mark.
Mom
The cool thing is, the youth group really only put up I would say about 15 to 30 percent. The rest was straight from the church. Hey, did you hear about Steven? Althouggh I barely knew him, I am still shocked. That is insane. How he got voted in as a full time pastor is beyond me. But what he did was revoting.
Nicholas, I think your explanation is well thought out. However, to say that one must be able to make a choice for baptism in order for God to change them is only partly true. If that were the case then no one who is severely mentally disabled would receive grace in the waters of baptism. In infant baptism, those of us who believe that baptism is not merely memorial, but truly sacramental would say that the change that occurs in the waters of baptism is prevenient. It is the grace that comes before. I would say, and I think Wesley (in his journals and sermons) would too, that the baby is changed and it is by faith. Perhaps God gifts that baby grace directly, perhaps through the community of faith (it's called that for a reason), and perhaps through the baby's parents. Perhaps a baby doesn't choose to eat either, but thankfully her parents were able to choose to feed her anyway. This keeps a baby from starving to death.
If we question the baptism of an infant based on choice alone, then we must in turn question all baptism. That leads us to Christ's baptism. Did Christ make the choice to be baptized? Did he choose to walk the path that was before him? If so, could he have avoided the cross altogether? If one questions what happens to an infant in the waters of baptism, then one must be ready and willing to question even these things. I'm prepared to . . .
I believe baptism is particularly powerful medicine of the Holy Spirit. We are all sick and need this gift of the Spirit to sustain us. I for one am not willing to deny the sustaining grace of the Triune God from anyone, especially infants.
For starters,
The reason I understand that the Nazarene Church allows both infant dedication and infant baptism is that Christians honestly disagree on the issue and it wasn't an issue they thought was worth fighting over. People have been literally killed over the issue, so I do think there was some wisdom in the church's decision.
Secondly, in the church's reporting I think they are looking for a good record of conversion that goes beyond saying a prayer and never seeing them again. I think in their minds baptism shows possibly a little bit more commitment, though we all know it might not.
Finally, I do think there is a difference in infant baptism and believer baptism. Not in the grace given or the work done by God, but in the one being baptized. Infants, even in the Catholic Church are still not allowed to take the Eucharist until they are confirmed and that usually doesn't happen untill they are at least seven I believe. So even the Catholic Church recognizes some difference or else they would be giving them the elements in their bottle.
kevin peterson
This comment has been removed by the author.
But you still, I think, have to make an effort of not making the two synonymous. Because that is what they are not. The Church is still keeping a record of the infant, so that they are counted, but to include them with the people who make a conscious choice of being a Christian is simply not accurate. Because they are less likely to be Christians at the time. In fact, you could argue that they are not, not yet anyways, simply because there is alot more in becoming a Christian than just baptism. Wouldn't you agree? Sure they do have that grace found in the waters, but it does not extend to them actual becoming a Christian. They still have that choiuce ahead.
You say that there is still grace in the waters for an infant baptism. I agreee. But that infant is not a mentally disabled person. An infant will, when the time comes, grow up and still have that choice to make as an adult. With little memory of it's baptism, it remains to have that grace, but still comes to a crossraods of, am I a Christian or not. There's no knocking on God's part, for He will deliver the grace. It just simply falls on the human side, and when you define Christian, you see an infant really has not made that choice, whereas an adult has made that decison, we hope, with the decision of baptizing themselves.
The Chruch is still counting the infant baptism, still acknowledging the grace that is shown, but instead, leaves the Christain part to yet to be determined.
I think the rite of confirmation has to be taken into consideration. Now I am not an expert on confirmation and I know there is by far not any argreement on its relationship to baptism, but it seems to me that at least in practice, there are two aspects of the Rites of Christian Initiation. One is Baptized and then one is confirmed. When an infant is baptized they are then later confirmed at the age of accountability. However, when an adult is baptized they are also confirmed as a part of the same rite. In all reality they are two parts of the SAME sacrament (not two separate sacraments). This allows us to recognize (1) that we love God because God FIRST loved us. (2) that we are saved ONLY by the gracious work of God in Chrst. (3) that even the gracious work of God in Christ requires a faithful response on our part.
I think IF we could make room for confirmation (lit "confirming" that God's grace received in Baptism is working in my life!), then all of these discussions would go away.
BECAUSE we have no room for confirmation, we perpetuate that we are saved by our decision and we have to have these unfortunate conversations.
Catholics do not give communion to infants even who are baptized, but I think there are other traditions that do (maybe anglicans?). But to equate the RCC situation to ours is slightly different because of the confirmation issue.
Therefore, in my mind there is NO difference between infant baptism and believer baptism. Baptism is baptism is baptism which is the sacrament of GOD's grace calling us to himself. Nothing more. But we all also agree that there must be a significant rite celebrating ones positive response to God's call.
Anyway, it has been a pleasure thinking with you as always. Peace.
Quick question, if we can't be sure of a change in the infant at baptism, can we be sure of a change in any catechumen at baptism?
This debate of baptism infant and christian, partly my own doing, has veered in the wrong direction.
The reason they are named differnetly is just like in court. You have a juvenile trial, and a adult trial. The trials are the same, just those participating in them are differnt. The baptism is the same, just differnent age groups participating.
But to answer your question, maybe I am being to realistic, but if a parent makes an infant wear a football jersey, it does not make that child anymore of a football player, does it? But if I, being a teenager, wore a football jersey as my own choice, and played football, again, as my own choice, and played for a team, it would make me a football player. I do not want to devalue the importance of Baptism, for we all know that that is momumental, but the reason for separating the two, christian and infants, is that the being a christian is a whole lot more than baptism. I do believe that that infant will still, 10 years down the road, have to make that decision of being a christian or not. We know they have not said they do or do not want to follow Christ, but the parents intend for them to. So them being a Christian I think is still unknown. Whereas we hope an adult has already made that choice in them being baptized. There not just an infant having their dad put on a football jersey. They put it on themselves.
The issue to your question comes down to choice. No we can't be sure of a change in any baptism, for we can't read hearts. But I think we can know that there is a higher success rate of change if the baptism was the persons own free will.
We do not know what an infant is feeling or thinking,or if they want to be christain. So it comes to an act of faith. WE hope it made a difference in that infants life, and are optimistic about the change, but calling it a Christian baptism is still not quite right for they have not on there own will made the decision.
Wesley, at Aldersgate, actualized his baptism. It was then that he finally had the assurance of faith and he owned his baptism.
Baptism is "simiplified" by seeing in a common element (water) the wonderful working of God in Christ through his death and resurrection, as well as seeing it as entrance into the catholic Church, the Community of Faith. This view--one of identification and adoption, points us to our grafting into the Tree of Life. Baptism becomes an outward sign of an inward grace. To remove this perspective makes the rite of Baptism so much more complex and confusing. That grafting, that lifting up of the Christ and his death and resurrection is something that we live into as baptized Christians, whether infant OR adult. We are faced daily with the choice (as child and adult), "Do I choose Christ or myself? When we chose Christ we live deeper into our baptism. The grace of cleansing we receive points to the mystery of the sanctifying work of God in our lives. Putting baptism on this trajectory helps us celebrate with the one who is entering the waters, and celebrate by remembering that we too entered--and through the one(s) who is/are going in--we join them again as well. We remember that we have died with Christ and are raised to newness of life; Thanks be to God!
When it's about a witness to one's faith, it is diminished to become an act we get to sit back and WATCH from a distance, and then move on to the rest of the service. We need to change our starting point: from the human to the triune God.
Post a Comment
<< Home