Baptism: Where did we go wrong?

Genesis 17:9-14 Acts 16:25-34
Matthew 3:13-17

“The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about; but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation; but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves condemnation, as St. Paul saith.” Article XVI – Of the Sacraments, UM Book of Discipline

“Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not baptized; but it is also a sign of regeneration or the new birth. The Baptism of young children is to be retained in the Church.” Article XVII – Of Baptism, UM BoD

Original sin stands not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.” Article VII – Of Original or Birth Sin, UM BoD



Last week I shared some thoughts and United Methodist doctrinal ideas about Holy Communion, one of the two Sacraments recognized and retained by the United Methodist Church. This week I think it would be appropriate to explore the United Methodist position on Baptism, the other Sacrament where the intentional and incredible journey with Christ actually begins.

As I pointed out last week, there still exists some differences and division among Christians regarding Holy Communion and what is proper and what is acceptable and who can and who cannot partake of the Meal and how St. Paul might have some not-so-kind words to the contemporary Church like the ones he had with the Church in Corinth. I’m sorry to say that it is not only Holy Communion that keeps Christians divided at the Table of the Lord; it is also Baptism.

In the United Methodist tradition, we baptize babies. Even though this practice goes back centuries and is suggested in the reading from Acts, many lifelong Methodists have a problem with this practice and refuse to participate and all I can say is, how sad if not short-sighted. Before I go too far and with respect to those who do not come from such a tradition, let me say that the so-called “believer’s baptism” is equally valid and, as long as the heart is in the right place, accomplishes the very same thing, just at a different stage in one’s life. It must always be remembered that baptism is a sign of GOD’s grace and not our own.

And even before we discuss the practice of infant baptism, consider the traditions that practice full immersion and those who sprinkle and those who pour. All are equally valid and all are just as powerful a symbol as the other. So why is it that rather than to simply say we might be more comfortable with one as with another, we REJECT the practice of other traditions and attempt to render them invalid? Why not simply respect the tradition, rejoice in the occasion, and give ALL glory to the Lord God alone?

I wish I could answer that. I have my theories, but the United Methodist statement about Original Sin may be closer to what is wrong with our minds when we choose to argue and fight over something that does not even belong to us in the first place: “man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature INCLINED TO EVIL …”

Ouch. The worst part of that statement as it applies to us and our practices here and now is that these divisions and arguments are among those who supposedly are already baptized and living the NEW life. But it looks a lot like the same arguments as among the non-believers. Wow. Actually, non-believers would not even be having such a discussion about what is and what is not proper in baptism. Let us not be distracted, however, from the importance of the act as a whole and find our commonality.

As is stated in Article XVI, we should USE these Sacraments – and use them in a worthy manner for which they were, and still are, intended: as means of grace by and through which the Lord God makes Himself known.

But this is not about the propriety of infant vs. believer’s baptism, and it is not about the propriety of immersion or sprinkling or pouring except to say this: could there possibly be enough water on the face of this earth to wash away the kind of sin for which it had become necessary for Jesus to give His life?

What is baptism? And if the practice of baptism by the hands of man can be nothing without the presence of the Lord, then why waste the time? If it is enough to simply repent and turn to the Lord since He is the only one Who can forgive sin, why does man ruin the moment by arguing about the “right” way and the “right” time to baptize?

John the Baptist stated that he only baptized with water but that there would be One coming after him who would baptize with “fire and the Holy Spirit”. So is the baptism of ‘only’ water a useless gesture, or is it a necessary first-step toward entering into the presence of the Lord – which is what our journey is all about?

I’m sorry to say that the very best understanding we have is man’s interpretation of biblical texts to help guide us and throughout the Church’s history, there have been disagreements over finer theological points that have served to do nothing more than to confuse the contemporary church which I think has done more to keep people away than to draw them in. We can be more comfortable with a particular tradition primarily because we were raised in particular tradition, but we cannot get past the “right” and “wrong” as expressed over time between this Protestant leader and that one as evidenced by the number of denominations.

Let’s make it real simple for ourselves. In our tradition, there is this thing taught called “prevenient” grace, and it makes perfect sense in that it expresses a nature inherent to such a God as ours: that He loves us FIRST and desires nothing more than to be in our lives to grant us “holiness and happiness of heart”. As Jesus offered us “peace, but not as the world offers it …”, so does the Lord God wish us peace in our hearts. And the only way to possess that sense of peace is by His presence, that overwhelming sense of protection which ultimately expresses to us that everything is going to be ok somehow.

But even though there is this distinctive individual relationship that one can have with the Lord, Jesus established a “church” and not necessarily a “religion”; very communal, very social. It is here where our greatest work is done for Him when we stand UNITED as one, just as there can only be ONE Body of Christ. So in entering into that body, there is an initiation: baptism.

As a social order, however, something must be taken into account as we practice the baptism of young children, even infants, and bring them into this social order. It reaches far beyond the simple one-on-one relationship. When we baptize children into the Church, the entire Christian fellowship – and especially the local church – is not only celebrating but is also being called to account because that person being baptized – whether man, woman, or child – is being offered to the Christian community to be loved and nurtured IN THE FAITH. The entire community is then being held responsible in the presence of the Lord for the spiritual well-being of that individual being baptized. Why would we dare deny this to a child when Jesus said, “Allow the children to come to Me and DO NOT HINDER THEM …”

Think of the baptismal relationship between those being baptized and the Church sort of like a marriage of a man and a woman. Is the relationship between the man and the woman “as valid” in the absence of matrimony? Though many would disagree, I say that in the absence of matrimony there is no solid foundation, no real bond, no real commitment; and in such an absence, it would be too easy to simply get bored or tired and just walk away from that relationship as having "run its course".

So it surely must be with baptism. IN THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD GOD, we are making a commitment to that person – again; whether man, woman, or child – to “love, honor, and protect; in sickness and in health; for richer or poorer”. YES???? We are making this commitment not only to the newly baptized but to the Lord Himself. The work that we do now in the life of the newly baptized will enable that person to more easily recognize – and more eagerly accept – the work that the Lord will do later in his or her life.

Those marriage vows are not contained in any of the baptismal liturgy but the more I think about it, the more I realize that the social and spiritual commitments we make are no less so in one relationship over another especially when the relationship is sanctified in the Church through Christ. When a man and woman get married in the Church, they are publicly professing their love for one another, and the Church should be making such a commitment to that couple to help them through the inevitable challenges that are ahead.

It is not ours to challenge the ability of the Lord God to work in the life of any individual, and it is certainly not ours to challenge the validity of ANY baptism in which the Lord is invited to participate. Suffice it to say, it is all to the glory of the Lord God and faith is perfected in love. But Jesus also says that “praise is perfected in children”; He did not say how young or how old these children had to be.

The sign of the covenant that the Lord God established with Abraham intentionally involved children as young as eight DAYS old, and this covenant was established for all generations to come; it did not include a “sunset” clause by which the COVENANT – not necessarily the SIGN of the covenant – would be rendered invalid.

So the sign of this new covenant is to be publicly “washed”, whether we or the recipient truly understand it, and enter into this incredible journey of faith and prepare ourselves – just as Jesus prepared Himself – to stand firm on the Word of the Lord, to challenge the temptations that are inevitable and proclaim the holy name of the Lord God to “all nations”.

Amen.