WESTMINSTER PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
May 10th 2009
Sacrament of Baptism
Fifth Sunday of Easter
Rev. Mark R. Bradshaw-Miller
“Prevention from Baptism”
John 15:1-18; Psalm 22:25-31; Acts 8:26-40
May 10th 2009
Sacrament of Baptism
Fifth Sunday of Easter
Rev. Mark R. Bradshaw-Miller
“Prevention from Baptism”
John 15:1-18; Psalm 22:25-31; Acts 8:26-40
This is a joyous day which almost did not happen. In fact, the baptism of our two previous children almost did not happen either. This may come as a surprise but neither Karen nor I were particularly excited about the prospect of baptizing our children. It is a rather long story. But, before any of you get the idea of leveling the charge of heresy, let me explain.
It is a story which has very deep roots, roots which go back all the way to the beginning of the reformation. But instead of giving you a history lesson, I want to share why there was a time when we didn’t want to baptize our children. It was very simple really; we wanted them to be able to make the decision for themselves. We wanted to raise them in the faith, and then at an appropriate time, of their choosing, they would be able to respond to God’s invitation to follow Jesus when they were ready. This is not all that uncommon. Many of our brothers and sisters in the faith choose this path.
For many Presbyterians, infant baptism is simply a given, but I have not always been Presbyterian. I grew up in a church which did not baptize babies. Baptism was administered when a child and the community deemed it was appropriate. Being appropriate meant that a commitment to faith could be made. As I remember it, I asked to be baptized but was told I would have to wait. Shortly thereafter, we left that church and ended up in a Presbyterian church where I was finally baptized at age fourteen. So part of this resistance to baptizing our children came from my past experience. It is what I grew up with and like many others I am at risk of universalizing my experience. In other words, everyone ought to see the world like I do.
I have found that people can get rather passionate about baptism. The arguments or disagreements focus on the way in which the water is administered, from full immersion to sprinkling. They also focus on whether or not it is appropriate to baptism children. Out of custom, Presbyterians have generally gone with babies and sprinkling.
You might imagine that after four years in a Presbyterian seminary my objections to infant baptism would have been overcome. You would be wrong. In fact, to this day, even right now, I believe that we ought to seriously reconsider infant baptism. It may seem a bit late to have this conversation but stay with me before you think I have lost my mind.
At the time of the Reformation one of the arguments between different groups of reformers was over this issue. Those who baptized infants emphasized God’s grace which is not dependent upon human action. Those who would not baptize infants focused on the need to respond to God’s grace. While this explanation is a bit over-simplified, it does get to the heart of the issue. This argument is still alive and well today. But know this; my continual opposition to the baptism of infants has little to do with my choosing sides in this argument. In fact, I believe both sides have merit and fault, particularly when they become so entrenched that they are unwilling to consider the validity and faithfulness of the other side.
So; “Why am I still opposed to infant baptism?” I worry more than anything else, that it has become a social nicety. Something we are supposed to do. It becomes a time when we dress our babies in beautiful gowns, and focus on the cuteness of the baby. Of course, I am not biased. But lost in these moments is something bigger. When a community agrees to baptize a baby, they have promised to take on a great deal of responsibility. And I am opposed to any community not fully prepared and clear about the promises we all make when we witness a baptism.
When Karen and I have brought our children for baptism we have done so with an understanding and expectation that they will be raised by a faithful community seeking to follow Jesus. On the day when we commit our children to baptism we do so acknowledging they are no longer our children alone, but part of a much larger family. A family which would commit to teach them, to love then, and even to give them the occasionally look when necessary. But this is not just about our children; it is about all the children connected with our congregation. It is because of this reason that I both oppose and support infant baptism.
Confused yet? This is what I mean. I know that it does indeed take a village to raise a child. And the village that I want to help raise our children is a community of faith which takes the call to faithfulness and justice and inclusion seriously. So yes, I am opposed to infant baptism when it becomes a function of social convention. But I support infant baptism when the family and community of faith take this responsibility seriously.
In the waters of baptism we are claimed by the promise. But the salvation we have in Jesus is dependent upon our choice of the time and place. While I can talk about my own conversion experiences, I know that my salvation was taken care of on with the empty tomb. Deep in the fabric of our faith is the truth that we have been chosen by God. When we baptize infants, we are reminded that we are not the author of salvation and that we are completely dependent upon God for salvation. It is a powerful reminder that our adoption into the family of God is not something we choose. In a culture deeply wedded to a bootstrap mentality, this is powerfully counter cultural news.
By now you must be thinking: “Ok pastor, it is time for you to get off the fence and choose sides!” The good news is that we do not have to pick one way or another. The arguments around the right way seem a lot less important, and dare I say faithful, than the truth that in baptism we are brought into the family of God, saved by God’s love in Jesus. I believe that to be faithful we need to be less worried about the places of disagreement and more concerned with actually experiencing the Sacrament.
And for those who might have concerns about being faithful to our Presbyterian roots, let me say a couple of things. Within the Book of Order and the confessions, we are free to practice the baptism of infants as well as adults, and we should do both. We can baptism by sprinkling or by immersion, though I believe we should use plenty of water either way. But baptism is never done in private and it is always to be done in community when the scriptures are read and proclaimed. In other words, the way in which this sacrament is practiced is far less important than the need to go into the world and baptize in the name of God.
