Go to the index of other articles to do with Baptismal Integrity.
Go to John's Brinkster Home Page.

Update 50 pages 7-8.

Should we do what Jesus did?

Malcolm Hill, formerly vicar of St Mildred's Lee, London (Southwark).
 

In my experience the majority of committed Christian parents actually don’t want a service of infant baptism for their newborn babies, and perhaps that’s the main reason we have used the service of Thanksgiving and Blessing for the children of believers as well as unbelievers. Isn’t the Church of England based on the principle that those things which can’t be proved from scripture (as infant baptism can’t) are not to be required of anyone?

Christian parents have several reasons for not wanting infant baptism for their children. First, Jesus didn’t do it. We know what he did do - it’s written in Mark 10:13-16. The bible tells us that Jesus took the children in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them. His actions satisfied the people who came to him then, and it’s our experience that he satisfies those who take this option now - the service gives a lovely experience of welcome, an opportunity to express real thanksgiving to God, and an assurance of his promise of unconditional blessing ...

... and all this without the uncomfortable feeling of having made statements about the unknowable future. That’s probably the second reason: Christian parents long with all their hearts that their children will grow up wanting to respond to the love of God, by expressing their faith for themselves. But that’s very different from being able to promise that one’s children will make that choice. It’s part of someone’s human rights that they should be allowed to make their own decisions. Doesn’t Ezekiel 18 say people are answerable for their own choices?

And what’s the biblical way of making the decision to follow Jesus? To repent of sin, to trust in Christ, and to declare this publicly in baptism. That’s probably why most churches have a steady stream of people wanting baptism for themselves. Yes, it’s possible to fudge this by “if you are not baptized, I baptize you ...” or “on your profession of faith I immerse you (but I’m not allowed to say ‘baptize’)”, but let’s be honest, it would be better not to have started from the position of the candidate’s gun having been jumped.

Fourth, my experience is that once people have witnessed a few baptisms of believers, they see the point and want the best for their children. The note of personal testimony, of witness to God’s goodness, the air of dedication and commitment, the encouragement of Christian friends and the element of celebration all tie together to make it a memorable event. And the symbolism of immersion can speak more powerfully as well. It’s no wonder that Paul exhorts believers to look back at their baptisms (e.g. in Romans 6). Yes, I know that he’s saying look to the fact of your baptism and not just the experience of it - but why deny your children the experience when a delay can mean they get both?

All this, and I could go on, isn’t to advocate the Baptist position (that infant baptism is invalid) - but it gives Christian parents pause for thought, and as ministers we have a responsibility to acknowledge the weight of these factors. The Church of England doesn’t believe we are depriving our children if we delay their baptism, and many of us have seen the positive benefits of that delay in our own families as well as in our churches.

Go to the index of other articles to do with Baptismal Integrity.
Go to John's Brinkster Home Page.

This web page was last updated on 22nd January 2006.