Chapter Seven
How Should Christians Baptize?
All Christians agree about the importance of baptism. Yet Christians disagree about the practice and method of baptism.
Baptism of Infants and Others Who Cannot Answer for Themselves
Christians for a long time have debated the issue of baptizing infants. The practice of baptizing infants developed early in the history and theology of the Church. The Book of Worship states the United Methodist position:
Persons of any age are suitable candidates for baptism because Christ’s body, the Church, is a great family that includes persons of all ages.
...We are not to practice indiscriminate baptism. Children and others who have not reached the developmental stage of making decisions for themselves are presented by parents and/or sponsors (godparents) who make the same profession of faith that a candidate would make and who promise to nurture the candidate in their family and in the Church family, so that they will come to accept God’s grace for themselves....
The debate centers not on whether God loves children, but who the primary actor is in baptism. If a person believes that baptism is primarily God’s action toward us (baptism as a sacrament), then the age or mental and moral awareness of the person is irrelevant. Churches that follow this sacramental practice usually have an additional rite called confirmation in which a young person may, in a sense, recall his or her baptism and personally confirm his or her faith. In many instances the confirmation process has become an intellectual exercise of indoctrination rather than an expression of the young person taking on his or her baptism. Formal confirmation, when it is abused, inappropriately attempts to replace the gift of the Holy Spirit with intellectual assent to doctrine as the Church’s validation of baptism.
Certainly the practice of baptizing infants and others who cannot answer for themselves (for example, the mentally handicapped) expresses God’s love and sovereignty. The Church’s pastoral concern for these persons; the primary importance of a spiritual relationship with God rather than intellectual assent to doctrine; and the efficacy of faith though it be only the size of a mustard seed informs the baptism of infants.
The problem is, however, the paucity of support for such a practice in the New Testament. One argument is that in the household baptisms of the early Church even children were baptized (Acts 16.14-15, 31-33). Another argument is that infant baptism follows the Old Testament practice of circumcision of infants as a rite of entry into the covenant relationship with God and the community. One must admit that the scriptural evidence is limited, but one reference (Acts 2.38-39) suggests that at the very earliest the Church included children in baptism.
The denominations that limit baptism only to those who are morally and intellectually accountable and who are able to answer for themselves as new believers, hold that the person being baptized is the primary actor in the rite. These denominations see that baptism is an ordinance.
It is puzzling, however, that some churches that hold ordinal view of baptism also suggest that baptism is not an act of the universal Church but of an individual congregation. This practice removes sovereignty from God and the individual and places it with the local body. The local congregation becomes the primary actor. Baptism is transformed into a rite of entry into the local church rather than a person’s statement of new faith or conversion. There is no evidence in the New Testament to suggest that a person’s baptism is not transferable for one congregation to another. In the New Testament a person’s baptism traveled with him or her.
To place both feet firmly on either side of the fence limits the richness of the Biblical view of baptism. In baptism God is sovereign but the individual expresses free will, either in conversion or confirmation.
The important issue is the context of the baptism. If an infant or another who cannot answer is a part of a loving Christian family and church which nurture the individual in the Christian faith, then the baptism of such a person is appropriate. Remember, the reception of the Holy Spirit is what validates the baptism, and that can occur at any time.
For a person who comes from a context of separation from God and His Church and is experiencing a true change in his or her life, believer’s baptism is certainly appropriate. In this case, however, one must not ignore the activity of God in the process.
The New Testament does not give any indication that baptism was related to any specific congregation or baptizer (First Corinthians 1.13-17). Baptism should not, therefore, be repeated, but certainly may be renewed at important junctions in a person’s life.
The Methods of Baptism
We notice immediately in reviewing passages of the New Testament which contain the word “baptism,” that they are clustered in two sections - the ministry of John the Baptist and the witnessing of the early Church. Jesus did not add much to the development of the method of baptism. Indeed, after His own baptism we find very little directly from Jesus concerning this practice. The Church baptizes in continuation of Jesus’ own practice and command.
Most of the methodology of baptism, then, was developed by the Church that sought to communicate truth through the symbols used. There appears to be a lot of room for individual emphases about baptism and much flexibility concerning the practice of baptism. These emphases and practices should not exclude one another, for baptism should be one source of unity in Christianity. The wide range of beliefs and practices should be welcomed by all Christians. Though we may emphasize different images and symbols in baptism, we should not eliminate or denigrate different ones.
The New Testament does expose a baptismal practice at the church in Corinth
– baptism-by-proxy or baptism on behalf of the dead (First Corinthians 15.29). While Paul in his first letter to this church reveals this practice to us, he does not condemn it. In the context he is using the practice as an argument for belief in the resurrection. The rejection of baptism-by-proxy must be found in the meaning of baptism itself and its questionable efficacy after death.
To base an understanding of any Christian practice on what was occurring in the church at Corinth
would not be wise. The Corinthian church had many practices that tested both the boundaries of acceptable Christian behavior and the leadership skills of Paul. The only witness to baptism-by-proxy is Paul’s writings to this church. Proxy baptisms fell from favor in the Church very quickly only to be revived outside of Christianity by Mormonism.
Baptism-by-proxy for a dead person will neither be accepted at all by persons who stress the importance of belief prior to baptism nor by persons who see baptism as initiation into the body of Christ. The practice at best is motivated by love and concern for the deceased person, but it precludes preaching and hearing of the good news, belief and repentance, and instruction in the faith which we have seen is an important part of the process of discipleship to which baptism belongs. Presumably, baptism for a dead person also eliminates the possibility of any validation of that baptism by the reception of the Holy Spirit by the individual.
One could argue from the sovereignty of God that God can save anyone He chooses with or without any of these elements in the process of discipleship. While this is certainly true, one could also say that God can save anyone regardless of baptism, which makes baptism for the dead irrelevant at best.
One could pursue the argument and say that after the death of a person God may give opportunity for preaching, hearing, repentance, belief, and instruction. This too may be true, but so then could God also provide the opportunity for baptism. In short baptism-by-proxy must be rejected as irrelevant and inconsistent with the wide range of images and symbols of baptism in the New Testament.
In its essence baptism should be viewed in the context of a person’s loving relationship with God. Baptism involves God, the person being baptized (the baptized), the baptizer (priest) representing the Church through ordination, the imposition of water, and the repetition of certain words. Neither the elements (water and words) nor the role of the priest should be seen as something magical, mechanical, or mysterious so as to invoke the presence of God or a response in the baptized. God and the person (with the Church) are coming into or enhancing their relationship of love.
An argument here could be made that an ordained person need not participate in a baptism. Today’s concept of ordination certainly stems from the call and validation of the leaders of the early Church, but the actions of the “clergy” were not the validating element. The presence of the clergy at baptism decreases the opportunity for abusing the ritual through instruction and continuity.
There is no specific amount of water specified for baptism. The important issue is what is being represented or symbolized in the water.
Though there is evidence in the New Testament that baptism was performed in the name of Jesus (Acts 10.48), the preference and tradition of the Church is a threefold “formula” reflecting the Trinitarian theology of the Church and the instructions of Jesus. Christian baptism should be performed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28.19).