Being baptized marks us as part of God’s family. It is a sign of our engrafting into the true vine. It too marks us to live the commandment of love, even in the face of hatred. That means we are called to live and share the love of God throughout the world. That also includes the less glamorous ways we are often community. We are called to act in love in our committee work, and in our board meetings, and in our classes and when we head out into our homes and places of work. We are called to love all children as if they were our own, and we are called to love our enemies. Being marked by baptism, however it is administered and whenever it is done, is a much larger calling. Because of the enormity of this gift and calling, is it any wonder that the church throughout the ages has found itself arguing over the details of how instead of the reality of love? It certainly gives me pause. Amen? Amen!
It is a story which has very deep roots, roots which go back all the way to the beginning of the reformation. But instead of giving you a history lesson, I want to share why there was a time when we didn’t want to baptize our children. It was very simple really; we wanted them to be able to make the decision for themselves. We wanted to raise them in the faith, and then at an appropriate time, of their choosing, they would be able to respond to God’s invitation to follow Jesus when they were ready. This is not all that uncommon. Many of our brothers and sisters in the faith choose this path.
For many Presbyterians, infant baptism is simply a given, but I have not always been Presbyterian. I grew up in a church which did not baptize babies. Baptism was administered when a child and the community deemed it was appropriate. Being appropriate meant that a commitment to faith could be made. As I remember it, I asked to be baptized but was told I would have to wait. Shortly thereafter, we left that church and ended up in a Presbyterian church where I was finally baptized at age fourteen. So part of this resistance to baptizing our children came from my past experience. It is what I grew up with and like many others I am at risk of universalizing my experience. In other words, everyone ought to see the world like I do.
I have found that people can get rather passionate about baptism. The arguments or disagreements focus on the way in which the water is administered, from full immersion to sprinkling. They also focus on whether or not it is appropriate to baptism children. Out of custom, Presbyterians have generally gone with babies and sprinkling.
You might imagine that after four years in a Presbyterian seminary my objections to infant baptism would have been overcome. You would be wrong. In fact, to this day, even right now, I believe that we ought to seriously reconsider infant baptism. It may seem a bit late to have this conversation but stay with me before you think I have lost my mind.
At the time of the Reformation one of the arguments between different groups of reformers was over this issue. Those who baptized infants emphasized God’s grace which is not dependent upon human action. Those who would not baptize infants focused on the need to respond to God’s grace. While this explanation is a bit over-simplified, it does get to the heart of the issue. This argument is still alive and well today. But know this; my continual opposition to the baptism of infants has little to do with my choosing sides in this argument. In fact, I believe both sides have merit and fault, particularly when they become so entrenched that they are unwilling to consider the validity and faithfulness of the other side.
So; “Why am I still opposed to infant baptism?” I worry more than anything else, that it has become a social nicety. Something we are supposed to do. It becomes a time when we dress our babies in beautiful gowns, and focus on the cuteness of the baby. Of course, I am not biased. But lost in these moments is something bigger. When a community agrees to baptize a baby, they have promised to take on a great deal of responsibility. And I am opposed to any community not fully prepared and clear about the promises we all make when we witness a baptism.
When Karen and I have brought our children for baptism we have done so with an understanding and expectation that they will be raised by a faithful community seeking to follow Jesus. On the day when we commit our children to baptism we do so acknowledging they are no longer our children alone, but part of a much larger family. A family which would commit to teach them, to love then, and even to give them the occasionally look when necessary. But this is not just about our children; it is about all the children connected with our congregation. It is because of this reason that I both oppose and support infant baptism.
Confused yet? This is what I mean. I know that it does indeed take a village to raise a child. And the village that I want to help raise our children is a community of faith which takes the call to faithfulness and justice and inclusion seriously. So yes, I am opposed to infant baptism when it becomes a function of social convention. But I support infant baptism when the family and community of faith take this responsibility seriously.
In the waters of baptism we are claimed by the promise. But the salvation we have in Jesus is dependent upon our choice of the time and place. While I can talk about my own conversion experiences, I know that my salvation was taken care of on with the empty tomb. Deep in the fabric of our faith is the truth that we have been chosen by God. When we baptize infants, we are reminded that we are not the author of salvation and that we are completely dependent upon God for salvation. It is a powerful reminder that our adoption into the family of God is not something we choose. In a culture deeply wedded to a bootstrap mentality, this is powerfully counter cultural news.
By now you must be thinking: “Ok pastor, it is time for you to get off the fence and choose sides!” The good news is that we do not have to pick one way or another. The arguments around the right way seem a lot less important, and dare I say faithful, than the truth that in baptism we are brought into the family of God, saved by God’s love in Jesus. I believe that to be faithful we need to be less worried about the places of disagreement and more concerned with actually experiencing the Sacrament.
And for those who might have concerns about being faithful to our Presbyterian roots, let me say a couple of things. Within the Book of Order and the confessions, we are free to practice the baptism of infants as well as adults, and we should do both. We can baptism by sprinkling or by immersion, though I believe we should use plenty of water either way. But baptism is never done in private and it is always to be done in community when the scriptures are read and proclaimed. In other words, the way in which this sacrament is practiced is far less important than the need to go into the world and baptize in the name of God.
Being baptized marks us as part of God’s family. It is a sign of our engrafting into the true vine. It too marks us to live the commandment of love, even in the face of hatred. That means we are called to live and share the love of God throughout the world. That also includes the less glamorous ways we are often community. We are called to act in love in our committee work, and in our board meetings, and in our classes and when we head out into our homes and places of work. We are called to love all children as if they were our own, and we are called to love our enemies. Being marked by baptism, however it is administered and whenever it is done, is a much larger calling. Because of the enormity of this gift and calling, is it any wonder that the church throughout the ages has found itself arguing over the details of how instead of the reality of love? It certainly gives me pause. Amen? Amen!
No comments:
Post a Comment